Republican Hawks and Republican Doves

[imreallyperplexed]

I was struck by the difference between Romney's "victory" speech and Paul's and Huntsman's "victory" speeches in New Hampshire tonight with regard to U.S. military and foreign policy. Romney (along with Gingrich, Perry, and Santorum) is a Republican Hawk who seems to want to return to the old Bush/Cheney foreign policy. Paul and Huntsman are Republican doves who have clearly broken with the Bush/Cheney foreign policy. I think that this is a more important issue than many seem to - particularly for younger voters. However, I also think that it is more important to independents than many think. (I know that Cicero and Sodak call themselves independents and are pretty clearly hawks on the military and foreign policy but I think that they are less typical than they seem to think that they are.) Obama is too hawkish for many of these folks.

It seems to me that if the Republican hawks are going to tack to the right of Obama on military and foreign policy (as I think that they are), I think that they are going to have a very tough time with the young and with many independents. (If Paul stays in the race and gets 20% to 25% of the delegates, it could be a real problem for the Romney and the Republican establishment.) I think that the social issues are breaking against them as well. If the economic recovery begins to pick up, any of the socially conservative Republican hawk candidates - Romney, Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum - are probably going to be weaker than expected. And none of them are particularly good campaigners IMHO.

But there is still a long way to go and lots can happen over the next six months. It will be interesting to watch.

 

[Jen]

Obama seems hawkish enough for me, except that he doesn't know what he's doing so he has us going into the wrong places and staying out of the wrong places. I am sure that Obama himself is far less hawkish than some of his actions have shown him. I say kudos to whoever forced his hand.

Bush/ Cheney were, on occasion, too hawkish for my taste. And of course Paul/ Huntsman are way too dovish to me.........

 

[imreallyperplexed]

Just out of curiosity Jen. Would you favor an invasion of Iran to foster regime change because of the threat of WMDs? That is what Ron Paul worries about. If we invaded Iran, how many troops would it take? How much would it cost? How long would we occupy Iran? How would our nation-building go? What seems reasonable to you as a conservative?

Obama seems hawkish enough for me, except that he doesn't know what he's doing so he has us going into the wrong places and staying out of the wrong places. I am sure that Obama himself is far less hawkish than some of his actions have shown him. I say kudos to whoever forced his hand.

Bush/ Cheney were, on occasion, too hawkish for my taste. And of course Paul/ Huntsman are way too dovish to me.........

 

[Saladin2]

Bush and cheney are war criminals...Who should be tried...convicted and thrown in jail....

 

[JuliefromOhio]

Romney's foreign policy advisors are Bush/PNACers and nothing seems to please them more than beating the drums of war.

add foreign policy as just another area where Pres Obama will be able to chew up Willard Mitt and spit him out.

 

[Mytzlplk]

good post im...

I think it's a pretty good assessment of the players and what the reception of their policies will be.

 

[Friday13]

I think that this is a more important issue than many seem to - particularly for younger voters. However, I also think that it is more important to independents than many think.

It seems to me that if the Republican hawks are going to tack to the right of Obama on military and foreign policy (as I think that they are), I think that they are going to have a very tough time with the young and with many independents.

I agree with you, IRP. I also believe that they will have a difficult time with many seniors...we have seen more than enuf war.

 

[Friday13]

Absolutely!

bump

 

[OldGaffer]

I agree with you, IRP. I also believe that they will have a difficult time with many seniors...we have seen more than enuf war.

Seniors are off the train over SS and Medicare already.

 

[888888]

Obama seems hawkish enough for me, except that he doesn't know what he's doing so he has us going into the wrong places and staying out of the wrong places. I am sure that Obama himself is far less hawkish than some of his actions have shown him. I say kudos to whoever forced his hand.

Bush/ Cheney were, on occasion, too hawkish for my taste. And of course Paul/ Huntsman are way too dovish to me.........

Relly Jen why do you keep repeating the same garbage without any facts to support it day after day, week after week. Are you incapable of understanding that just because you wish something to be true, that does not in any way mean it is?


"except that he doesn't know what he's doing so he has us going into the wrong places and staying out of the wrong places"

but just in case you might want to tell us what places these would be, I am sure most of us on the left will pass that information to OBAMA.

 

[johnl]

I don't think we have to worry too much about Paul getting 25% he will get blown out in most progressive states, where people read newspapers.

 

[Friday13]

Seniors are off the train over SS and Medicare already.

Yep, we are...those of us with any sense.

 

[BRU]

Don't worry about the indy's....

Romney scored creditably in some surprising groups. Exit poll results indicate that he ran competitively among independent, very conservative and evangelical voters, three groups in which he fell well short in Iowa. And they suggested that he even won strong supporters of the Tea Party movement, a group he lost 2-1 to Rick Santorum a week ago.

They are coming around.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/romney-makes-gains-after-iowa-exit-polls-show/

 

[MaryAnne]

I think you are quite right on all counts.

People are sick to death of war and tire of those who never serve,but are the biggest hawks.

Jon Huntsman is a man with 2 Sons in the Navy. Mitt has 5 Sons,not one of them served.Do you think voters will think of that when they hear Romney go on about more war?

Huntsman has nailed Romney several times.The one that stuck in my mind was when Romney was ranting about Huntsman serving as Ambassador for Obama. Jon said,"It is that attitude that is wrong with the Country today. I serve my Country,not a party!" Bravo,Jon.

But he will not make it.Republicans will hold their nose and vote for the Corporate Raider!

 

[imreallyperplexed]

I would expect you to be optomistic BRU. I think that Mitt is a weaker candidate than you think that he is. (I also think that Obama is a stronger candidate than I expect that you think that he is.)

Don't worry about the indy's....

Romney scored creditably in some surprising groups. Exit poll results indicate that he ran competitively among independent, very conservative and evangelical voters, three groups in which he fell well short in Iowa. And they suggested that he even won strong supporters of the Tea Party movement, a group he lost 2-1 to Rick Santorum a week ago.

They are coming around.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/romney-makes-gains-after-iowa-exit-polls-show/

 

[MaryAnne]

I don't think we have to worry too much about Paul getting 25% he will get blown out in most progressive states, where people read newspapers.

Welcome to the board, John! )

 

[Boltlady]

I was struck by the difference between Romney's "victory" speech and Paul's and Huntsman's "victory" speeches in New Hampshire tonight with regard to U.S. military and foreign policy. Romney (along with Gingrich, Perry, and Santorum) is a Republican Hawk who seems to want to return to the old Bush/Cheney foreign policy. Paul and Huntsman are Republican doves who have clearly broken with the Bush/Cheney foreign policy. I think that this is a more important issue than many seem to - particularly for younger voters. However, I also think that it is more important to independents than many think. (I know that Cicero and Sodak call themselves independents and are pretty clearly hawks on the military and foreign policy but I think that they are less typical than they seem to think that they are.) Obama is too hawkish for many of these folks.

It seems to me that if the Republican hawks are going to tack to the right of Obama on military and foreign policy (as I think that they are), I think that they are going to have a very tough time with the young and with many independents. (If Paul stays in the race and gets 20% to 25% of the delegates, it could be a real problem for the Romney and the Republican establishment.) I think that the social issues are breaking against them as well. If the economic recovery begins to pick up, any of the socially conservative Republican hawk candidates - Romney, Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum - are probably going to be weaker than expected. And none of them are particularly good campaigners IMHO.

But there is still a long way to go and lots can happen over the next six months. It will be interesting to watch.

This 'contest' between hawks and doves should actually be moot. Some of the very same people who are all gung-ho to kill people in other countries are some of the same ones' who are concerned about the amount of debt that we're dealing with. For some reason they're not making the connection that more wars would cost a whole lot more and that means serious austerity measures for 'we the people'. In short, we cannot afford it!

'Tis said that they are afraid of having us become vulnerable if we don't go take everybody out. How many countries would be foolish enough to go and directly attack China or Russia? The only one's who would will have to be Kami-kazis because it would be a suicide mission. Neither of those countries are in many other countries trying to build empires and neither one of them spend near what we do on our so called 'defense', yet they are considered pretty powerful. We, on the other hand, are actually vulnerable right now because we are spread so thin. Look at the violence that keeps coming over our own border while we're off 'protecting' somebody elses'.

It simply can't be two different policies. A lot of people like Romney because they think that he would increase the jobs and yet he has already stated that he would heavily increase the military. Just who do you think would pay for all of that given what we already owe? Think N Korea. Virtually all of their limited resources go into their military while their people are in pitiful shape. Is that what you all want?

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If we were to concentrate on building our defenses here at home instead of all over the world we would be so powerful that nobody would dare to attack us. If an occasional terrorist were to surface we could use our special forces to go after the particular group. We don't need to go after entire countries for the actions of a few and never did have to actually.

 

[Ferbodden]

Bush and cheney are war criminals...Who should be tried...convicted and thrown in jail....

You should be sent to bed without your supper!

 

[MaryAnne]

They understand what they are saying,Bolt. They just think the average voter is too dumb to notice.

And,as we observe every day right here,they may be right!)

 

[Minotaur]

I think you spoke the unspoken and nailed it. Yes Independents who are not party bound do break for the dove side of military and foreign policy. That is one of the reasons I have kept an eye on Huntsman and his appeal to Independents. Paul appeals to that aspect but may not really gain traction as this narrows down because for every good thought he has, a bad idea cancels him out. He will apeal to some of the Independents who are doves - perhaps as a second choice if Huntsman is out. I am glad to see Huntsman came in third as it is good enough to walk away with his head high and I hope he does that soon. Perhaps after the next state, or two, votes. He is the lone candidate I think could cause damage as he is the perfect Independent drawing middle road conservative candidate. Glad to see that republicans still may not fully get it at least until 2016.