PDA

View Full Version : Be prepared!




Canderson
08-13-2011, 05:20 PM
Huckabee and the rest of the media are going to attribute Paul's loss as a consequence of his foreign policy. It will get worse as the pundits work themselves into a frenzy. The campaign needs to concentrate on better articulating foreign policy. And we in the grassroots are going to have to hit the pavement hard to maintain our poll numbers. Be prepared, and don't dispair, we are on the way to victory in Iowa. only a hickup

FrankRep
08-13-2011, 05:22 PM
Huckabee and the rest of the media are going to attribute Paul's loss as a consequence of his foreign policy.

Ron Paul pretty much said that he didn't care if Iran had nuclear weapons.

That's going to hurt him.

squarepusher
08-13-2011, 05:22 PM
Ron's foreign policy may not be the most popular in the Republican party, however what must be kept in mind, is that I think Ron Paul draws in a tremendous Independent and Democratic following with this. So, a general election would give him more electability.

FrankRep
08-13-2011, 05:24 PM
however what must be kept in mind, is that I think Ron Paul draws in a tremendous Independent and Democratic following with this.

Some Democrats may like him on the war issue, but they're Democrats... They vote Democrat.

RM918
08-13-2011, 05:25 PM
So Ron Paul nearly quadruples his numbers from last time and it means he's wrong on foreign policy?

YumYum
08-13-2011, 05:26 PM
Ron Paul pretty much said that he didn't care if Iran had nuclear weapons.

That's going to hurt him.

Not when the dollar collapses.

YumYum
08-13-2011, 05:28 PM
Some Democrats may like him on the war issue, but they're Democrats... They vote Democrat.

There are Democrats who can't stand Obama and who are also sick of the wars. They could end up voting for Ron Paul.

Canderson
08-13-2011, 05:30 PM
If he said things like"

"our military is over stretched and that puts us in danger"
"Israel bombed Saddam's nuclear reactor in the 80s and we were furious, maybe if we let Israel handle Iran without us tying their hands wed be safer"

instead of

'iran is just trying to defend themselves'

keep the policy, change the rhetoric, its jeopardizing our ability to win middle of the road republicans

FrankRep
08-13-2011, 05:31 PM
There are Democrats who can't stand Obama and who are also sick of the wars. They could end up voting for Ron Paul.
They'll vote Hillary Clinton.

ChiefJustice
08-13-2011, 05:31 PM
If he said things like"

"our military is over stretched and that puts us in danger"
"Israel bombed Saddam's nuclear reactor in the 80s and we were furious, maybe if we let Israel handle Iran without us tying their hands wed be safer"

instead of

'iran is just trying to defend themselves'

keep the policy, change the rhetoric, its jeopardizing our ability to win middle of the road republicans
I think middle of the road 'Pubbies care more about what the candidates are going to do about debt and the economy.

Canderson
08-13-2011, 05:31 PM
So Ron Paul nearly quadruples his numbers from last time and it means he's wrong on foreign policy?

no he needs to articulate the same policy differently than he did at the debate

LibertyEsq
08-13-2011, 05:32 PM
There are Democrats who can't stand Obama and who are also sick of the wars. They could end up voting for Ron Paul.

But we need them NOW. We need them to register Republican. First step is the nomination

YumYum
08-13-2011, 05:32 PM
They'll vote Hillary Clinton.

LOL!! Even if she isn't running! You may be right.

YumYum
08-13-2011, 05:35 PM
But we need them NOW. We need them to register Republican. First step is the nomination

Ron agrees with Democrats on many issues. One place where Ron is getting a lot of attention and more interest from Progressives is on reddit. I am over there defending Ron Paul and I am amzaed at some of the positive responses I have seen. The key is to be respectful and to educate. We all need to drop in on reddit now and then and promote Ron.

realtonygoodwin
08-13-2011, 05:38 PM
Ron's foreign policy may not be the most popular in the Republican party, however what must be kept in mind, is that I think Ron Paul draws in a tremendous Independent and Democratic following with this. So, a general election would give him more electability.

It doesn't matter what he can do in a general election if he doesn't get the nomination.

Feeding the Abscess
08-13-2011, 05:40 PM
Ron Paul pretty much said that he didn't care if Iran had nuclear weapons.

That's going to hurt him.

Do you care that pinko France has nukes? How about commie China?

trey4sports
08-13-2011, 05:42 PM
lol some of you live in a bubble

trey4sports
08-13-2011, 05:43 PM
Do you care that pinko France has nukes? How about commie China?

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HE THINKS!

It matters what joe six pack republican thinks!

nocompromises
08-13-2011, 05:44 PM
I don't care if Iran has nuclear weapons.

I care more about Russia, China, and other nations having nuclear weapons. They have airforces that could deliver such weapons. Iran does not!

The fact is, if you are concerned about Iran having nuclear weapons and think we should go to war with them, then you should have no problem with us going to war with China or Russia.

pcosmar
08-13-2011, 05:46 PM
Ron Paul pretty much said that he didn't care if Iran had nuclear weapons.

That's going to hurt him.

Why. They have no delivery systems that could possibly reach the US.

I am also not concerned with Pakistan having Nukes. A far more unstable country.

China and Russia actually have the capability to reach us, and China has reason to.

Iran does not concern me, except that given their strategic location,, I would rather have them as friends than enemies.
We should be making friends and doing business.

nocompromises
08-13-2011, 05:48 PM
I agree he needs to articulate it differently.

I think he needs to articulate it more boldly.

He needs to tell people that if they are concerned about Iran having nuclear weapons and think that it is OK to go to war with them, that they should have no problem going to war with China or Russia.

The fact is, that if they are concerned about Iran having nuclear weapons then the best thing we can do is stop holding Israel back, and let them do what they want to do in the Middle East.

silentshout
08-13-2011, 06:22 PM
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HE THINKS!

It matters what joe six pack republican thinks!

what is frightening to me is how many of those types are actually FINE with our endless wars, and they want to start yet another! boggles my mind. sorry, can't understand people like that.

Feeding the Abscess
08-13-2011, 11:04 PM
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HE THINKS!

It matters what joe six pack republican thinks!

To please Joe Six Pack, Paul should support Iraq, Afghanistan, and bombing people all around the world.

Liberty4life
08-13-2011, 11:12 PM
The most dangerous people are the quiet ones, and being dangerous isn't a bad thing.

SovereignMN
08-13-2011, 11:19 PM
Ron Paul pretty much said that he didn't care if Iran had nuclear weapons.


I disagree. I think that's a distortion by the media of how the exchange went. Paul basically said that he can understand why Iran would want one and why he didn't think it was a threat because they are so far behind technology wise.

trey4sports
08-13-2011, 11:22 PM
what is frightening to me is how many of those types are actually FINE with our endless wars, and they want to start yet another! boggles my mind. sorry, can't understand people like that.

it is what it is.


To please Joe Six Pack, Paul should support Iraq, Afghanistan, and bombing people all around the world.

c'mon you know that is a slippery slope

White Bear Lake
08-13-2011, 11:42 PM
Many people on here don't like the term 'isolationist' but I say embrace it. Who cares if it isn't factually correct (seeing how Paul is open to true free trade), isolationism isn't really seen as a negative amongst most Americans, at least not in the midwest.

The key is to sound strongly isolationist and promote "America first" and not sound weak on foreign policy. Express how an "isolationist" foreign policy makes America stronger, not how a neocon foreign policy makes America weaker.

Example: "Those Middle Eastern hellholes ain't worth one American life. We should just bring our troops home now before we waste more time making little progress."

sounds a lot more appealing than:

"We should bring our troops home now and stop trying to tell other countries what to do because all it does is cause resentment."

The first example makes you sound like a strong conservative while the second will have you come across as a "weak, American hatin` librul." Even though they both express essentially the same idea.

Another example:

"Iran has the same right to a nuclear weapon as every other country"

sounds a lot worse (to Republicans) than:

"Spending taxpayer money monitoring some third world country is a waste."

If you're wondering why people like Hannity trash Ron Paul, but then sit around for ten minutes and chat it up with Rand like they've been buddies for years, this is why. No matter where you are, I'd say most conservatives can tell whether or not you're a conservative like them within 20 seconds of talking politics with you simply by the phrases and words you use. Rand Paul has made so much traction simply because he speaks their language, so to say.

sailingaway
08-14-2011, 12:04 AM
Ron Paul pretty much said that he didn't care if Iran had nuclear weapons.

That's going to hurt him.

He wasn't saying that, he was saying why he had written on his web site that it was natural that Iran would WANT them and that we shouldn't start a war on the fantasy that they had them. However, he goes to the philosophical absolute in defining principles, I think he just finds it cleaner than dealing in shades of gray. And the philosophical absolute is, if it comes right down to it, would stopping Pakistan or India from having the bomb had been worth the cost and lives and ill will of an Iraq war or Afghanistan war? We never wanted Pakistan to have one, but we didn't go to war with them to stop it.

And they have one and India has one and North Korea, Russian and China have them, and Israel has about 400 of them.

So why is it US who takes this on, and why is this suddenly a trigger for war when it wasn't in other cases? Particularly when we are broke to the point of cutting services people have paid in for for all of their lives, etc? Where are our priorities?

NOT that he thinks it's 'ok'.

anaconda
08-14-2011, 12:12 AM
Ron's foreign policy may not be the most popular in the Republican party, however what must be kept in mind, is that I think Ron Paul draws in a tremendous Independent and Democratic following with this. So, a general election would give him more electability.

There is a pink elephant on the forum and in the main stream media. The PTB have to be shitting bricks with the possibility of Ron running on the Libertarian ticket if he can't get the nomination. As you point out, his appeal explodes in a general election scenario, especially as the voters get sick of looking at the Democrat and Republican nominees from April through November and see them both rushing to the center. This potential outcome should give Ron great power with the Republican establishment, one way or another. The possibility that Ron could get in the debates is very real since he might easily make the polling requirements. Then he will really stand out. His peace position would be a great asset. With the caveat that I have no idea about sore loser laws and what their impact might be.

anaconda
08-14-2011, 12:16 AM
He wasn't saying that, he was saying why he had written on his web site that it was natural that Iran would WANT them and that we shouldn't start a war on the fantasy that they had them. However, he goes to the philosophical absolute in defining principles, I think he just finds it cleaner than dealing in shades of gray. And the philosophical absolute is, if it comes right down to it, would stopping Pakistan or India from having the bomb had been worth the cost and lives and ill will of an Iraq war or Afghanistan war? We never wanted Pakistan to have one, but we didn't go to war with them to stop it.

And they have one and India has one and North Korea, Russian and China have them, and Israel has about 400 of them.

So why is it US who takes this on, and why is this suddenly a trigger for war when it wasn't in other cases? Particularly when we are broke to the point of cutting services people have paid in for for all of their lives, etc? Where are our priorities?

NOT that he thinks it's 'ok'.

The truth is on Ron's side. And most people don't want war.

anaconda
08-14-2011, 12:19 AM
Notice how Rand deflected the question with Hannity. He simply segued into saying that what it means is that his dad believes that congress should declare war. Done. In truth it's much more, but Rand controlled the interview with that brilliant response.

Wren
08-14-2011, 12:23 AM
As others have said, RP needs to end up framing the issue of iran much differently. Why are people worried about iran? Israel. They're not going to touch the united states, RP needs to make that clear. He also needs to make clear that if Iran were to even consider bombing israel, it would be even over and done with before it even started. They have over 300 nukes and Iran doesn't even have 1 yet. He also needs to say that Israels dependence on us hurts her in making these kind of decisions. He needs to make these points VERY clear if he wants to win the nomination.

Butchie
08-14-2011, 12:57 AM
If he said things like"

"our military is over stretched and that puts us in danger"
"Israel bombed Saddam's nuclear reactor in the 80s and we were furious, maybe if we let Israel handle Iran without us tying their hands wed be safer"

instead of

'iran is just trying to defend themselves'

keep the policy, change the rhetoric, its jeopardizing our ability to win middle of the road republicans

I love this post, even Tom Woods wrote a whole article stating that Ron Paul needed to keep his message but phrase his words better, not just about Iran but about alot of things.

LibertyEagle
08-14-2011, 01:32 AM
As others have said, RP needs to end up framing the issue of iran much differently. Why are people worried about iran? Israel. They're not going to touch the united states, RP needs to make that clear. He also needs to make clear that if Iran were to even consider bombing israel, it would be even over and done with before it even started. They have over 300 nukes and Iran doesn't even have 1 yet. He also needs to say that Israels dependence on us hurts her in making these kind of decisions. He needs to make these points VERY clear if he wants to win the nomination.


+1

LadyBastiat
08-14-2011, 01:33 AM
Huckabee and the rest of the media are going to attribute Paul's loss as a consequence of his foreign policy. It will get worse as the pundits work themselves into a frenzy. The campaign needs to concentrate on better articulating foreign policy. And we in the grassroots are going to have to hit the pavement hard to maintain our poll numbers. Be prepared, and don't dispair, we are on the way to victory in Iowa. only a hickup

Ya know, I have to disagree somewhat. Not about the spin & frenzy, but rather about doing better articulating foreign policy. I don't know what could be any simpler than saying "we need to think about things in terms of how we would react if a country was doing it to us." If even the dimmest of light bulb doesn't go on in the average "Joe's" brain thinking about that for just a few seconds, then that person is NEVER going to EVER agree with Paul's foreign policy. Tried and true neo-con for life (or neo-crat).

I personally Santorums answer in the debate did more to prove Ron's point. How dumb is it to say "those people" have killed more Americans in Iraq, Afgahn, etc.??? I don't recall us fighting the Russians in the Middle East, or Chinese, or Japanese for that matter. Of COURSE middle easterners in those areas have killed more Americans than any other ethnic group seeing as how they are the ones we're fighting. I don't see how anyone could hear that response (by Sant) and not see the obvious idiocy of it. Anyone who does is still asleep at the wheel, blindly cheering for a wing of the party I certainly hope the RP Revolution kicks to the curb for all eternity!

Feeding the Abscess
08-14-2011, 01:42 AM
Ya know, I have to disagree somewhat. Not about the spin & frenzy, but rather about doing better articulating foreign policy. I don't know what could be any simpler than saying "we need to think about things in terms of how we would react if a country was doing it to us." If even the dimmest of light bulb doesn't go on in the average "Joe's" brain thinking about that for just a few seconds, then that person is NEVER going to EVER agree with Paul's foreign policy. Tried and true neo-con for life (or neo-crat).

I personally Santorums answer in the debate did more to prove Ron's point. How dumb is it to say "those people" have killed more Americans in Iraq, Afgahn, etc.??? I don't recall us fighting the Russians in the Middle East, or Chinese, or Japanese for that matter. Of COURSE middle easterners in those areas have killed more Americans than any other ethnic group seeing as how they are the ones we're fighting. I don't see how anyone could hear that response (by Sant) and not see the obvious idiocy of it. Anyone who does is still asleep at the wheel, blindly cheering for a wing of the party I certainly hope the RP Revolution kicks to the curb for all eternity!

Knocked out of the park.

realtonygoodwin
08-14-2011, 01:51 AM
Iranians have caused more US deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan than other countries have.

Paulatized
08-14-2011, 06:02 AM
As others have said, RP needs to end up framing the issue of iran much differently. Why are people worried about iran? Israel. They're not going to touch the united states, RP needs to make that clear. He also needs to make clear that if Iran were to even consider bombing israel, it would be even over and done with before it even started. They have over 300 nukes and Iran doesn't even have 1 yet. He also needs to say that Israels dependence on us hurts her in making these kind of decisions. He needs to make these points VERY clear if he wants to win the nomination.

Well said and point taken, sometimes I think Ron Paul puts it the way he did to force the argument that it is really Israel they are worried about not the US, and that being the case Israel can take care of herself against Iran.

wstrucke
08-14-2011, 06:25 AM
Many people on here don't like the term 'isolationist' but I say embrace it. Who cares if it isn't factually correct (seeing how Paul is open to true free trade), isolationism isn't really seen as a negative amongst most Americans, at least not in the midwest.

No, this is the wrong way to go. It's just as easy to make the correct point -- Pre World War 2 Japan was isolationist. Switzerland is non-interventionist. Big difference.

SwooshOU
08-14-2011, 06:45 AM
As a former neocon, this issue was the one that Ron Paul "turned" me with.

Back before I discovered Ron Paul in 2007, the idea that there were US soldiers and military bases all over the world ready to take care of business "there" so they didn't have to "here" gave my formerly neocon self a bit of peace. Just typing that statement now, I see the ridiculousness of it. However, I'm guessing that's where a lot of Republicans still are today.

Back in 2007 when I was a neocon, one of the things Ron Paul said that "got" me was, "How would we feel if China or Russia (or Iran) built a multi-billion dollar military base in Quebec or Juarez right on one of our borders? Yet that is what we're doing all over the world!" (That's a paraphrase of what I remember him saying, but you get the point). That was an eye opening example for me. It definitely helped me see things from another important perspective. It showed me that while I'm thinking our immense military reach is giving us peace, it is actually having the opposite effect. In addition, being-in-everybody's-business is a mindset that most people see isn't a good thing. Lastly, the sheer cost of maintaining our military empire is reason enough to scale back.

In any case, if Ron Paul frames these issues as he's done before, emphasizing very logical reasons, it will shift even more mainline Republicans (and who knows who else) to Ron Paul's line of thinking.

The Truth always rises to the top..

minuteman76
08-14-2011, 06:54 AM
As a former neocon, this issue was the one that Ron Paul "turned" me with.

Back before I discovered Ron Paul in 2007, the idea that there were US soldiers and military bases all over the world ready to take care of business "there" so they didn't have to "here" gave my formerly neocon self a bit of peace. Just typing that statement now, I see the ridiculousness of it. However, I'm guessing that's where a lot of Republicans still are today.

Back in 2007 when I was a neocon, one of the things Ron Paul said that "got" me was, "How would we feel if China or Russia (or Iran) built a multi-billion dollar military base in Quebec or Juarez right on one of our borders? Yet that is what we're doing all over the world!" (That's a paraphrase of what I remember him saying, but you get the point). That was an eye opening example for me. It definitely helped me see things from another important perspective. It showed me that while I'm thinking our immense military reach is giving us peace, it is actually having the opposite effect. In addition, being-in-everybody's-business is a mindset that most people see isn't a good thing. Lastly, the sheer cost of maintaining our military empire is reason enough to scale back.

In any case, if Ron Paul frames these issues as he's done before, emphasizing very logical reasons, it will shift even more mainline Republicans (and who knows who else) to Ron Paul's line of thinking.

The Truth always rises to the top..

Almost the exact same experience for me. My 2007 "neocon self" was resistant at first to the idea that our foreign policy had unintended consequences. After I had the foreign policy epiphany, I told my brother (another neocon at the time) and at first, he gave me the "I agree with Ron Paul on everything but foreign policy" line. After listening to Paul some more, he came around. Then it was my mom. Then my sister. My dad is the only one who four years later still resists giving up the empire, but he voted for RP in the last primary anyway.

This go around, I have been talking to a buddy who is still an active duty Marine. He says Ron Paul is his guy, even though he disagrees with RP's foreign policy views. Now I know all it will take is some more time and reason from RP to convince him.

My point, I guess, is that getting people to listen to RP will get the job done. Getting them over the media narrative that RP is crazy and unelectable seems to be the hard part to me.

Ethek
08-14-2011, 07:40 AM
This is not a logical argument to be debated. The re-activity to Ron's positions is simply a gut insecurity. Like children they don't want Ron to debate it or to articulate any understanding for an alternate position.

Voters simply want Ron to articulate their concerns and their positions. Ron is a master at challenging people to their hypocrisy. He does not have to offer a solution, What he does have to is simply say he understands the concerns and to direct that there are bigger concerns. Defending Iran or trying to relay an understanding of their position is not going to endear him at all.

Focus on the 'bigger priorities' and Ron's ability to challenge people on their hypocrisy will force them to step up to it later on.

Not an ideal way to win a political election but it is the style that works for Ron.

Napolitanic Wars
08-14-2011, 07:48 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5WS8LgcbQc

I just had to. :)

Badger Paul
08-14-2011, 07:51 AM
Ron Paul came within 158 votes of winning Iowa and his foreign policy views sunk him? If you believe this then you have to believe we had an extra 1500 voters who all defected at the last minute. That's nonsense. Ron's views on Iran are not news to people who support him.

Ron Paul stood for peace and expanded both the number of votes he got and his place at the straw poll. Do you think foreign policy actually helped us in this regard?

Todd
08-14-2011, 07:54 AM
Not when the dollar collapses.

that what I was thinking. There are basically two options with Iran. Do nothing or go to war to stop them. When this countries economy completely tanks, we wont' be able to project outside the caribbean, much less the Persian gulf

JohnGalt23g
08-14-2011, 08:12 AM
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HE THINKS!

It matters what joe six pack republican thinks!

I get the impression that Joe SixPack, while being a fine and noble citizen, can't find Iran on a map, and is far more concerned about the price of beer tomorrow than the nuclear status of Iran today.

musicmax
08-14-2011, 08:21 AM
Ron Paul pretty much said that he didn't care if Iran had nuclear weapons.

That's going to hurt him.

How is a US President going to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? Be absolutely specific (i.e. name your family members who you'd send to die in achieving this "goal").

Ethek
08-14-2011, 08:24 AM
Notice how Rand deflected the question with Hannity. He simply segued into saying that what it means is that his dad believes that congress should declare war. Done. In truth it's much more, but Rand controlled the interview with that brilliant response.

Great Observation!

I had missed this but it builds on exactly what I was trying to say in my post above.

anarchy
08-14-2011, 08:46 AM
They'll vote Hillary Clinton.

Fuck hillary

A. Havnes
08-14-2011, 09:10 AM
I agree that he needs to change his wording, as different wording can make the whole difference as many on here have already provided examples of. Why? Because foreign policy really holds your average Republican at bay. For example, I was speaking with an old Republican man over coffee once, and he said that he would vote Ron Paul if it weren't for his foreign policy. I asked him how, in this day and age with the economy like it is and the tensions it's causing us with the rest of the globe, how he could afford not to vote for the most fiscally conservative candidate running. His reply: "I'm on board with him economically, and if anyone can save our country financially, it's him. But, what's the good of having a wealthy government when there are terrorists in your backyard shooting your children?"

That's the mindset we have to change. Look at it like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/conation/maslow.gif

According to Maslow, you can't realistically have your emotional needs met if you're starving to death. At the very least, it's impractical and you'll never reach self-actualization. In that same vein, most Republicans feel that you can't have economic security if your country is at risk. This is why Ron Paul needs to capitalize that we aren't in danger and his foreign policy won't put us in danger. He needs to adopt a very pro-American rhettoric instead of highlighting our foreign policy mistakes.

lockdoc
08-14-2011, 09:40 AM
Rep. Paul pretty much insinuates that Israel would be on her own if attacked militarily. This is not sitting well with a lot of tea party folks and independents.

wstrucke
08-14-2011, 09:47 AM
According to Maslow, you can't realistically have your emotional needs met if you're starving to death. At the very least, it's impractical and you'll never reach self-actualization. In that same vein, most Republicans feel that you can't have economic security if your country is at risk. This is why Ron Paul needs to capitalize that we aren't in danger and his foreign policy won't put us in danger. He needs to adopt a very pro-American rhettoric instead of highlighting our foreign policy mistakes.

This is great advice. You might considering e-mailing the campaign staff. Additionally, Ron Paul can stress how his foreign policy would in effect make us safer than we have been since World War 2, since we would no longer be provoking people everywhere.

justatrey
08-14-2011, 10:02 AM
Rep. Paul pretty much insinuates that Israel would be on her own if attacked militarily. This is not sitting well with a lot of tea party folks and independents.

Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons.

By the way - I'm so tired of hearing the propaganda about Iran's president saying he wants to "wipe Israel off the map". He never said this. I believe the correct translation is:

"The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Google it.

He was calling for regime change. Not making some kind of a nuclear threat.

jmdrake
08-14-2011, 11:05 AM
They'll vote Hillary Clinton.

How are they going to vote for Hillary Clinton when she's not going to run this time? And I guarantee that. For Hillary to run would be political suicide. The same for any other democrat. This isn't like when Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter. To run against Obama as a democrat means to completely alienate the black vote. Hillary is going to need those voters when she runs for president in 2016. Obama is not going to have any serious primary challenger. Ralph Nader might run, but again the keyword is "serious" as in "possibility of winning".

We need to face reality. I know people want to run a "conventional" republican race, but Ron Paul isn't a "conventional" republican candidate. We can count on him saying things that won't sit well with the typical uninformed republican. The only way to offset that damage is to bring in independents and disgruntled dems. Ron should not pander to these people, but we in the grassroots have to reach out to them. Yes we need to reach all of the likely Ron Paul republican voters. (The 47% of republicans who are ready to end the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and are likely not anxious for a war with Iran), but we should ignore the 47% that think we should stay in Afghanistan indefinitely. (I'm not sure what to do about the 6% undecideds on that issue at this point.)

The bottom line is, Ron will be Ron. We can fret all we want to about how this or that statement might play to this or that voting block. Or we can do are best to reach the voters that he message appeals to.

trey4sports
08-14-2011, 11:15 AM
Rep. Paul pretty much insinuates that Israel would be on her own if attacked militarily. This is not sitting well with a lot of tea party folks and independents.

Look at how many weapons Israel has compared to anyone in that region, heck look at how many weapons they have compared to the rest of the world. Israel is the second most powerful military force in the world. There is no need for welfare to Israel.

RM918
08-14-2011, 11:18 AM
Rep. Paul pretty much insinuates that Israel would be on her own if attacked militarily. This is not sitting well with a lot of tea party folks and independents.

It's because of us holding Israel back that they wouldn't be able to defend themselves. Israel is more than capable of handling its own affairs.

Darin
08-14-2011, 11:25 AM
It's a difficult balance... I think it's answers like those who get people to pay attention. To change his answers to fall in line with more Republican ideas... at that point, what makes him stand out? What sets him apart from the others? At that point he becomes another Cain, Newt, etc. Why pay attention?

I'm not sure that's a good strategy short term, and it may be worse long term. During the general election he would essentially have to run a different campaign to challenge Obama on the idea of diplomacy and peace, and I think it would seem like a flip-flop.

I think these ideas should be brought up. I like the idea of being honest and consistent... you can reach those people who don't like that answer in other ways. But to make it seem like he'd be OK with Israel in a war with Iran seems just as off-putting, and might even be more abrasive since we're "supposed to protect Israel."

Talking about this stuff is important. You can reassure people who don't like the answer in saying you want a strong defense and would never allow an attack from Iran, and sanctions do more to entice people to fight us than anything. Follow it up with a point about how bad it is for our budget and our economy. But I don't think the point of peace and friendship should change.

- Darin

musicmax
08-14-2011, 11:40 AM
It's because of us holding Israel back that they wouldn't be able to defend themselves. Israel is more than capable of handling its own affairs.

How is the US "holding Israel back"? If Israel faces a realistic threat do you think it will be all "Mother may I?" to the US before it obliterates its attacker?

musicmax
08-14-2011, 11:41 AM
Rep. Paul pretty much insinuates that Israel would be on her own if attacked militarily. This is not sitting well with a lot of tea party folks and independents.

Why should a country that's $14,600,000,000,000.00 in debt spend another dime defending any foreign country?

PredatorOC
08-14-2011, 11:45 AM
Rep. Paul pretty much insinuates that Israel would be on her own if attacked militarily. This is not sitting well with a lot of tea party folks and independents.

Maybe, but as long as the status quo can use Israel to beat down any opposition to them, there is no hope for liberty. That's why Ron's approach is far more advantageous in the long-term than Rand's. By not confronting taboos like Israel, you are allowing those taboos to persist. And I believe that Ron's genuine beliefs and foresight will overshadow anything that the media pundits can throw at him. His rise in the polls shows this to be true. So this is no time to start pulling punches and waffling, if for the first time in a long time people are actually thinking for themselves and trying to figure what is actually going on. The truth will prevail, eventually.

Besides, Iran isn't going to attack anyone. They're still using US military equipment from the Shah era that they can barely maintain. Iran is not a threat to anyone.