bobbyw24
01-05-2012, 06:51 AM
Ron Paul’s opponents in the race for the Republican presidential nomination don’t mince words about his foreign policy views.
Mitt Romney says Paul would endanger Israel and that he “thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.” Newt Gingrich describes Paul as “stunningly dangerous” and bluntly says he wouldn’t vote for the Texas congressman. Former rival Michele Bachmann once said Paul would be a “dangerous president” who wouldn’t act against Iran “until one of our cities was wiped off the map.”
But the attacks on Paul, who finished a strong third in Tuesday’s Iowa caucuses, miss two essential points. First, several of Paul’s proposals closely track positions held by both Democratic and Republican foreign policy specialists. Second, a President Paul would have little ability to actually implement controversial ideas like eliminating foreign aid to Israel or closing American military bases in Germany, Japan and Korea.
“I tend to see Ron Paul as the only real traditional conservative out there today, and not at all out of sorts with strong American traditions that dominated the Republican Party up to 1952,” said Sean Kay, a political science policy professor at Ohio Wesleyan University. “Ron Paul has very appropriately challenged two fundamental assumptions about the war on terror and national security: that terrorism is a tactic and cannot be defeated in any conventional sense… and that the U.S. Constitution should matter on things like counter-terrorism and national security.”
http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/paul-s-foreign-policy-views-not-so-dangerous--20120104?mrefid=election2012
Mitt Romney says Paul would endanger Israel and that he “thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.” Newt Gingrich describes Paul as “stunningly dangerous” and bluntly says he wouldn’t vote for the Texas congressman. Former rival Michele Bachmann once said Paul would be a “dangerous president” who wouldn’t act against Iran “until one of our cities was wiped off the map.”
But the attacks on Paul, who finished a strong third in Tuesday’s Iowa caucuses, miss two essential points. First, several of Paul’s proposals closely track positions held by both Democratic and Republican foreign policy specialists. Second, a President Paul would have little ability to actually implement controversial ideas like eliminating foreign aid to Israel or closing American military bases in Germany, Japan and Korea.
“I tend to see Ron Paul as the only real traditional conservative out there today, and not at all out of sorts with strong American traditions that dominated the Republican Party up to 1952,” said Sean Kay, a political science policy professor at Ohio Wesleyan University. “Ron Paul has very appropriately challenged two fundamental assumptions about the war on terror and national security: that terrorism is a tactic and cannot be defeated in any conventional sense… and that the U.S. Constitution should matter on things like counter-terrorism and national security.”
http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/paul-s-foreign-policy-views-not-so-dangerous--20120104?mrefid=election2012