Foreign policy: What should Ron say?

[ZanZibar]

What should Ron say to win over conservative Republicans on foreign policy?

Toss out your ideas here...

[falconplayer11]

We need a strong national defense. We need to ensure that bureaucrats in DC do not try and undermine this pillar of conservatism and a free society. We need to resist liberal demands to spend more and more money on foreign wars, military bases, and useless military-contracting projects. We need to modernize and streamline our military to meet the demands of modern-day warfare. Cutting down on waste, over-reach, and unproductive foreign entanglements.

[djruden]

The national debt chart is powerful to look at. Remind people that all the wars in the middle east are UNpayed for. Future generations will have to pay for these wars because we are funding them with debt. The only way we can keep social security and medicare as working programs is ending the war to ensure the govt has money in the future. The debt is the biggest burden we have to deal with. Seems people so quickly forget about our debt downgrade. That's a HUGE deal that's just overlooked now and we will probably be downgraded again.

[Travlyr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=ur4hKqTikqM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=ur4hKqTikqM

[hazek]

He should say this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATmUE8TCmjE

And then follow up with this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTB0GF5zk6k

(originally it happened in the opposite order)

[agorist ninja]

With as much clarity and assertiveness as possible, the good doctor should say what he always says. Nothing wrong with the message.

[Emerick]

Something the PPP polling has given us:
"Q15) Which ... is most important to you when deciding how to vote:
Jobs/Economy: 27%
Gov. Spending, reducing the debt: 43%
Taxes: 4%
Foreign Policy/National security: 3%"

Let's face it. For us, Ron's foreign policy is great. But it's his most controversial policy. On the other hand, his greatest asset is his economic ideas. He's predicted the crisis, has explained it way before it happened etc. He's the only one who seriously adressed the spending and debt problems.

Therefore, his top game is precisely where people think are the most important issues. So, he shouldn't focus much on foreign policy. Instead, he should be explaining his economic views all the time. I think he has already said too much about foreign policy.

We must focus on our best things. And, coincidently, they're the most important thing for voters. Draw attention to where you're a definitelly great, no to where you are controversial...

[PastaRocket848]

he needs to make the point that our current foreign policy is nothing more than international welfarism. stress the ability of these nations to take care of themselves. remind people that it's not 1949 and we don't own 50% of the world's productive capacity anymore. present our current policy as obsolete.

you could also bring up the fact that this entirely idea of "american exceptionalism" and "making the world safe for democracy" is Wilsonian Progressivism at it's best. face it: being the world's policeman is a very, very liberal position. conservatives should know that. ask people what exactly is conservative about supporting the welfare states of Europe through subsidized defense.

i still think ron needs to drop the bomb that money that goes to Israel, is money that goes towards funding abortion.

i think it would be wise to lay off of anything which could be construed as "blaming america". he should be sure to never say "we have", only saying "our post ww2 progressive foreign policy has....".

and he needs to take a hard line against anyone who actually wishes to attack us. he needs to make clear that he will not fight half-assed politicized wars. drive home the point that in a Ron Paul administration, if we're attacked, the attacker is getting wiped off the face of the earth as fast as Congress can declare war. make clear the difference between imperialist nation-building and war fighting. he should use terms like "nothing is off the table" and "use the full force of the united states military", things like that, while qualifying it by saying that he will only go to war under a declaration, and only when necessary.

there's much more.. but i'm sure others will cover all the bases.

[jmdrake]

Two words. "We're broke".

Here's the extended version.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=351761

[Slutter McGee]

This is very simple. We can't afford it right now. We can't afford it right now. We can't afford it right now.

We can't convince them they are wrong and we are right about the morality. "We can't afford it" is the only hope we have in the few months alloted.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[bluesc]

Use his Panama Canal answer more often. When asked about Iran, don't say "they aren't a threat", say "I would look at the intelligence, if they pose a threat to national security, I would go to Congress, request a declaration of war, determine the targets, go in, eliminate the threat, and get it over with. No nation building", etc. Mention the things he does support.. Missile shield? Nuclear subs?

Right now, a lot of people think he doesn't want a military at all. I heard he supported the Star Wars program. That would be good to mention too.

[vechorik]

EVERYONE (both sides) knows Ron Paul's foreign policy (or the bad version of it).

Americans want SAFETY and are all asking "What will he do?" and saying "He won't do anything"

Like the "big dog" ad -- Ron Paul needs to sound like a leader who will KEEP AMERICANS SAFE.

SAFETY -- push it!

[PastaRocket848]

the only people republicans hate more than muslims are progressives. you have to drive home the point that our foreign policy is very, very liberal/progressive. it may even be wise to draw attention to the history of the neoconservative movement, and the fact that they're all disaffected Democrats.

basically i think the best way to convince them to "switch sides" is to make them understand that they're on the side of the liberals to begin with.

[AuH20]

"I'm a man of peace and a non-interventionist, but if a legitimate threat arises, I will not hesitate to annihilate the enemy."

[brushfire]

Ron Paul should say that he's coming in to restore the intended function of POTUS. If people want to slaughter brown people, they can call their congress critters and beg for carnage. Ron Paul will simply re-impose the constitution on the office of President.

[Indiana4Paul]

This is very simple. We can't afford it right now. We can't afford it right now. We can't afford it right now.

We can't convince them they are wrong and we are right about the morality. "We can't afford it" is the only hope we have in the few months alloted.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

We're broke doesn't work for the eloctorate. I think they hear "we're broke" and think Paul is suggesting "we're weak".

He needs to address this in a positive format.

The Neocons have painted Paul with the same brush they've been painting Democrats with for a long time. "He's weak on Foreign Polocy". He needs to address this to make further progress with voters.

[tfurrh]

When people say that their hangup is fp. I reply something like...."That's the easy part"....I always include "easy"

Something like this:
Oh thats the easy part. All of our founders, and an overwhelming majority of the presidents in history would agree with Ron Paul. When George Bush ran in 2000 he said the exact same thing RP is saying...AND WON. I can still maintain my foreign policy views and be just as conservative as the next guy.

When Israel comes up:
Oh that ole Isreal spin? Are they still pushing that? That's easy too. We give $3 billion to Isreal, and +$20 billion to her enemies. If we stopped ALL foreign aid, Isreal would EASILY have the upperhand. As a Christian, I understand supporting Israel is important, and I think RP's position is the most supportive.

See, I still come off as extremely conservative, perhaps even MORE conservative than the other person....

[MikeM39]

I think his worst tactic so far has been comparing Iran with a nuke to the Soviets having nukes during the Cold War. Since 9-11 Republicans have been told by these talk show hosts that Muslims are 100% crazy so I think people actually have more trust in Russia that they won't use their nukes on us because they aren't Muslims. Also, during the entire Cold War the Soviets never accomplished a 9-11 so people view these crazy Muslims as being more successful at hurting us than the Russians ever were. I just wouldn't use the Iran=Soviets in the Cold War comparison.

[MikeM39]

We're broke doesn't work for the eloctorate. I think they hear "we're broke" and think Paul is suggesting "we're weak".

He needs to address this in a positive format.

The Neocons have painted Paul with the same brush they've been painting Democrats with for a long time. "He's weak on Foreign Polocy". He needs to address this to make further progress with voters.

If he won't promise to attack Israel's enemies he will be called weak on foreign policy by the establishment GOP, I don't think there's any way for us to get around that.

[CaptUSA]

"There is nothing 'conservative' about our foreign policy. Conservative means being careful, cautious, and prudent. We have bases all over the world subsidizing other countries' defense with your tax dollars. Your tax money also goes to leaders - some of them dictators - all over the world in the form of foreign aid. We are involved in active conflicts with at least a half of dozen nations and we are sanctioning dozens more because they are not doing what our government wants them to do. (The same government, by the way, that wants to force you to buy health insurance) There is nothing conservative about our foreign policy. If you want a real conservative foreign policy, you have to put a true conservative in the White House. I'm the only one advocating a real conservative foreign policy!"

If he says that. He wins. Game over.

[No Free Beer]

IF we go to war, declare it, go hard and win it!

Game over...

[IndianaPolitico]

If there is a threat to the United States, I will analyze it, and if the cause is justified, I will go to the Congress, ask them to declare war, fight it, win it and bring the troops home!

[tfurrh]

"There is nothing 'conservative' about our foreign policy. Conservative means being careful, cautious, and prudent. We have bases all over the world subsidizing other countries' defense with your tax dollars. Your tax money also goes to leaders - some of them dictators - all over the world in the form of foreign aid. We are involved in active conflicts with at least a half of dozen nations and we are sanctioning dozens more because they are not doing what our government wants them to do. (The same government, by the way, that wants to force you to buy health insurance) There is nothing conservative about our foreign policy. If you want a real conservative foreign policy, you have to put a true conservative in the White House. I'm the only one advocating a real conservative foreign policy!"

If he says that. He wins. Game over.

+rep. I stole this (hope you don't mind) and posted it on Doug Wead's fb wall. He really liked it, and said he'd pass it on.

[MikeM39]

EVERYONE (both sides) knows Ron Paul's foreign policy (or the bad version of it).

Americans want SAFETY and are all asking "What will he do?" and saying "He won't do anything"

Like the "big dog" ad -- Ron Paul needs to sound like a leader who will KEEP AMERICANS SAFE.

SAFETY -- push it!

But their idea of how to get safety is a pre-emptive war on Iran to prevent them from getting a nuke because they've been told that Iran is most definitely going to use a nuke because they are Muslims and Muslims are crazy and their leader Ahmadinejad has already said that he wants to destroy Israel, so the very minute when Iran gets a nuke they will use it on Israel and all Israelis will die. After nuking Israel then Iran will come for us and nuke us. As you can imagine it would be hard to communicate with someone who has been brainwashed into such an elaborate fear scenario.

[MikeM39]

If there is a threat to the United States, I will analyze it, and if the cause is justified, I will go to the Congress, ask them to declare war, fight it, win it and bring the troops home!

What you wrote above is too vague for the voters and they would think it was Paul dodging the Iran issue. Other candidates promise they will prevent Iran from getting a nuke and the implication is that they will even go to war to prevent it, Paul has not stated this and the debate questions are quite direct when addressing Iran. Unfortunately neocon media has backed Ron Paul into a corner and they have turned Iran into the main foreign policy issue of the election.

[Danemicus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATmUE8TCmjE



^ I remember seeing this in another topic on here somewhere. I think it's a quick and very effective means of disproving anyone who thinks that Ron Paul's foreign policy is "weak." I guess it's ultimately what he needs to reiterate at any given opportunity.

[CaptUSA]

"There is nothing 'conservative' about our foreign policy. Conservative means being careful, cautious, and prudent. We have bases all over the world subsidizing other countries' defense with your tax dollars. Your tax money also goes to leaders - some of them dictators - all over the world in the form of foreign aid. We are involved in active conflicts with at least a half of dozen nations and we are sanctioning dozens more because they are not doing what our government wants them to do. (The same government, by the way, that wants to force you to buy health insurance) There is nothing conservative about our foreign policy. If you want a real conservative foreign policy, you have to put a true conservative in the White House. I'm the only one advocating a real conservative foreign policy!"
Maybe if Rush heard this quote... Maybe if he knew his listeners heard this quote.