paul is smart enough, at least in terms of the rhetoric to say, hey, wait a minute. i m not an isolationist. he s saying if we are strong that doesn t mean we ll have war. he holds up are reagan as the model of this. by putting on a label of, he s an isolationist, at least in terms of the words i have read, that doesn t fit. how do you see this? the old thing is the shape of the field determines the winner. if you have rand paul taking a hybrid position of not really being instinctively hawkish, the other side s line-up, rick perry is no thinker. he ll go with what he thinks works and has worked in the past. if chris christie can get back into this he ll be hawkish. he s a rudy giuliani type. who else? either guy. is anybody going to agree with rand paul in this debate?
being instinctively hawkish, the other side s line-up, rick perry is no thinker. he ll go with what he thinks works and has worked in the past. if chris christie can get back into this he ll be hawkish. he s a rudy giuliani type. who else? either guy. is anybody going to agree with rand paul in this debate? maybe the voters are. it makes sense. i love the fight. in 68 the democrats had the fight over the war. the reason is the democrats were in charge of the war. they were in charge of war policy. they were the hawkish democrats, the henry jackson democrats. it was natural to fight within the democratic party. now it s natural to have the fight within the war party. they started it. they started it. they are admitting, many of them, including rand paul, that it was a mistake. they will have to deal with the