Rick Perry slams Rand Paul: Let the 2016 GOP presidential race begin

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, humbled in the 2012 presidential race, is contemplating another try in 2016. Contrasting himself with front-runner Sen. Rand Paul, Perry has laid out a more muscular foreign and national security policy.

|
Jacquelyn Martin/AP
Texas Gov. Rick Perry waits to meet President Barack Obama on arrival in Dallas where they attended a meeting on immigration, Wednesday, July 9, 2014.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry stumbled and eventually fell along the wayside among Republican presidential candidates two years ago.

Since then, he’s been considering another run for the White House, weighing in on important issues, as he did this week in meeting with President Obama about those thousands of Central Americans – many of them children – streaming into the United States, crowding into detention facilities, and raising more questions about this country’s failed immigration policy.

Also this week, Gov. Perry laid out some of his ideas about US foreign and national security policy while taking on Rand Paul, the leader among 2016 GOP presidential hopefuls and an outlier among Republicans in how the US deals with the rest of the world.

Writing in The Washington Post, Perry said, “I can understand the emotions behind isolationism.”

“Many people are tired of war, and the urge to pull back is a natural, human reaction,” he wrote. “Unfortunately, we live in a world where isolationist policies would only endanger our national security even further.”

“That’s why it’s disheartening to hear fellow Republicans, such as Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), suggest that our nation should ignore what’s happening in Iraq,” Perry continued. “The main problem with this argument is that it means ignoring the profound threat that the group now calling itself the Islamic State poses to the United States and the world.”

Paul “advocates inaction,” Perry charged, “going so far as to claim … that President Ronald Reagan’s own doctrines would lead him to same conclusion. But his analysis is wrong. Paul conveniently omitted Reagan’s long internationalist record of leading the world with moral and strategic clarity.”

Paul knows he has a problem here – at least among Republicans choosing their presidential candidate in a grueling series of primary elections and caucuses, a group that is markedly more conservative than the general electorate or even many other Republicans.

Back in January, he hit donor groups and major Washington think tanks to emphasize that he is not an isolationist – the charge against his Republican/Libertarian father former Rep. Ron Paul, who rankled many establishment and tea party Republicans with his own strong presidential runs.

As Monitor foreign affairs correspondent Howard LaFranchi reported at the time, Paul in one of his January speeches said, “Our foreign policy and national security policy are too belligerent.” A better way, he said, was to have a policy that is grounded in “the idea that negotiation can improve our world” – and he cited how he believes that intensified relations with China can lead to progress on North Korea, and how stronger engagement with Russia can yield results on Syria.

On the other hand, he wrote a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed column in which he took on former vice president Dick Cheney and other neoconservatives clamoring for direct US action to counter Islamist extremists in Iraq.

He was merely standing with GOP icon Ronald Reagan, he wrote, and former defense secretary Caspar Weinberger. The “Weinberger Doctrine,” Paul explained, boils down to this:

“The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the U.S. or its allies are involved and only ‘with the clear intention of winning.’ U.S. combat troops should be committed only with ‘clearly defined political and military objectives’ and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives and with a ‘reasonable assurance’ of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress and only ‘as a last resort.’”

“We need a new approach, one that emulates Reagan's policies, puts America first, seeks peace, faces war reluctantly, and when necessary acts fully and decisively,” Paul wrote.

If Paul has a problem with GOP orthodoxy on foreign affairs and national security, Perry has a problem of his own.

Yes, there are miles and months to go before the 2016 presidential election. But if Perry is to try another presidential run – after his lackluster and sometimes embarrassing effort in 2012 – he’ll need to climb his way out of a position of relative weakness among potential GOP hopefuls.

The latest Real Clear Politics polling average for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination has Perry at just 4.4 percent – barely more than Rick Santorum and Bobby Jindal.

Leading the pack is Rand Paul (13.2 percent), followed by Jeb Bush (12.2 percent), Mike Huckabee (12.0 percent), Chris Christie (10.8 percent), Paul Ryan (10.2 percent), Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio (7.0 percent each), and Scott Walker (5.6 percent).

Like Rand Paul, Rick Perry has his work cut out for him. He’ll get another chance Sunday when he appears on CBS’s “Face the Nation” and “Fox News Sunday.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Rick Perry slams Rand Paul: Let the 2016 GOP presidential race begin
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2014/0712/Rick-Perry-slams-Rand-Paul-Let-the-2016-GOP-presidential-race-begin
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe