View Full Version : Process of Elimination: Foreign Policy

11-25-2011, 07:40 PM
When faced with a difficult multiple choice question, it is always best to know the right answer straight away. Unfortunately, this is usually not the case. To systematically figure out the right answer, we use a proven tool: the process of elimination.

The 2012 Republican primary race is a difficult and confusing multiple choice question for most conservatives. Helping others use the process of elimination may be the most effective tool to persuade people to arrive at the best answer.

This election is coming down to two things: the economy and foreign policy (war). This blog will focus on the foreign policy issue because most conservatives quickly doubt Dr. Paul as the answer. However, Republican votes also seem to demonstrate uncertainty on the topic in general. Consequently, the process of elimination provides a handy, persuasive tool.

Initially, the focus must be shifted away from Paul and to the candidate the person favors in general. Only when they begin to doubt the success of their current answer, will they more closely examine the others. Let the elimination begin.

A. Herman Cain: Cain admits he does not know much of anything about foreign policy. This truth was exposed by his inability to recall what Obama did in Libya. His answer that he simply will defer to his experts is NOT good enough. Why? Because one of the primary jobs of the President of the United States is foreign policy. It is the President’s job to know. The President is responsible for representing our on the international stage. The 999 plan and other issues are mostly red-herrings because the President has no Constitutional authority to implement these laws—that is the job of Congress. In short, Cain admits he is ignorant about the very role he is Constitutionally-entrusted to perform.

B. Mitt Romney: Romney wants more militarism. For example, he wants to increase our Navy ship building rate from 9 to 15 ships per year—despite the fact we already have the most powerful navy. Romney strongly suggests he wants to go to war with Iran given his plan, expressed on his website, to “order an aircraft carrier fleet in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region simultaneously.” Romney does not understand the difference between defense and militarism. The 9/11 commission, the Department of Defense, and our own CIA concluded that our presence throughout the world directly influences and creates the hatred and hostility directed at our country. Romney does not even clearly believe we need the Congress to declare war to go to war. A vote for Romney is a vote for war.

C. Newt Gingrich: Gingrich supports the Patriot Act. He believes we must sacrifice our liberties for supposed security. Gingrich would have supported military action in Libya—which was unconstitutional and has led to an even more unstable and unpredictable country. Gingrich supports war in Iran despite objective evidence suggesting Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, is a relatively weak military presence, and would further deplete the brittle US economy.

D. Other Candidates: Bachmann also supported the Patriot Act. Santorum strongly wants to get the US involved in another war with Iran. Perry is pretty uncertain on what he believes our foreign policy should be except supporting a “no fly zone” over Syria—a clear precursor to war.

After exposing potential voters to the doubtful—and often unconstitutional—choices above, we arrive again at a distinctly different answer on foreign policy:

P. Ron Paul: ....

Continue reading at www.RonForRevolution.com/blog.py