Clear up the National Defense question and gain a large number of supporters.

[Tarzan]

I am 57... was in AF intelligence... got shot at in the 1970s (guess where). I have friends in many age groups... but, obviously, most are older. Many of them are vets and almost all of them are conservative or Republicans. We share many of the same beliefs and concerns. A big one is National Defense and maintaining a strong military... one of the jobs assigned to the federal government in our Constitution. I have a few liberal friends and try to speak slowly to them because of the obvious brain damage they have suffered somewhere in their lives. I vote, and so do my friends. To be blunt, I am the demographic Ron Paul needs to win over to win the Republican nomination.

While I am a supporter I have two major concerns. One is a critical concern that relates to National Defense. Foreign Policy is obviously intertwined with this issue, but I am going to attempt to address only the Nation Defense and strength of our military. The other is economic philosophy and unimportant to National Defense for the purposes of this post (or, to getting my vote). So, on to National Defense.

Here is my concern... (and of many of my conservative friends, especially the vets)
Ron Paul has never made it clear exactly what he means by "strong military". I really need to know what he means by that. I completely understand the Foreign Policy issue. Get our military out of their forward bases and bring them home. Stop bombing the shit out of everybody, just because we can. Stop "defending" our allies and let them pay for their own defenses.

I really need to hear something very clear from RP on this subject. Here is a suggestion of what would alleviate my concerns. No, I am not trying to put words in RPs mouth (good luck with that)... but, here is an example that I think would also win votes:

Want to jump to 20 something percent in the polls... say something like this:
"I want to quickly address the concerns some have raised about my foreign policy and the strength of a US military once they are based here at home. We have made mistakes in the past by reducing our forces too quickly. We have made mistakes by slashing military spending and leaving our forces at a disadvantage and in a poor position to protect the United States. Let me be very clear that I would insist on keeping a strong military in these dangerous times. A military capable of kicking the holy living shit out of anyone or any nation stupid enough to attack us."

Obviously, some wording changes might be in order. He could then continue with how foreign policy and foreign wars are a major part of what has caused our economic crisis (if time allows). Talk about the benefit of having our troops home and spending the money we pay them... and for supporting foreign bases... spent here in the US. All the standard yadda³ stuff. He could even go into how our military support and spending has kept socialism alive in Europe for over 50 years (probably TMI). Last time I looked, we were spending more on our military than the next 11 nations combined... that's too damn much. But, we need to reduce this number slowly both in the interest of National Defense and the economy. If he were to make it clear we could maintain a strong military (capable of the above mini-rant) I believe it would assuage concerns of many conservative voters and gain RP several points in the polls.

On a side note, I would suggest refraining from using terms like "withdraw"... these terms engender concerns about becoming an isolationist nation and leave a mental impression of "retreating" (a term and thought pattern distasteful to many). Instead, use terms and phrases that change the premise of the debate... talk about us NOT spending our money for their defense. Let foreign nations pay for their own defenses and stop building their own nations on the backs of the American taxpayer... or, taking their vacations at the expense of American workers. The truth is that most nations would be better off if we were not so paranoid of one another. Military spending worldwide could be reduced, freeing up resources for other uses. But, we are not near that point in human development just quite yet. We still need a very capable military and will for quite some time (we have also pissed off a lot of people and it will take time for them to calm down a bit).

MAD vs MAR
A video was posted and linked to his congressional site. It actually caused me more concern by what it did not say. It was not clear as to what is meant by a strong national defense and was not even addressed in the video. In fact, it raised serious concerns by this MAR notion. We cannot depend on respect from other nations. We need to respect them and act accordingly and hope they will do the same. We should not threaten other nations with our military... or, even the threat of using our military. But, we need the resources and ability to kick the holy living shit out of them if the f*ck with us militarily or otherwise attack us. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you..." and, if they don't, be ready and capable of kicking the holy living shit out of them... you may note a pattern developing in my thinking. I have shown this video to friends... they have similar concerns:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoYGAxF-zWE

He Served Ad
When it comes to concerns about National Defense, the "feel good" ad of a couple of vets getting some medals hardly does the trick. Again, I have shown this to friends and they largely had the same response... "its no different than what most congressmen have done". Frankly, I think the ad is a waste of time and might work if RP were running for a house seat. He is not, he is running for President and the issues are much bigger than a couple of medals. This ad certainly did not speak to me and seemed to miss the mark with the folks I know.. but, that is an issue for another place and time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW08qK0GhHs

Conclusion...
Ron Paul should clarify what he means by "a strong national defense" and put it in unequivocal terms. I, at least, need to know that he will keep a strong military capable of kicking the holy living shit out of anyone who f*cks with us... I am not alone in this.

[amy31416]

Conclusion...
Ron Paul should clarify what he means by "a strong national defense" and put it in unequivocal terms. I, at least, need to know that he will keep a strong military capable of kicking the holy living shit out of anyone who f*cks with us... I am not alone in this.

Agreed completely. Hell, even liberals raise this concern. If my dad were still around (big Reagan guy, Rush Limbaugh listener, hater of all things Clinton--status quo intelligent Republican), he would likely love everything about Paul's message, but still be quite concerned with the perception of Paul as a peacenik. We know he isn't against vehemently defending the country--but his rhetoric about talking to our "enemies" and trading with them, etc., wouldn't be a problem. Like every other red-blooded American--he'd want a president who'd make sure that any other country who messed with us would get their asses kicked.

So yeah, he does need to make a strong statement on this. Make it powerfully, like we know he can when he's passionate about something.

[RSLudlum]

Send your post to the campaign. They need to hear suggestions and feedback like this.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Problem is, he doesn't feel that way. He argued for eliminating the standing army in Liberty Defined, for crimeny's sake.

The point of emphasis shouldn't be to capitulate to knuckledraggers, but to make the case that our national defense is stronger for having a foreign policy of peace.

[klamath]

Great post. It is why RP cannot break out of the 10% range. He started off his campaign really badly and has me even wondering where he stands on national defence. That is pretty bad when you are talking about someone that has followed RP since the Rep convention in 76.
If RP really has argued for the elimination of a standing army then he has lost my vote. I will appreciate him for all his other issues but he would be unfit for CIC.

[sarahdeez]

He Served Ad
When it comes to concerns about National Defense, the "feel good" ad of a couple of vets getting some medals hardly does the trick. Again, I have shown this to friends and they largely had the same response... "its no different than what most congressmen have done". Frankly, I think the ad is a waste of time and might work if RP were running for a house seat. He is not, he is running for President and the issues are much bigger than a couple of medals. This ad certainly did not speak to me and seemed to miss the mark with the folks I know.. but, that is an issue for another place and time:


^^ I agree. I liked it (bc i like RP) but i'm not sure it has gained any supporters.

[sarahdeez]

I also agree with the simple fact people are scared that RP will not ensure our safety. He should say that he will, with permission of Congress, go to war if and when needed. There are lots of "evil-doers" out there. We want to feel safe... Ronald Regan safe. I think emphasizing that we can decrease military spending to Ronald Regan levels (which were exorbinant at the time) is a good point. People felt safe with Regan and I think they would buy that. He also needs to emphasize that he was FOR eliminating Bin Laden but would have personally chosen a cheaper method.

[pcosmar]

Defense? Or Militarism?
No disrespect to those that served. I was one of the first Volunteer Army and am classed as a Vietnam Era Vet.
I was not in Vietnam, but joined near the end of it.

You mentioned being shot at. Was that in US airspace? On US soil?
If Not, then you were not defending the United States. Sorry about any misconceptions that you have had all these many years.

Ron Paul does believe in Defending the US. He also believes in the 2nd Amendment and the Constitutional Militia.
He is very sticky about the Constitution. The standing army would be defunded after 2 years, under the Constitution.
The Navy would be maintained. In these modern times perhaps the Airforce as air defense over the US airspace.
But any force capable of venturing beyond our borders would likely be cut.
This Country could be well defended for a fraction of what we currently have and do.

Ron believes in Defense (as do I) but not in militarism. And certainly not in maintaining an Empire or being a "Superpower".

[John F Kennedy III]

I am 57... was in AF intelligence... got shot at in the 1970s (guess where). I have friends in many age groups... but, obviously, most are older. Many of them are vets and almost all of them are conservative or Republicans. We share many of the same beliefs and concerns. A big one is National Defense and maintaining a strong military... one of the jobs assigned to the federal government in our Constitution. I have a few liberal friends and try to speak slowly to them because of the obvious brain damage they have suffered somewhere in their lives. I vote, and so do my friends. To be blunt, I am the demographic Ron Paul needs to win over to win the Republican nomination.



I laughed at this. It's true. Though I have learned it is true on both sides of the left-right paradigm.

[John F Kennedy III]

Nevermind. Lol.

[pacelli]

People need to feel secure. People need to feel like if the country is legitimately attacked on US soil, Ron Paul has a plan for managing it.

The only thing I've heard Ron say about justified national defense is something to the effect of, "if we're attacked, we declare war, win the war, and come home".

The average voter will need to hear Ron speak clearly and confidently about his legal and constitutional plans for NATIONAL defense. He doesn't need to sound like a neocon warmonger... he just needs to talk about how he'd directly protect and defend the country if he wants more votes.

Saying that he'd bring the troops home and reverse the policy of pre-emptive attacks are indirect means of protecting the US. It would help "the message" if he elaborates on the DIRECT means of protecting the US if we are legitimately attacked.

I think 99% of supporters KNOW that Ron is strong on national defense, and we KNOW what his position is (via the Constitution), but we're in a presidential race here and I'm assuming that Ron wants more supporters.

[klamath]

Nevermind. Lol.
..

[sarahdeez]

People need to feel secure. People need to feel like if the country is legitimately attacked on US soil, Ron Paul has a plan for managing it.

The only thing I've heard Ron say about justified national defense is something to the effect of, "if we're attacked, we declare war, win the war, and come home".

The average voter will need to hear Ron speak clearly and confidently about his legal and constitutional plans for NATIONAL defense. He doesn't need to sound like a neocon warmonger... he just needs to talk about how he'd directly protect and defend the country if he wants more votes.

Saying that he'd bring the troops home and reverse the policy of pre-emptive attacks are indirect means of protecting the US. It would help "the message" if he elaborates on the DIRECT means of protecting the US if we are legitimately attacked.

I think 99% of supporters KNOW that Ron is strong on national defense, and we KNOW what his position is (via the Constitution), but we're in a presidential race here and I'm assuming that Ron wants more supporters.

Completely agree!!

And what if another country is in trouble and asks us for help... what then? Do we deny them or help them? What if there are states that cannot afford to keep up their own militia and another state is over-running them? Does the fed intervene? RP's foreign policy and military policy leave many unanswered questions for many.

I'm not saying he cannot make it work. He is infact brilliant, but I am not and I (and many voters) need to understand it if he is to have a chance of being nominated.

[Brett85]

I agree with what you wrote in your opening comment. I agree with Ron that we should bring all of our troops home from around the world, but I have concerns about where he stands on actual homeland security issues. If we brought our troops home, I would use them to secure our southern and northern borders and both of our coastlines. Some people might find that extreme, but our troops would need to have something to do if we brought them home. I would think that defending the perimeter of our country from potential invaders would be appropriate and would make our defenses much stronger. I wish Ron would say something like this, but instead it seems like he's taken a weaker position on border security lately. I wouldn't have a problem with his opposition to a fence if Ron would say how he would secure the border as an alternative to the fence. If he wants to use our military to secure the border, he should make that clear in the debates. He also needs to make it clear that he would bring our troops home to make our country more secure, but he wouldn't actually substantially reduce the size of the army or abolish it all together. He needs to make that clear to voters.

Some of the positions that he's taken on homeland security issues in the past bother me as well, such as his position that the CIA and FBI should be abolished. Both of these agencies certainly need to be reformed to be made more effective, but it would be extremely irresponsible to actually abolish these agencies. We have to have some way to gather intelligence. Also, I think that it concerns a lot of voters when Ron says that he wants to cut "militarism" around the world. That makes it sound like he actually wants to cut spending for the military. I think a better strategy would be for Ron to say that he supports cutting "foreign policy spending" but not legitimate defense spending. Legitimate defense needs to be the top priority for the federal government. Unfortunately, Ron really never seems to talk about national defense at all, and frankly it almost seems like he isn't concerned about it. All of these things concern me about Ron, but I'm still going to support him because of the fact that the other candidates are all so bad. But if somebody like Rand Paul, Mike Lee, or Jim Demint were in the race, I would probably support one of them instead. I think it's going to be really hard for Ron to gain any ground in the polls unless he responds to some of the concerns that people have about his stances on national security issues.

[Demigod]

Please write which country has even the remote capability to attack continental US?

Except for the US no other country has a decent navy.UK had until 10 years ago now they have cut their military spending in half.

Even if someone would build a navy US still has nukes.

Unless Mexico or Canada :D attack the US there is no way an enemy soldier will ever get to US soil.The ocean thing is not that easy to cross.

Currently one US carrier group has more military power than most western country`s.

The US military can be cut by 50% and the US will never be in danger of being attacked by anyone.

[TC95]

The US military can be cut by 50% and the US will never be in danger of being attacked by anyone.

Then how did this happen?

China sub stalked U.S. fleet:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/nov/13/20061113-121539-3317r/

Don't think that no one ever can or ever will. Maybe they can't now, but I'm sure they're looking for ways. Even if China can't take us out all by themselves, I bet they could find a few buds to help them out. No one is indestructible. Not even us.

Russia and China recently blocked our efforts to invade Syria. I think they're getting pretty sick of us.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-04/middleeast/world_meast_syria-unrest_1_bashar-ja-afari-president-bashar-security-council?_s=PM%3AMIDDLEEAST

If the U.S. is ever attacked, I'm sure we'll have more than just one country to contend with and we will need a strong national defense in that case. I'm sure Ron Paul would do everything in his power to fight back. He's against preemptive war, not defensive war.

[TC95]

I am 57... was in AF intelligence... got shot at in the 1970s (guess where). I have friends in many age groups... but, obviously, most are older. Many of them are vets and almost all of them are conservative or Republicans. We share many of the same beliefs and concerns. A big one is National Defense and maintaining a strong military... one of the jobs assigned to the federal government in our Constitution. I have a few liberal friends and try to speak slowly to them because of the obvious brain damage they have suffered somewhere in their lives. I vote, and so do my friends. To be blunt, I am the demographic Ron Paul needs to win over to win the Republican nomination.

While I am a supporter I have two major concerns. One is a critical concern that relates to National Defense. Foreign Policy is obviously intertwined with this issue, but I am going to attempt to address only the Nation Defense and strength of our military. The other is economic philosophy and unimportant to National Defense for the purposes of this post (or, to getting my vote). So, on to National Defense.

Here is my concern... (and of many of my conservative friends, especially the vets)
Ron Paul has never made it clear exactly what he means by "strong military". I really need to know what he means by that. I completely understand the Foreign Policy issue. Get our military out of their forward bases and bring them home. Stop bombing the shit out of everybody, just because we can. Stop "defending" our allies and let them pay for their own defenses.

I really need to hear something very clear from RP on this subject. Here is a suggestion of what would alleviate my concerns. No, I am not trying to put words in RPs mouth (good luck with that)... but, here is an example that I think would also win votes:

Want to jump to 20 something percent in the polls... say something like this:
"I want to quickly address the concerns some have raised about my foreign policy and the strength of a US military once they are based here at home. We have made mistakes in the past by reducing our forces too quickly. We have made mistakes by slashing military spending and leaving our forces at a disadvantage and in a poor position to protect the United States. Let me be very clear that I would insist on keeping a strong military in these dangerous times. A military capable of kicking the holy living shit out of anyone or any nation stupid enough to attack us."

Obviously, some wording changes might be in order. He could then continue with how foreign policy and foreign wars are a major part of what has caused our economic crisis (if time allows). Talk about the benefit of having our troops home and spending the money we pay them... and for supporting foreign bases... spent here in the US. All the standard yadda³ stuff. He could even go into how our military support and spending has kept socialism alive in Europe for over 50 years (probably TMI). Last time I looked, we were spending more on our military than the next 11 nations combined... that's too damn much. But, we need to reduce this number slowly both in the interest of National Defense and the economy. If he were to make it clear we could maintain a strong military (capable of the above mini-rant) I believe it would assuage concerns of many conservative voters and gain RP several points in the polls.

On a side note, I would suggest refraining from using terms like "withdraw"... these terms engender concerns about becoming an isolationist nation and leave a mental impression of "retreating" (a term and thought pattern distasteful to many). Instead, use terms and phrases that change the premise of the debate... talk about us NOT spending our money for their defense. Let foreign nations pay for their own defenses and stop building their own nations on the backs of the American taxpayer... or, taking their vacations at the expense of American workers. The truth is that most nations would be better off if we were not so paranoid of one another. Military spending worldwide could be reduced, freeing up resources for other uses. But, we are not near that point in human development just quite yet. We still need a very capable military and will for quite some time (we have also pissed off a lot of people and it will take time for them to calm down a bit).

MAD vs MAR
A video was posted and linked to his congressional site. It actually caused me more concern by what it did not say. It was not clear as to what is meant by a strong national defense and was not even addressed in the video. In fact, it raised serious concerns by this MAR notion. We cannot depend on respect from other nations. We need to respect them and act accordingly and hope they will do the same. We should not threaten other nations with our military... or, even the threat of using our military. But, we need the resources and ability to kick the holy living shit out of them if the f*ck with us militarily or otherwise attack us. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you..." and, if they don't, be ready and capable of kicking the holy living shit out of them... you may note a pattern developing in my thinking. I have shown this video to friends... they have similar concerns:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoYGAxF-zWE

He Served Ad
When it comes to concerns about National Defense, the "feel good" ad of a couple of vets getting some medals hardly does the trick. Again, I have shown this to friends and they largely had the same response... "its no different than what most congressmen have done". Frankly, I think the ad is a waste of time and might work if RP were running for a house seat. He is not, he is running for President and the issues are much bigger than a couple of medals. This ad certainly did not speak to me and seemed to miss the mark with the folks I know.. but, that is an issue for another place and time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW08qK0GhHs

Conclusion...
Ron Paul should clarify what he means by "a strong national defense" and put it in unequivocal terms. I, at least, need to know that he will keep a strong military capable of kicking the holy living shit out of anyone who f*cks with us... I am not alone in this.

Does this ad make you feel any better? It's not exactly in depth, but he does say that we can start protecting America by securing our own borders and rebuilding our own defenses. Securing our borders would imply kicking the crud out of anyone who tried to penetrate them. Why secure a border if you're just going to wave and smile at people as they cross them?

http://www.youtube.com/user/ronpaul#p/u/6/QhmF7sNlraU

[Tarzan]

Does this ad make you feel any better? It's not exactly in depth, but he does say that we can start protecting America by securing our own borders and rebuilding our own defenses. Securing our borders would imply kicking the crud out of anyone who tried to penetrate them. Why secure a border if you're just going to wave and smile at people as they cross them?

http://www.youtube.com/user/ronpaul#p/u/6/QhmF7sNlraU

Its a pretty good ad and may help get some votes. But we have a number of RP supporters who believe he would eliminate a standing army. Then, there is the actual strength question. I, and others I know who are concerned about national defense, are seriously concerned about at what levels the military would be maintained. We have been screwing with people for a very long time. They are gonna be pissed for a very long time. We cannot afford to make the mistakes we have made in the past and weaken our military to a point that invites attack.

And... and this is the really big part... there are a LOT of voters out there whom I believe would support RP if they believed he would not put us in a precarious positions as to military strength. Unfortunately, the new ad still does not address the issue. It talks about saving $1.5t... some (more than a few) will hear this and think it means gutting our national defense. Whether that is true or not... it is the perception of a large number of Republican voters because RP has not made it clear. I believe it will strongly affect their vote and any chance we have of winning this thing.

[tfurrh]

I always ask, would you rather face an attack on America, with:
a) our troops spread around the globe in 150 countries, a weak currency, and an unsettling economy
or
b) our troops here ready to go, a strong currency, and a confident economy

Then I ask them if they've ever heard of Valley Forge.

I've never had the argument go past that.

[Butchie]

I agree with what you wrote in your opening comment. I agree with Ron that we should bring all of our troops home from around the world, but I have concerns about where he stands on actual homeland security issues. If we brought our troops home, I would use them to secure our southern and northern borders and both of our coastlines. Some people might find that extreme, but our troops would need to have something to do if we brought them home. I would think that defending the perimeter of our country from potential invaders would be appropriate and would make our defenses much stronger. I wish Ron would say something like this, but instead it seems like he's taken a weaker position on border security lately. I wouldn't have a problem with his opposition to a fence if Ron would say how he would secure the border as an alternative to the fence. If he wants to use our military to secure the border, he should make that clear in the debates. He also needs to make it clear that he would bring our troops home to make our country more secure, but he wouldn't actually substantially reduce the size of the army or abolish it all together. He needs to make that clear to voters.

Some of the positions that he's taken on homeland security issues in the past bother me as well, such as his position that the CIA and FBI should be abolished. Both of these agencies certainly need to be reformed to be made more effective, but it would be extremely irresponsible to actually abolish these agencies. We have to have some way to gather intelligence. Also, I think that it concerns a lot of voters when Ron says that he wants to cut "militarism" around the world. That makes it sound like he actually wants to cut spending for the military. I think a better strategy would be for Ron to say that he supports cutting "foreign policy spending" but not legitimate defense spending. Legitimate defense needs to be the top priority for the federal government. Unfortunately, Ron really never seems to talk about national defense at all, and frankly it almost seems like he isn't concerned about it. All of these things concern me about Ron, but I'm still going to support him because of the fact that the other candidates are all so bad. But if somebody like Rand Paul, Mike Lee, or Jim Demint were in the race, I would probably support one of them instead. I think it's going to be really hard for Ron to gain any ground in the polls unless he responds to some of the concerns that people have about his stances on national security issues.

I agree with you and think this sums up a big problem with Ron's campaign in general because he seems to constantly assume everyone is going to go out and do a ton of research on these subjects and then be able to "understand" what he means and the reality is that's not going to happen, he needs to stop trying to give these in depth lectures when he only has 60sec or less and speak in terms people can understand, I'd bring up points like how has losing 8,000 soldiers and wasting trillions of dollars on foreign nations made us stronger? Why are we defending other countries while our own Southern Border is so wide open you could march a whole Army of terrorists through it, these are things people will understand, especially conservatives.

[TC95]

In this video, Ron Paul says there's a difference between military spending and defense spending. He's not against defending our own country, but we can't effectively do that if our troops are spread all over the world. If they're over there somewhere, they're not HERE defending us. I do think he could have communicated that a little better and I hope he does in the very near future.

Message to Ron Paul: Next debate, please tell the people that if we are attacked, you will bomb the perpetrators to kingdom come. That's what people want to hear. I know you've tried to communicate that you are willing to defend us, but the brainwashed masses are just not getting it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMAzQ5YB304

[itsnobody]

In this video, Ron Paul says there's a difference between military spending and defense spending. He's not against defending our own country, but we can't effectively do that if our troops are spread all over the world. If they're over there somewhere, they're not HERE defending us. I do think he could have communicated that a little better and I hope he does in the very near future.

Message to Ron Paul: Next debate, please tell the people that if we are attacked, you will bomb the perpetrators to kingdom come. That's what people want to hear. I know you've tried to communicate that you are willing to defend us, but the brainwashed masses are just not getting it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMAzQ5YB304

I agree with this. We need to make Ron Paul appear extremely strong on national defense.

[pacelli]

I agree with this. We need to make Ron Paul appear extremely strong on national defense.

Slight point of clarification: Ron Paul IS strong on national defense-- he always has been strong on national defense. He just needs to spell it out for people!! :)

[Muttley]

In this video, Ron Paul says there's a difference between military spending and defense spending. He's not against defending our own country, but we can't effectively do that if our troops are spread all over the world. If they're over there somewhere, they're not HERE defending us. I do think he could have communicated that a little better and I hope he does in the very near future.

Message to Ron Paul: Next debate, please tell the people that if we are attacked, you will bomb the perpetrators to kingdom come. That's what people want to hear. I know you've tried to communicate that you are willing to defend us, but the brainwashed masses are just not getting it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMAzQ5YB304

This!

[raystone]

I agree with the OP

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?303766-Dr.-Paul-will-win-the-primary-when-Republican-voters-know-he-will-WAGE-WAR...

[trey4sports]

Declare war on Iran, then you will definitely get elected!

[raystone]

While GOP primary voters like the latest $1 Trillion in cuts, including blasting entire agencies, most cannot get past their current perceptions of Congressman's Paul's current foreign policy. The campaign must do something to change that to win.

Here is are comments from a cross section of GOP voters in Wisconsin. (Article was posted on conservative talk show host page)

#
Vicki McKenna i must say, and i'm no paulite, but the WSJ did a pretty weak job explaining some of this. it isn't like paul hasn't laid this out before, and in some fairly striking detail. the 10% workforce reduction comes straight out of the coburn task force report, and is something that's been 'out there' for a couple of YEARS. his support of SS and medicare reform isn't hard to find. i was only disappointed he didn't put my "favorite" agency on the list, the EPA. then again, he's the only one who HAS called for the elimination of whole agencies so far.

#
David Pradarelli Well I agree with him on that, but instead of the cabinet, I agree with totally eliminating the czars.

#
Dennis Cooke But you will never get this because you look down on Ron Paul. So you will be stuck with the dame old shit no matter which candidate the sock puppet media picks.

#
Gabriel Ditty The only politician ideologically pure and tough as nails enough to get this done is Ron Paul. Look at his voting record. They call him Dr No for a reason.

#
Angela Dessner Rogerson Maybe he isn't so bad after all?!

#
Mike Hof Eliminate all the freakin' Czars. All BHO's friends who need a job get a Czar position at likely more than 6 figures - and limit Antionette's staff to three or less.

#
Dennis Cooke He was never bad to begin with. Try listening to him instead of what his haters have to day about him. The candidate that scares the establishment most is the candidate we should be voting for.

#
Santo Ingrilli This is the Ron Paul I respect, admire, and love. Now if he could stay on this message and relax some of his extreme Libertarian philosophies I would be on board.

#
Ana Ceron De Haas I love this man!!

#
Kenneth Clipner Exactly Santo. While Congress is voting on this proposal, Paul would be in the gold reserves counting gold bars.

#
Santo Ingrilli I actually do have libertarian leanings as well but his national security position is too reckless in the world we live in today.

#
Russell Larson Ron Paul would make a good Vice President......A attack dog waiting to be unleased........is a great insurance policy.....

#
Bryan Fischer having good fiscal policy is worth nothing if Iran nukes us....but, ya know, Iran is no threat...those are the warmongers talking......righhhhhhht

#
Richard Rivette No head of snakes, no ridiculous regulations. No regulations better for average Americans. We don't need to be told how to do everything. Get out of our way. I don't want Paul as a first choice but will vote for anyone willing to ax the Federal workforce. This nation supports 28 million government workers. It takes 12 to 20 private sector workers to fund through taxation the salaries, benefits etc of these govt workers. DO THE MATH PEOPLE. We have more govt workers than we can ever support, ever. It would take bare minimum of 336 million taxpayers to support the income of the bureaucrats. We don't have half that now. So where do you cut? Redundant departments. Every state has a board of education and took better care of students PRIOR to the 1970s when Federal unfunded mandates started being handed down from on high. Eliminate that department and watch education budgets stabilize.

#
Patrick Clifton Many of his internal administrative ideas are worth considering...but his National Defense position is unrealistic at best....He would be a fantastic Leader of a Sunrise Commission with unlimited scope....

#
Dick Fleissner I do not agree with everything said by Ron Paul. However, I agree that massive cuts in government spending are not optional. Massive cuts must occur. This may mean elimination of entire departments and agencies.

#
Michael Berg This guy is not crazy. He's worth listening to even on foreign policy.

[Muttley]

This!

X100000. Dr. Paul, you must address this perception of a weak foreign policy. Us supporters have heard you say that you want a strong national defense and to scale down the militarism, but most people are not understanding that. We have to tell them the difference and that we will blow anyone out of the water if we are attacked!

[Defiant]

I'm a U.S. Army Viet Nam era vet, and I believe in an extremely strong defense. What I don't accept are the incursions into the operations of other governments, the installation of puppet regimes, or the spending of US taxpayer dollars to prop them up; any more than I would accept any other country getting involved in our government affairs.

The reason Eisenhower warned about the military/industrial complex was an attempt to avoid exactly the situation we have now where the defense industry reaps enormous profit from the sales of the armaments needed for continuous wars. Of course the military leaders love the wars and playing with all the new toys. They make rank much faster in war time than otherwise, and have the opportunity to make names for themselves and get into the history books. Sadly, this all comes at the cost of the lives of our young men and women, and the tremendous burden to us taxpayers.

What we should be concerned with is defending our shores, skies, and borders. The idea of a standing army was anathema to the founding fathers. What we need to do is to build up the National Guard, the Air National Guard, and the coast guard to the point where they, along with an armed populace, would be capable of decisively kicking the shit out of anyone idiotic enough to attempt an invasion of the U.S. ICBM's should be all the deterent needed to keep any more distant threats at bay. Avoid foreign entanglements and treaties, let foreign governments provide for their own defense, and let us return to the constitution, the ideals of the founders, and lead by example. Liberty and prosperity make the best case for democracy, and if we actually practice what we preach, we will once again become the shining beacon of freedom for all of mankind.

[clint4liberty]

We can defend and advance the cause of Dr. Ron Paul GOP Nomination doing four items in his opening statement: One, use the line from the Fox Special Report on bringing the troops home to stimulate the American economy. National defense is written in the US Constitution, so advocating for a military personnel stimulus is a great idea. Two, address GOP female voters on education, health care, and national defense/security. Three, put out a strong energy independence policy. Four, Hit Romney and Obama hard on the economy and tax policy.

[lib3rtarian]

The other day I was debating with a self-professed tea partier and he said this about Paul - "I don't like the idea of how he is trying to weaken our military", and unfortunately this is the general perception out there. Paul needs to come across stronger on this.

[Paulatized]

This REALLY is a pivotal issue. If his position on this issue could be driven home constantly and consistently to reassure the public that he would protect this nation, I think it would go a long way toward breaking the current poll barrier. People have an innate need to feel secure and Ron has not presented his position on national defense in a way that puts this matter to rest. This needs serious attention.

[amy31416]

//

[LibertyEagle]

Another bump.

[klamath]

When RP says he is pulling troops out of europe he should just say, "Europe can pay for their own defence. We have subsidized their socialism far too long by paying their defence bill and allowed the progressives to throw europen socialism in our face as the way to go for years." This is a very selling stand with republicans because they have heard this line for decades from the left.

[ShaneEnochs]

Off topic, but LibertyEagle, what was John McCain saying that had RP shaking his head like that? That's freaking hilarious.

[coffeewithchess]

Off topic, but LibertyEagle, what was John McCain saying that had RP shaking his head like that? That's freaking hilarious.
I think McCain was saying something along the lines that Ron's "isolationism" is what led to WWII, not positive though...

As for this thread, I agree that RP needs to have a full week of honing his message on national defense. He has got to get a better vocabulary on the topics in general, and this one seems to be his Achilles' heel to most "conservatives". "We like him on everything...EXCEPT national defense."
He really needs to get this straight, and stop answering with the "Who's going to attack us?" type answers, those do him no good at this point. He needs to respond with, "IF we are attacked, I will defend this nation, and our troops and equipment will be ready to respond immediately under my watch."

The arguing he does over Iran, and getting loud saying, "They can't attack us, they can't even produce enough gasoline for themselves.", does not matter to the audience he is speaking to. The audience he is speaking to wants to hear, "We will DESTROY them!" type of national defense.

1) "IF we are attacked, I will defend this nation immediately, and our troops and our military equipment will be ready to respond immediately under my watch."
2) "If Congress sees a country like Iran as a legitimate threat, and Congress sends me a declaration of War, I will make sure the threat is dealt with quickly."

On 9/11 and "blaming America", he really should stop with the history lesson already, as the audience seems to just simply not understand it at this point(blame the audience, I know).
1) "I DO NOT blame the American people for the horrific events that occurred on 9/11. My heart breaks with the people that lost loved ones that day, and I voted for Osama Bin Laden to be hunted down. The American people are not to be blamed for the events of 9/11 and the fact that you(whoever asks him) would insinuate I have said that is not only insulting to me, but it must be extremely insulting to the American people to hear this again. Blaming bad policies like Obamacare, No Child Left Behind, foreign welfare, nation building, and the Bailouts on the American people, is simply Congress and the White House trying to pass the blame for their repeated mistakes...which is why Congress' approval rating is below 10%."

[coffeewithchess]

Is that a bump? Why yes it is!

[pacelli]

Off topic, but LibertyEagle, what was John McCain saying that had RP shaking his head like that? That's freaking hilarious.

He mentioned how Ron's type of "isolationism" led to Hitler's rise to power in WWII. Ron gave him the look and shook his head as soon as MCSTAIN said the name "Hitler". Like... oh no you didn't.

Bumping this thread.... the campaign's Veteran ad is good but Ron needs to come out with a highly specific plan for national defense, in the same way he came out with a highly specific plan for the economy. People need to see FIRST YEAR changes.

I know, you know, we know, that Ron's foreign policy & economic policy are intertwined. The issue is that when he is asked about national defense, he starts talking about foreign policy or the economy, and then he goes into talking about cutting "militarism".

It looks like a dodge, which makes him appear weak on national defense to someone who has an average attention span.

[donnay]

Defense? Or Militarism?
No disrespect to those that served. I was one of the first Volunteer Army and am classed as a Vietnam Era Vet.
I was not in Vietnam, but joined near the end of it.

You mentioned being shot at. Was that in US airspace? On US soil?
If Not, then you were not defending the United States. Sorry about any misconceptions that you have had all these many years.

Ron Paul does believe in Defending the US. He also believes in the 2nd Amendment and the Constitutional Militia.
He is very sticky about the Constitution. The standing army would be defunded after 2 years, under the Constitution.
The Navy would be maintained. In these modern times perhaps the Airforce as air defense over the US airspace.
But any force capable of venturing beyond our borders would likely be cut.
This Country could be well defended for a fraction of what we currently have and do.

Ron believes in Defense (as do I) but not in militarism. And certainly not in maintaining an Empire or being a "Superpower".


Well said! +rep

[pacelli]

bump

[klamath]

bump
Unfortunately too few of us realize this is THE make or break issue.

[georgiaboy]

I'm a U.S. Army Viet Nam era vet, and I believe in an extremely strong defense. What I don't accept are the incursions into the operations of other governments, the installation of puppet regimes, or the spending of US taxpayer dollars to prop them up; any more than I would accept any other country getting involved in our government affairs.

The reason Eisenhower warned about the military/industrial complex was an attempt to avoid exactly the situation we have now where the defense industry reaps enormous profit from the sales of the armaments needed for continuous wars. Of course the military leaders love the wars and playing with all the new toys. They make rank much faster in war time than otherwise, and have the opportunity to make names for themselves and get into the history books. Sadly, this all comes at the cost of the lives of our young men and women, and the tremendous burden to us taxpayers.

What we should be concerned with is defending our shores, skies, and borders. The idea of a standing army was anathema to the founding fathers. What we need to do is to build up the National Guard, the Air National Guard, and the coast guard to the point where they, along with an armed populace, would be capable of decisively kicking the shit out of anyone idiotic enough to attempt an invasion of the U.S. ICBM's should be all the deterent needed to keep any more distant threats at bay. Avoid foreign entanglements and treaties, let foreign governments provide for their own defense, and let us return to the constitution, the ideals of the founders, and lead by example. Liberty and prosperity make the best case for democracy, and if we actually practice what we preach, we will once again become the shining beacon of freedom for all of mankind.

great post, welcome to the forums. I agree, and having never served, if something like this were enacted, I'd be signing up for guard duty right away, along with bazillions of fellow patriots.

[pacelli]

Unfortunately too few of us realize this is THE make or break issue.

No kidding. Especially the campaign, which is probably the most important entity to realize that this is THE make or break issue.

Its not like we're fucking around this time. We all know this is Ron's last run for president. So why not make the National Defense issue crystal clear??

[klamath]

No kidding. Especially the campaign, which is probably the most important entity to realize that this is THE make or break issue.

Its not like we're fucking around this time. We all know this is Ron's last run for president. So why not make the National Defense issue crystal clear??
Yeaw you see Cain being questioned on his management skill all over the place and it is a big issue. RP has to put together a expert defense team to show he HAS the management skills to change 70 years of accepted defense posture. The clock on Iowa is clicking down and the foreign policy debates clocks are really ticking. It is sad and frusterating to watch RP's last chance drift away and have to face those that always sneered "RP will never be president!"

[pcosmar]

No kidding. Especially the campaign, which is probably the most important entity to realize that this is THE make or break issue.

Its not like we're fucking around this time. We all know this is Ron's last run for president. So why not make the National Defense issue crystal clear??

Well Ron has been attempting to explain it. Sadly, few seem to understand that difference between defense and offense.
Or that massive spending on military hardware does NOT equal Defense.

The Military Industrial Complex does all it can to skew the issue and the perception.

[AJ187]

We need to start researching the frivolous spending in the DoD and military contracts that lead to vaporware. Show the American people that the military is not above buying 5,000 dollars toilets and hammers. Then frame the question, is really so bad to cut MILITARY spending?

[clint4liberty]

Clearly our candidate is not listening to us on foreign policy, national defense, or security. We continually see him answer questions too dovish on Iran, the middle east, and beyond. I understand that he is not an isolationists, but if I see him as talking weak foreign policy for far too long. Dr. Paul is not going to cut the military or its weapons systems, but move the troops from foreign nations where we are no longer needed back to the US mainland and Puerto Rico, and American Somoa etc., I am going to try writing, e-mailing and calling the presidential campaign and I hope others activists do the same.

[coffeewithchess]

Clearly our candidate is not listening to us on foreign policy, national defense, or security. We continually see him answer questions too dovish on Iran, the middle east, and beyond. I understand that he is not an isolationists, but if I see him as talking weak foreign policy for far too long. Dr. Paul is not going to cut the military or its weapons systems, but move the troops from foreign nations where we are no longer needed back to the US mainland and Puerto Rico, and American Somoa etc., I am going to try writing, e-mailing and calling the presidential campaign and I hope others activists do the same.

CAMPAIGN!!!! Dear goodness you are terrible at helping Dr. Paul on this issue! When Chris Wallace straight up to Dr. Paul's face, and Sean Hannity does the same, tells Dr. Paul the only area "most" conservatives don't agree with him on is foreign policy, is it really that difficult to GET THIS STRAIGHTENED OUT!? He has had two recent opportunities to explain his views on NATIONAL DEFENSE. He has got to get the message out that he is not a PACIFIST, as he seems to be appearing to a lot of people. Him saying "I will defend this nation against any enemy, foreign or domestic." and stop excusing Iran for if they do/don't have a nuclear bomb. We understand where Dr. Paul is coming from, but we are only a small percentage, and HE MUST get his message on foreign policy/national defense in soundbytes!

[klamath]

CAMPAIGN!!!! Dear goodness you are terrible at helping Dr. Paul on this issue! When Chris Wallace straight up to Dr. Paul's face, and Sean Hannity does the same, tells Dr. Paul the only area "most" conservatives don't agree with him on is foreign policy, is it really that difficult to GET THIS STRAIGHTENED OUT!? He has had two recent opportunities to explain his views on NATIONAL DEFENSE. He has got to get the message out that he is not a PACIFIST, as he seems to be appearing to a lot of people. Him saying "I will defend this nation against any enemy, foreign or domestic." and stop excusing Iran for if they do/don't have a nuclear bomb. We understand where Dr. Paul is coming from, but we are only a small percentage, and HE MUST get his message on foreign policy/national defense in soundbytes!
I have been searching for ways to get RP's defense policy across better and I realized another misinterpeted phase. "Trade and be friends with everyone" Honestly you can't be friends with everyone. Some people/countries are not going to be our friends but we need to respect their right to exist if they aren't bothering us. I do NOT want our country to be friends with a Pol Pot run Cambodia. I do not want to be friends with adolf Hitler run Germany. Everybody on these forums are not friends but we learn to respect each others right to be here. Another thing is sanctions are not "acts of war" anymore that a boycott of a companies product should not give that company the right to start killing boycotters. A blockade is an act of war, sanctions are not.

[cajuncocoa]

This is a great thread, and I hope the campaign will take the suggestions.

[tod evans]

Maybe pointing out that there's a big difference between national "defence" and national "offence" would get the point across?

[JackieDan]

The campaign needs to read this, and even Ron Paul.

[Feeding the Abscess]

No thanks, I prefer Ron to not be a hawk or aggressive in foreign policy. There is no reason to scare other countries or intimidate them; befriend them, trade with them.

This should be stressed at all times; realistically, since none of the candidates running for president are currently making policy, their stated positions are what they desire or hope to achieve while in office. With this understanding, why would anyone in their right mind take an aggressive stance against a country as their first position?

[acptulsa]

Well Ron has been attempting to explain it. Sadly, few seem to understand that difference between defense and offense.
Or that massive spending on military hardware does NOT equal Defense.

The Military Industrial Complex does all it can to skew the issue and the perception.

This. And I take the fact that the subject is even coming up as a good sign--it means that rank-and-file Republicans are finally getting tired of all of these candidates who can't win and trying to figure out how they can like the man who can win. Thank God.

Look, the MIC has had it ridiculously easy, and Ron Paul won't continue to be easy on them. He won't appropriate billions for offense, and he has made that clear. He also won't turn a blind eye to earmark spending on all kinds of defective and useless crap that the military gets because some influential Representative has that particular factory in his or her district, or let the military go off on tangents like the Osprey which wasn't completely necessary and went massively over schedule and budget. Hell, he might even address the oddities, like the Army can't have helicopters, and that leads the Marines to take on projects like the Osprey so they can be different from the Army. These foibles don't do a damned thing to keep us safer in our beds at night.

So, no matter how you slice it, it has got to be a nuanced stance. But he has said over and over and over again that the Constitution requires the fedgov to provide for the common defense, and if elected president he will provide for the common defense. Just like that. Just like that. It's in the Constitution, and he'll do it.

[klamath]

This. And I take the fact that the subject is even coming up as a good sign--it means that rank-and-file Republicans are finally getting tired of all of these candidates who can't win and trying to figure out how they can like the man who can win. Thank God.

Look, the MIC has had it ridiculously easy, and Ron Paul won't continue to be easy on them. He won't appropriate billions for offense, and he has made that clear. He also won't turn a blind eye to earmark spending on all kinds of defective and useless crap that the military gets because some influential Representative has that particular factory in his or her district, or let the military go off on tangents like the Osprey which wasn't completely necessary and went massively over schedule and budget. Hell, he might even address the oddities, like the Army can't have helicopters, and that leads the Marines to take on projects like the Osprey so they can be different from the Army. These foibles don't do a damned thing to keep us safer in our beds at night.

So, no matter how you slice it, it has got to be a nuanced stance. But he has said over and over and over again that the Constitution requires the fedgov to provide for the common defense, and if elected president he will provide for the common defense. Just like that. Just like that. It's in the Constitution, and he'll do it.
And what exactly do you mean by that? I hope that was a misstype because it shows extreme ignorance of the army's arsenal.

[klamath]

bump for the upcoming foreign policy debate.

[Simple]

The common argument in the debates is Reagan's Peace through Strength. Are we stronger if our resources are spread around the world? Were the people in Vermont safer when their lands flooded and their National Guard helicopters were deployed to Iraq? Where is our strength if our economy collapses? Iran is sending their Navy to our coast lines, are we really safer with our armed forces deployed around the world? If we want to have a stronger defense, we just need to spend our defense dollars on actually defending America instead of loosely defined American interests.

The Ron Paul foreign policy is a policy that puts Americans first by defining our primary American interest to be America. Instead of putting our enlisted men and women in harms way,Ron Paul wants to use the Constitutional legal framework called letters of marque and reprisal to pay bounty hunters. We offered 25 million for information about Bin Laden, but if we had used a letter of marque and reprisal for that money we could have gotten the job done with no invasion and no American loss of life.

Nobody knows Ron Paul wants to unleash John Rambo. This could win the defense argument. Defense is for for America, send Rambo after the Somali pirates. Talk about a job stimulus bill Americans can support =)

Nice write up:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21245.html