Welcoming PRO-war republicans into the fold?

[rdenner]

I can see a VERY big change coming on the near horizon, and that is the very real possibility of many pro-war republicans getting on board with the Ron Paul revolution.

No longer is the MSM going to be able to hide the fact that Ron Paul is THE most conservative person in the race right now. They are going to see that he is the best chance for keeping hard won Tax cuts and keeping more choices in their life, not less.

People are going to start flocking to us soon. And if we greet them with "NO WARMONGERS ALLOWED" we are going to doom this campaign to it's death.

I believe there can be room in the movement for people who STILL believe that Iraq was a good idea. My brother is a perfect example. He is still very much in favor of the Iraq war, but I am wearing him down on why Ron Paul, REGARDLESS of his anti-war stance, is still the best candidate for him.

I think I'm winning him over.

What do yo all think..

Robert

[DrNoZone]

I agree. Who cares what they disagree with Ron Paul on, just try and encourage them to think about it in a new way. But NEVER discourage someone from supporting RP because they aren't true believers!

[BW4Paul]

Bring 'em on in! For the must part, I think the pro-war folks are good souls who have simply had the wool pulled over their eyes (I was Neoconned, myself, I'm sorry to say). Listening to powerful, ostensibly knowledgeable men speak about Terror-Terror-Terror all the time can be very frightening, until you realize that you are being manipulated.

Once they join the tent, and once we engage them in *thoughtful* and *respectful* debate, I'd wager that many of them will come to see the error of their ways.

[Phenom24]

The thing I've been quick to tell those who've been neo-conned is that

"WERE DR. PAUL TO WIN THE ELECTION THAT IS STILL A YEAR AND A HALF AWAY"

So I say to them - "What, you think it can't get better even in 1.5 years' time??"

Other than the war, I've gotten a lot of neocons thinking....

[ARealConservative]

I can see a VERY big change coming on the near horizon, and that is the very real possibility of many pro-war republicans getting on board with the Ron Paul revolution.

No longer is the MSM going to be able to hide the fact that Ron Paul is THE most conservative person in the race right now. They are going to see that he is the best chance for keeping hard won Tax cuts and keeping more choices in their life, not less.

People are going to start flocking to us soon. And if we greet them with "NO WARMONGERS ALLOWED" we are going to doom this campaign to it's death.

I believe there can be room in the movement for people who STILL believe that Iraq was a good idea. My brother is a perfect example. He is still very much in favor of the Iraq war, but I am wearing him down on why Ron Paul, REGARDLESS of his anti-war stance, is still the best candidate for him.

I think I'm winning him over.

What do yo all think..

Robert

I agree. Same with liberals opposed to the spending.

"congress declares war and congress legislates. We aren't electing a king".

[stevedasbach]

I can see a VERY big change coming on the near horizon, and that is the very real possibility of many pro-war republicans getting on board with the Ron Paul revolution.

No longer is the MSM going to be able to hide the fact that Ron Paul is THE most conservative person in the race right now. They are going to see that he is the best chance for keeping hard won Tax cuts and keeping more choices in their life, not less.

People are going to start flocking to us soon. And if we greet them with "NO WARMONGERS ALLOWED" we are going to doom this campaign to it's death.

I believe there can be room in the movement for people who STILL believe that Iraq was a good idea. My brother is a perfect example. He is still very much in favor of the Iraq war, but I am wearing him down on why Ron Paul, REGARDLESS of his anti-war stance, is still the best candidate for him.

I think I'm winning him over.

What do yo all think..

Robert

I certainly agree that we should welcome every Ron Paul supporter, irrespective of any issues where they hold views that differ from Ron's. There are already lots of pro-choice Ron Paul supporters, there are supporters who favor a path to legalization, etc.

Where I think there is a real opportunity to pick up support is from people who are concerned about the threat of terrorist attacks in the US, and are concerned that leaving Iraq will hand the terrorists a victory. If they can be persuaded that Ron Paul's approach will be more effective in fighting terrorism than the current interventionist approach, I think we will pick up a lot of new supporters. For many, this is the only issue holding them back.

[silverhandorder]

My dad is pro war and is voting Ron Paul!

[constituent]

i can't wait until the pro-war republicans start trying to push everyone else OUT.

it's coming. so many of these people are "only wrong on X" and the rest
of their world is spot on correct, back to everyone else is the problem.

it'll be more "anti-semite" accusations and all that... more insults and all
that too, i have little doubt.

but all votes are good votes.

though a surge of pro-war republicans, followed later by a mass-defection
of pro-war "x-ron paul supporters" is to be expected in the coming months.

[Jordan]

Tax cuts and lesser government spending is the way to hit it.

Tell them about the debts we face, $9T and what Ron Paul wants to do to that number.

[Dartan]

They should definitely be welcomed. I don't agree with RP on every issue, but I still think our country needs him.

[steph3n]

we just have to remember they are not as thick skinned as us and won't take the heated insults we throw at each other and keep on ticking :D
They'd drop out and say we're a bunch of name callers that don't agree voting for the same person for some reason.

[hard@work]

Ron Paul isn't against all war. He is against stupid war. So I see no reason for a real pro-military candidate to not want to be on board.

[KingTheoden]

I agree. Who cares what they disagree with Ron Paul on, just try and encourage them to think about it in a new way. But NEVER discourage someone from supporting RP because they aren't true believers!

If people want to join our ranks, we should welcome them with open arms regardless of their personal reservations. Of course, if they are willing to support Ron Paul, any disagreements must not be significant enough to trump their decision.

Reagan's son, Ingram being positive towards Paul - Glen Beck! We are seeing 1980 all over again only this time we will see it through. And it will happen if we all not just continue our actions, but expand our operations.

[Bradley in DC]

My dad supports the war, listens to Rush, watches Fox news, defends Bush--and is supporting Dr. Paul and has two Ron Paul stickers on his car. (Yes, my brother and I may have had something to do with that ;) )

[erowe1]

I am a pro-war Republican who joined the Ron Paul revolution a little over a month ago and have been very active ever since. You are right. Ron Paul is the only candidate for true conservatives regardless of what you think about Iraq.

On the Iraq issue, it's incorrect to think there are only 2 sides with no gray area in the middle. There's a lot of gray area. People who supported the war initially for one reason might disagree with other people who had other reasons. People who supported the war may disagree with one another about whether to stay there or start coming home. There are a lot of conservatives like me who thought that Hussein's obstinate refusal to abide by the agreements he made after the first Gulf War as pre-requisites for peace were justification enough to resume the fight and take it to his door. But that doesn't mean that we want a foreign policy of nation-building around the world. It doesn't mean we believe in pre-emptive war. It doesn't mean that we like everything the current administration has done in this war. And it certainly doesn't mean that we want our next president to continue into the future with a sense of duty to police the world and take on the burden of solving every new international conflict that will arise in the next 4 or 8 years, including other conflicts we haven't even thought of yet.

The sound bites about just bringing them home initially really turned me off to Paul, but when I checked him out I realized that he is head and shoulders above every other candidate in his conservative policy positions, and even his foreign policy isn't that far off from what I want us to follow.

Maybe 20% of the GOP is now neo-cons, and maybe 20% is committed paleo-cons, and the other 60% is somewhere in between, and many of them (particularly the large block of genuine Reagan conservatives like me) are a lot closer to Paul than they may think.

[steph3n]

I agree and was in the same boat, and while I know bringing troops home is
hard and not an overnight task, I am working to formulate a viable strategy and will run it by some people. We have even by the neo-con standards "lost" the war in Iraq, Saddam is gone, a regime is gone. We are losing the war more day by day however by losing the hearts of the iraqi people with incidents like the Blackwater indiscriminate killings(no I won't call it murder, it was not pre-mediated, it was rash reaction to a bad situation).

Had our government not insisted from the start on a 1 state solution for Iraq the recently passed 3 state solution idea would have had overwhelming support, and likely already well into place by now with 3 functional states and a very lose federal government.

The more I have studied the war, the more I am against it and its merits. I study what RP has written and am overwhelmingly impressed. The founders had a problem very similar in their day to terrorism, piracy, and they provided the groundwork to combat it most effectively.

There are means by which we can have all our troops and gear back within 12 months if we really wanted to do this, and I think the American people by and large do wish for this. Some like my dad ask, but how do we leave without them proclaiming defeat of the US, how do we leave without causing a vacuum? i think all these can be answered but the answer is not short, and certainly won't fit into a 1 min soundbite much less the 10 second fredisms of today.



I am a pro-war Republican who joined the Ron Paul revolution a little over a month ago and have been very active ever since. You are right. Ron Paul is the only candidate for true conservatives regardless of what you think about Iraq.

On the Iraq issue, it's incorrect to think there are only 2 sides with no gray area in the middle. There's a lot of gray area. People who supported the war initially for one reason might disagree with other people who had other reasons. People who supported the war may disagree with one another about whether to stay there or start coming home. There are a lot of conservatives like me who thought that Hussein's obstinate refusal to abide by the agreements he made after the first Gulf War as pre-requisites for peace were justification enough to resume the fight and take it to his door. But that doesn't mean that we want a foreign policy of nation-building around the world. It doesn't mean we believe in pre-emptive war. It doesn't mean that we like everything the current administration has done in this war. And it certainly doesn't mean that we want our next president to continue into the future with a sense of duty to police the world and take on the burden of solving every new international conflict that will arise in the next 4 or 8 years, including other conflicts we haven't even thought of yet.

The sound bites about just bringing them home initially really turned me off to Paul, but when I checked him out I realized that he is head and shoulders above every other candidate in his conservative policy positions, and even his foreign policy isn't that far off from what I want us to follow.

Maybe 20% of the GOP is now neo-cons, and maybe 20% is committed paleo-cons, and the other 60% is somewhere in between, and many of them (particularly the large block of genuine Reagan conservatives like me) are a lot closer to Paul than they may think.

[libertarian4321]

I think the warmongers are the among the most hardcore "Bushies" and will be tough to bring over, but if they agree with Ron on other issues, we can use their support.

[kylejack]

Can you wait until we have Truthers and pro-war Republicans in the same forum? (*rubs hands together*) Mwahahahaha

[Nash]

Tax cuts and lesser government spending is the way to hit it.

Tell them about the debts we face, $9T and what Ron Paul wants to do to that number.

If Bush was only wrong on the war, he'd be harder to attack when talking to the neocons. But since he's wrong on spending too, I always approach it from that perspective.

Granted spending and the war go hand in hand, but attacking his medicare expansion, his whopping 4 vetoes, NCLB, amnesty program, it's just too easy.

I just don't understand why the republicans are so enthused about another 4 years of Bush policy, why are they so afraid of actually electing a conservative to represent them?

[itsnobody]

Yeah, there already are a lot of pro-war Neocons jumping in because of other reasons besides the war

[MsDoodahs]

I welcome ANY and ALL to the fold.

The person who finds common ground with Dr. Paul on one issue, as they learn more about Dr. Paul, will find common ground with him on other issues as well.

As they learn more about Dr. Paul's views on other issues, they may find themselves changing their own long held beliefs.

So yes, by all means, welcome them.

:)

[lynnf]

Tax cuts and lesser government spending is the way to hit it.

Tell them about the debts we face, $9T and what Ron Paul wants to do to that number.


Our crooked politicians keep the true deficit hidden with off-the-books accounting.

See this story -

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53366

The true deficit is 4.6 trillion yearly and the total debt is almost 50 trillion.

lynn

[FreedomLover]

Yes. I was one of them. I still am, kind of. As someone earlier said, it's not a black and white issue.

And let me tell you, there are a lot of conservatives (not just neocons guys) who would support ron paul in a heartbeat if they didn't have reservations about what he would do with the war on terror that we're embroiled in right now. Many of them believe in their hearts that anyone who would criticize the war on terror would by default quit the war and give islamic terrorism a pass. This is why they get PISSED when they hear people associated with ron paul say that 9/11 is in inside job. It validates their entire view of ron paul being a nutjob by association.

Ron Paul's biggest hurdle isn't explaining why he would try to get rid of federal departments, his biggest hurdle is reassuring pro-war republicans that he will still allow the united states to fight terrorists.

[aksmith]

I'm glad to see the direction of this thread. There are good people who simply were in favor of the war and now have come to realize that it's morphed into something completely different. And, frankly, although I'm a non-interventionist, if it had gone well and there was now a thriving and peaceful democracy in Iraq, I think we'd all be singing a different tune. YEs, that would have given them license to expand the war, but most of us would have been torn by such a result because freedom for anyone is a plus.

But simply calling people neocons misses the point that most of the pro war people were never neocons. Sure, Wolfowitz and Perle and Podhoretz and Bush and Rumsfeld are neocons. But the average Republican who is pro war was not. So, labeling them and discarding their opinion is simply wrong. We should definitely welcome them and recognize that even some who are still in favor of this war are not innately for intervention everywhere else, and certainly not in favor of expanding the welfare state and corporate state.

[aksmith]

Yes. I was one of them. I still am, kind of. As someone earlier said, it's not a black and white issue.

And let me tell you, there are a lot of conservatives (not just neocons guys) who would support ron paul in a heartbeat if they didn't have reservations about what he would do with the war on terror that we're embroiled in right now. Many of them believe in their hearts that anyone who would criticize the war on terror would by default quit the war and give islamic terrorism a pass. This is why they get PISSED when they hear people associated with ron paul say that 9/11 is in inside job. It validates their entire view of ron paul being a nutjob by association.

Ron Paul's biggest hurdle isn't explaining why he would try to get rid of federal departments, his biggest hurdle is reassuring pro-war republicans that he will still allow the united states to fight terrorists.

Your final point is a key point. People need to constantly be reminded that Ron Paul voted and spoke out FOR the war in Afghanistan, which would have been the right place to go after the terrorists. It's only when we again stopped pursuing the people who attacked us that he soured on the Afghan nation building project. And his policy of non-intervention unless we're attacked or just about to be is deterrent enough, and it's not a recruiting tool for al quaeda that makes us less safe.

[MsDoodahs]

TOTALLY agree!

Also, and this is JMO, better not to criticize the way the war has gone in terms of direct attacks on GW et al, but try to take it in terms of burgeoning costs.

[thomj76]

I think this column from "Texas Straight Talk" covers this subject fairly well.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst052107.htm

Any thoughts?