Rand Paul vs Marco Rubio On Foreign Policy Who Would Ronald Reagan Choose?

Rand Paul vs Marco Rubio On Foreign Policy Who Would Ronald Reagan Choose?
With Iowa and New Hampshire’s first in the nation primaries coming up soon Republican candidates are more and more positioning themselves to show their true selves or to what they think voters want their true selves to be. Par usual all candidates are trying to prove they are the real heir to the Reagan Republican dynasty. But who really is?

The most popular opinion among the establishment crowd is Marco Rubio. He talks well and looks good. To those looking just to win that might be enough, but to real conservatives that is not what they liked about President Reagan. What the conservatives liked about Reagan was his consistency on  the issues and the fact that he didn’t back down. Two things Rubio is not known for. However there is one candidate that is.

That candidate is Rand Paul.

Fiscal Policy
Rand Paul has been a consistent fiscal conservative. Rand is the only candidate to tackle spending on all fronts including military expenditures and crony capitalist carve outs. Rand does not just spending cuts that would get him votes, but all cuts that would better our country. Rubio on the other hand has been the exact opposite. How can Marco even dare consider himself a fiscal conservative but yet propose 1,000,000,000,000 (or one trillion) in new military spending as well as welfare college funding. A real fiscal manager knows not just how to expand their potential (build the economy) but also how to conserve the scare resources that they produce. Spending even 1 penny above what is needed or within the government’s constitutional role is theft. Rubio should know that and chances are he does but just caves on certain expenditures so he can get elected. Those little expenditures are what have caused our 18,000,000,000 dollar debt. That is why consistency is so important.

Rand stood up recently for fiscal conservatism when he fought Mr.Rubio on the idea of endless spending anywhere, even in the military.

While some may consider this notion of limiting funds to the military liberal y’all might want to consider for a minute that Reagan fought Military spending before Rand Paul did. You see in the mid-1980’s President Reagan geared up to not take down our men in uniform but the over-bloated complex surrounding them. Reagan knew not all spending is good spending even done for a good cause so he commissioned the Packard Report to investigate The Department of Defense which oversees the military and all that surrounds it. The findings were horrific, but Reagan called them successes. They were successes because they were found and fixed, not just allowed to live within the large bureaucracy that is the DOD. But once these findings were made they were eliminated which means Reagan eliminated military funding. Within this military funding were $435 hammers, a $600 Toilet seat and even a $7,000 coffee pot. Rand knows these expenses occur in the military. That’s why as President he said he would look at ALL spending. Rubio just said a 1 Trillion spending increase would be made under him. But he’s a politician, not a General. How does he know 1 trillion dollars are truly needed? Also what would he do if all evidence points to it is not needed, will he cut? Really though, would Rubio even cut a $435 hammer if he found it in the budget or would he be too engrossed in his own ego to admit he was wrong?

Foreign Policy
This is one the establishment often likes to skew. Reagan believed in a “Peace Through Strength” NOT “Isolate & Exterminate”, two very real policies both alive in the GOP primary race. “Peace Through Strength” involves negotiating with hostile countries and looking at not just short term effects but the implied long term effects. “Isolate & Exterminate” involves the exact opposite. If someone does not agree with you then you are obligated to automatically get ready to attack. Now which of our two candidates represents each philosophy should be obvious. But let me explain or at least explain what our world might have been like with Reagan believing in a Rubio foreign policy plan. Instead of negotiating with Russia we may still be fighting Russia. In fact to take this idea to fruition if Reagan was a Rubio-ite you and I may not currently be here. Our fathers or mother could have been killed fighting a war we did not need to occur.

This even more complicates Rubio’s position as a conservative. How is Marco Rubio a Reagan conservative but he is willing to spend money when unneeded and risk US soldiers’ lives when unnecessary.

But my final bit of proof is from none other than Reagan’s own son, Micheal Reagan. Micheal is now a conservative radio host and after scanning all the candidates he agrees with me, that Rand’s plan is the closest to Reagan. He let the world know in the following tweet

With the above proof and even Ronald Reagan’s sons endorsement it seems pretty obvious, Rand is our generation’s Reagan NOT Rubio.