CFR article actually calls Paul "non-interventionist" instead of "isolationist"

[emazur]

http://blogs.cfr.org/lindsay/2011/05/05/campaign-2012-the-first-gop-presidential-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-16905

That traditional approach may get tested tonight. First, two of the six candidates—Paul and Johnson—are committed non-interventionists. With the headliners sitting on the sidelines, they should get the chance to make their argument that it is time for America to do less overseas. That in itself might pull the other candidates away from a full-throated internationalism.

also:

The ground work has been laid domestically for a mainstream Republican candidate—and neither Paul nor Johnson are in the mainstream—to try to reclaim an older Republican tradition of preferring an America that is less engaged in the world (or, if you prefer, more isolationist).

so there he's basically saying any GOP candidate, not just the non-mainstream GJ & RP, are open to the "isolationist" policy. So I don't see this as an attack on RP/GJ

[AGRP]

They could just call him someone who believes in the constitution.

[tangent4ronpaul]

But broader trends will also be at work. Americans are tiring of the soon-to-be decade-long commitment in Afghanistan. The killing of Osama bin Laden has created a political opportunity to rethink U.S. policy toward not just Afghanistan but also Pakistan. The mission in Libya remains muddled. The trillion dollar deficit has created pressure to cut federal spending, and the defense budget is no longer sacrosanct.

I smell blood... :D

[Teaser Rate]

I never really understood the substantive difference between isolationism and non-intervention.

It seems like the only difference between them is that one has a less negative connotation than the other.

[specsaregood]

I never really understood the substantive difference between isolationism and non-intervention.

It seems like the only difference between them is that one has a less negative connotation than the other.

nope, wiki should help you out. but a hint: trade policy.

[Superfly]

I never really understood the substantive difference between isolationism and non-intervention.

It seems like the only difference between them is that one has a less negative connotation than the other.

"peace and commerce with all, entangling alliances with none."

[american.swan]

The CFR at it's lowest levels is just a think tank. They know the difference. They know full well Ron Paul won't hamper Wall Streets attempts at trade. In fact, the only thing that scares Wall Street about Ron Paul's trade policy is "competition" it might create.

[emazur]

I never really understood the substantive difference between isolationism and non-intervention.

It seems like the only difference between them is that one has a less negative connotation than the other.

Paul's definition:
Anyone who advocates the noninterventionist foreign policy of the Founding Fathers can expect to be derided as an isolationist. I myself have never been an isolationist. I favor the very opposite of isolation: diplomacy, free trade, and freedom of travel. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seeking change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example. The real isolationists are those who isolate their country in the court of world opinion by pursuing needless belligerence and war that have nothing to do with legitimate national security
Ron Paul. 2008. The Revolution - A Manifesto. Grand Central Publishing. pp. 10-11

[Koz]

I never really understood the substantive difference between isolationism and non-intervention.

It seems like the only difference between them is that one has a less negative connotation than the other.

A good example would be Lybia, if we were non-interventionist we would still be trading with them but we wouldn't be bombing them. We would let them sort out thier own differences. We wouldn't be sending billions around the world to governments either. Isolationists would not trade with Lybia.