Boots on the Ground in SC - FP is the Issue that is Holding Us Back

[tbone717]

I just got off the phone with my parents in SC. The Perry news has reached the average voter, the Newt story has not yet hit. My folks said that a lot of people like Paul on the economy, but his FP is what holds them back. They live in a very large 55+ over community (over 10,000 residents). It is a upper middle class, educated crowd.

That confirms what has been said here by others for a while now. The campaign needs to more clearly define the FP in a language that is understandable to the average voter. We are going to always have to combat media spin of course, but we do need to get this message out in a more succinct means that allows the average voter to feel confident in Paul's ability to protect the country.

Paul has a tendency to speak in on this issue in a way that doesn't connect with the average voter. This needs to be worked on. We cannot expect the average voter to do the research and understand the nuances in the way that folks like us do. This needs to be brought down to a simple point by point explanation that allows the average voter to embrace what Paul has been talking about.

[GunnyFreedom]

"My foreign policy is if we are actually threatened or attacked, we declare war and destroy the enemy worse than any enemy has ever been destroyed before, and leave them to rebuild themselves so they no longer pose a threat to us or anybody."

[mport1]

FP is the Issue that is Holding Us Back

Yep, something that all of us (except for the campaign apparently) knows.

[tbone717]

"My foreign policy is if we are actually threatened or attacked, we declare war and destroy the enemy worse than any enemy has ever been destroyed before, and leave them to rebuild themselves so they no longer pose a threat to us or anybody."

I like it. He needs to get away from the language that excites the base, and move into using language that excites the average voter.

[LEK]

Start with: Ron Paul advocates National Defence NOT International Offense, the latter will have their grandchildren living in perpetual war and perhaps participating in that war if a draft is made into law. And then add that the military support for Ron Paul is large - why is that? Share the reasons given by the military personnel --> they were lied to and are fighting for something other than what is best for America. They need to come home and defend our borders.

[GunnyFreedom]

Ron Paul Presidential Campaign Committee PCC keyword Matt Collins Jesse Benton Doug Wead search

"My foreign policy is if we are actually threatened or attacked, we declare war and destroy the enemy worse than any enemy has ever been destroyed before, and leave them to rebuild themselves so they no longer pose a threat to us or anybody."

[Verad]

"My foreign policy is if we are actually threatened or attacked, we declare war and destroy the enemy worse than any enemy has ever been destroyed before, and leave them to rebuild themselves so they no longer pose a threat to us or anybody."

Is that an actual Paul quote?

[nayjevin]

It's not worth the time to try and change most entrenched warhawks by the SC primary. That is why I think the campaign is smart.

On an individual level, we have many resources for explaining RP's foreign policy.

*** New to Ron Paul? *** Start here.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?339132

[swissaustrian]

Maybe use a soundbite like this: CONSTITUTIONAL foreign policy following the Christian principle of just war.

[Real_CaGeD]

Bomb throwing rednecks will never support Dr Paul. I am from Georgia.

Larry McDonald warned us about exactly what has happened.

I think Judgement will follow.

[ohgodno]

Offense wins games, defense wins championships.

Just keep making more of an effort to distinguish between the two—Dr. Paul has been trying to distinguish between them, but has failed thus far in communicating that point to anyone but us supporters. Keep at it, they'll understand eventually.

[sailingaway]

I think they are worried about bread and butter from the bases as well as the normal media driven confusion as to Ron's policies. Ron does have to say what he WOULD do, submarines, why letters of marque are better for fighting terrorists, etc, but he also needs to repeat what he was saying Tuesday about how if the troops come home, base states like SC would actually get a stimulus because their pay and upkeep would be spent in the US in those states, instead of in Afghanistan. He said in the 90s there was a turn to close bases at home and open them overseas, and he, reversing that, might well be requiring MORE bases at home, because this is where our army would be.

[CaptUSA]

Guys, Paul's foreign policy position also garners him the most support.

You do realize that even if Ron Paul was 100% gung ho with military interventionism, they would find another issue that would be the "sticking point" with voters? Sure, he could clean up his message and deliver it better, but I don't know how much it would change things. They'd just find something else.

Personally, even more than foreign policy, I think the thing that's hurting him the most is "electability". And since the media is the arbiter of who is "electable", we have to work outside of them.

[tbone717]

It's not worth the time to try and change most entrenched warhawks by the SC primary. That is why the campaign is smarter than us armchair activists.

Trust me. I know these people, they are not warhawks by any stretch of the imagination. Paul has not done a good job at explaining his FP in a way that the average voter can understand it. He does great with the economic stuff - cut a trillion, close departments, balance the budget. But he has not been able to sound bite the FP at all in a way that it sells to the average voter. Remember that most people just get a small snapshot of the news everyday, they don't live in our world of reading article after article and watching video after video. Case in point, we have known about this Newt scandal for what 12 hours or more? My folks haven't even heard of it yet because they are busy living their normal lives.

[splint]

Im sure the campaign knows this, and there is some sort of strategy involved on how/when to present his FP. Wishfull thinking?

[tbone717]

Bomb throwing rednecks will never support Dr Paul. I am from Georgia.

The people I am speaking of are hardly rednecks. In fact most of them are transplants and lived in the North East and Mid West most of their lives.

[The Goat]

Look, I live in Greenville, SC and listen to talk radio. Most who are against paul is only because no one looks into his Forign policy. they believe what the media tells them.

all of the radio host say "Paul would be up 20% if he had a better FP" they think paul will let us be attacked before he responds. that is IT.

[abstrusezincate]

The simplest explanation of the problem is Ron gets too caught up in answering why questions about outcomes related to our foreign policy, and doesn't spend enough time talking about how his foreign policy will keep America safe. He sounds good on the latter, less so on the former to undecided ears.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Gunny you know as well as I do that, that is not Ron Paul's FP. One of the planks of the Just War Theory is that the response must be proportionate to the aggrieved offense. You can't go blowing up an entire Nation or Country for the acts of a rogue non-State entity. Further, there is a Code of Conduct that you should be aware of as a Marine. Certainly you do not support Total War and Scorched Earth do you? So, your're trying to politik by pandering to the lowest common denominator instead of phrasing the position in a more reachable perspective. Gotta disagree with your post Gunny.

[RonPaul101.com]

"My foreign policy is if we are actually threatened or attacked, we declare war and destroy the enemy worse than any enemy has ever been destroyed before, and leave them to rebuild themselves so they no longer pose a threat to us or anybody."

Exactly. See you can seem red meat-ish without compromising your principles. I have been saying this since the Spring Debate when we had an Iran clash with Santorum...

Paul needs to come our forcefully next time and say he's the only veteran running for President and he understands the call to duty and will do what needs to be done to defend America. That in and of itself does not make anyone a hawk, its a point on DEFENSE that needs to be made.

[tbone717]

Look, I live in Greenville, SC and listen to talk radio. Most who are against paul is only because no one looks into his Forign policy. they believe what the media tells them.

And we are not going to change the culture and find a bunch of people suddenly researching FP stances. So, we have to work within the nature of the culture and define the message more clearly in a way that is palatable to the average voter.

[PaulConventionWV]

I just got off the phone with my parents in SC. The Perry news has reached the average voter, the Newt story has not yet hit. My folks said that a lot of people like Paul on the economy, but his FP is what holds them back. They live in a very large 55+ over community (over 10,000 residents). It is a upper middle class, educated crowd.

That confirms what has been said here by others for a while now. The campaign needs to more clearly define the FP in a language that is understandable to the average voter. We are going to always have to combat media spin of course, but we do need to get this message out in a more succinct means that allows the average voter to feel confident in Paul's ability to protect the country.

Paul has a tendency to speak in on this issue in a way that doesn't connect with the average voter. This needs to be worked on. We cannot expect the average voter to do the research and understand the nuances in the way that folks like us do. This needs to be brought down to a simple point by point explanation that allows the average voter to embrace what Paul has been talking about.

*YAWN* so what else is new?

How many times do we have to keep repeating this same old point?

[PaulConventionWV]

"My foreign policy is if we are actually threatened or attacked, we declare war and destroy the enemy worse than any enemy has ever been destroyed before, and leave them to rebuild themselves so they no longer pose a threat to us or anybody."

Believe it or not, I think that's a little too harsh for a republican primary.

[tbone717]

*YAWN* so what else is new?

How many times do we have to keep repeating this same old point?

Sorry for boring you, but I was getting this info from actual average voters, instead of speculation and opinion.

[PaulConventionWV]

Yep, something that all of us (except for the campaign apparently) knows.

What makes you think the campaign doesn't know? I worked with the campaign, and I assure you, they know what they need to know about it.

[tbone717]

What makes you think the campaign doesn't know? I worked with the campaign, and I assure you, they know what they need to know about it.

I believe what you see here from many is a plea to the campaign to do something to combat what we are hearing directly from voters. There are many of us that have put a lot of time and money into this effort. Some of us have been at this for 4+ years, some of us (myself included) have been at this for 20+ years. We just don't want to see this opportunity wasted, when there is a relatively simple fix.

[PaulConventionWV]

Guys, Paul's foreign policy position also garners him the most support.

You do realize that even if Ron Paul was 100% gung ho with military interventionism, they would find another issue that would be the "sticking point" with voters? Sure, he could clean up his message and deliver it better, but I don't know how much it would change things. They'd just find something else.

Personally, even more than foreign policy, I think the thing that's hurting him the most is "electability". And since the media is the arbiter of who is "electable", we have to work outside of them.

Absolutely, 100% agree.

Also, people need to keep in mind that it's not the campaign's fault that the message doesn't seem to be sticking with average voters. There are a number of reasons why this could be happening. First of all, Ron Paul, HIMSELF, is liable for much of this because he tries to make the points, but he often makes them amongst a bunch of rambling like on Tuesday. They are good points, but they sometimes get lost in the fray. The campaign knows what they are doing, and they are trying to get the point across, but Ron is old, and sometimes he just can't say it better when he's in a debate. He makes all the points we want him to, like the troops support him and a declaration of war, but they're not the only thing voters here, so they don't see those points as being what Ron Paul is all about. The perception doesn't change even when the talking points do. That takes a little more time. It's not the campaign's fault. They are doing what they can, but they can only do so much. Most of the decisions are left up to Ron Paul and the voter. Face it, some voters will never come around to the message in time because they are too brainwashed to even consider cutting military and not pertectin' 'muhrica.

[nayjevin]

Trust me. I know these people, they are not warhawks by any stretch of the imagination. Paul has not done a good job at explaining his FP in a way that the average voter can understand it. He does great with the economic stuff - cut a trillion, close departments, balance the budget. But he has not been able to sound bite the FP at all in a way that it sells to the average voter. Remember that most people just get a small snapshot of the news everyday, they don't live in our world of reading article after article and watching video after video. Case in point, we have known about this Newt scandal for what 12 hours or more? My folks haven't even heard of it yet because they are busy living their normal lives.

What I don't understand is what you expect us to do about that, if true. I just see it as undue criticism (I don't think he needs to do that) in the wrong place (he's probably heard this criticism already, and is unlikely to see it here.) I don't see any result besides increasing doubt in the campaign and in Ron.

What is a proactive solution? Why not look for some quotes in Ron's writing? Email them to your friends. Why not use an existing video? It really doesn't seem to me that waiting for the campaign or Ron to come out with something new is the best way to solve the problem.

[PaulConventionWV]

I believe what you see here from many is a plea to the campaign to do something to combat what we are hearing directly from voters. There are many of us that have put a lot of time and money into this effort. Some of us have been at this for 4+ years, some of us (myself included) have been at this for 20+ years. We just don't want to see this opportunity wasted, when there is a relatively simple fix.

What "simple fix" do you propose? Politics is not a simple thing. How can there possibly be a simple fix?

[tbone717]

What I don't understand is what you expect us to do about that, if true. I just see it as undue criticism (I don't think he needs to do that) in the wrong place (he's probably heard this criticism already, and is unlikely to see it here.) I don't see any result besides increasing doubt in the campaign and in Ron.

What is a proactive solution? Why not look for some quotes in Ron's writing? Email them to your friends. Why not use an existing video? It really doesn't seem to me that waiting for the campaign or Ron to come out with something new is the best way to solve the problem.

Well in my mind it is confirmation from the ground. So much what we hear here is speculation and opinion. I tend to go with facts and data. I have average voters here, that aren't "brainwashed neo-cons" that are happy with Paul but leery of his FP, that are willing to go with Mitt even though they don't view him as particularly strong on the economy.

How does the grassroots combat this? There are a number of ways. We can work with one of the PACs to get the message out there large scale. We can get a viral video going (but that only reaches a small fraction of voters). We can work together to get these bullet points together so that we can use those points when we dialogue with people one on one.

Part of finding a solution to a problem is correctly identifying the problem. In this case from my cursory research the problem is not convincing war mongering people that non-interventionism is the solution. It is convincing average everyday folks that Paul is strong on defense

[tbone717]

What "simple fix" do you propose? Politics is not a simple thing. How can there possibly be a simple fix?

The points are being made, the language needs to be changed. Simple as that. It is a sound bite world like it or not. We need to rephrase the sound bites.

[PaulConventionWV]

The points are being made, the language needs to be changed. Simple as that. It is a sound bite world like it or not. We need to rephrase the sound bites.

But it's not "simple as that." You are ignoring a great many factors. First, the media. They will twist anything Ron Paul says, and you can bet your bottom dollar they're not going to be helping us. Secondly, Ron Paul, himself. Ron is the arbiter of what he says, and if he disagrees with changing the way he says things, then nothing can be done. Thirdly, that doesn't guarantee Ron would be able to do it effectively if he wawnted to. Fourthly, even if he did right now, most people wouldn't even hear it before the primary. Fifthly, many people are just too hawkish to accept Ron Paul anyway. Sometimes it is because of his policy and sometimes it is because of his brand of policy. Either way, there is no "simple fix" as you say.

Also, I might remind you there are a bunch of different ways to change the language. There are a lot of factors that go into having Ron Paul say such and such and making sure such and such is the right thing while making sure it is something that can be said so that it doesn't sound like he's reading from a script.

[maninblack]

If President Paul had intelligence that there was a national security threat he wouldn't hesitate to put a boot up someone's ass seemed to work with the voters I talked to. Then spike a whatever you're holding in your hand.

[Brett85]

Ron Paul Presidential Campaign Committee PCC keyword Matt Collins Jesse Benton Doug Wead search

"My foreign policy is if we are actually threatened or attacked, we declare war and destroy the enemy worse than any enemy has ever been destroyed before, and leave them to rebuild themselves so they no longer pose a threat to us or anybody."

Yep, non interventionism can be explained in a way that sounds tough. Ron still hasn't figured that out.

[boneyard bill]

I can't express how completely frustrated I feel at Ron Paul's exposition of his foreign policy. He always make the ideological points while avoiding the practical ones. Ron Paul thinks it's "OK" for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. That's not exactly what he said, but the inference that the media has drawn from his remarks is not wildly off base either.

The relevant point is the IRAN DOES NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM! The CIA stated that in 2008 and has re-iterated it several times since then. The Secretary of Defense said the same thing just a week or so ago. The Defense Department recently issued a report saying that the Iranian military capabilities are almost entirely DEFENSIVE.

Whether or not Iran should "be allowed" to develop a nuclear weapon is irrelevant. They aren't even trying to do so. Obama, Republicans hawks, and the media are essentially lying about the situation. Why doesn't Ron Paul call them on it? Instead, he makes the ideological point of non-interventionism. But there is a far more compelling case that THIS PARTICULAR intervention is absolute madness which may benefit certain special interests but at enormous cost to the American people.

[PaulConventionWV]

Yep, non interventionism can be explained in a way that sounds tough. Ron still hasn't figured that out.

Has it ever crossed your mind that he has figured that out and still doesn't want to say it because he doesn't agree with saying that way?

[Brett85]

Also, why does Ron let the moderators get away with saying that his foreign policy views "are to the left of Obama?" I can't believe that Ron seems to just accept that statement.

[ds21089]

Paul has not done a good job at explaining his FP in a way that the average voter can understand it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jN0cMcCK1gk#t=70s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UBRxb07PPWA#t=3705s at least until before the point where he says "pursue our interest around the world" A military defense so strong, that nobody will even bother to attack us...which is what we would have if we brought all the troops home.

[nayjevin]

So it seems to me you answered your question: convince folks Ron is strong on defense.

Use Ron's words when they are effective at this. Use his advisors words when they are better. Use your own words when they are best. Use youtubes and the like as well.

[Brett85]

Has it ever crossed your mind that he has figured that out and still doesn't want to say it because he doesn't agree with saying that way?

So he doesn't agree with winning wars quickly when our country gets attacked?

[tbone717]

But it's not "simple as that." You are ignoring a great many factors. First, the media. They will twist anything Ron Paul says, and you can bet your bottom dollar they're not going to be helping us. Secondly, Ron Paul, himself. Ron is the arbiter of what he says, and if he disagrees with changing the way he says things, then nothing can be done. Thirdly, that doesn't guarantee Ron would be able to do it effectively if he wawnted to. Fourthly, even if he did right now, most people wouldn't even hear it before the primary. Fifthly, many people are just too hawkish to accept Ron Paul anyway. Sometimes it is because of his policy and sometimes it is because of his brand of policy. Either way, there is no "simple fix" as you say.

Ill address those one by one, because I was a little short on my last answer. I had to take my kid to school.

1. The media is what it is, this is the arena we are in and if we cannot win in the arena we might as well call it a day. We cannot expect them to help us, so we work around it as best as we can. If we cannot win with a hostile media, then as I said we can save a lot of money and call it quits now. I don't think any of us want to do that.

2. Paul needs to make a decision whether he wants to win this or not. If he is not winning because of a point or two that needs to be changed, and he is unwilling to do so, then we have to question his desire to see this country changed. I don't think he feels that way. I think he does want to succeed otherwise he wouldn't be dragging himself all over the country, living out of suitcase and eating on the run.

3. There are no guarantees of course, but we need to do everything possible to win. If that requires making some changes, then we make changes.

4. I disagree with this. A change in language can be made quickly, and since we are moving in what appears to be another phase of the campaign with less people in the race there is still plenty of time.

5. Again I disagree. Having talked to more people that you can imagine, I do not view the average GOP voter as hawkish in the least. I think it is an unfair characterization that we place on people. The average voter is a lot more sensible than we give them credit for.

So how does the language get changed? It is simple. You test the message. If that requires focus groups then you do it. Like it or not, a campaign is all about marketing & selling a message. You can say the same exact thing two different ways and get different reactions depending upon the way something is said. So maybe "stop being the policeman of the world" isn't resonating. So how do we (and the campaign) say that differently so that the same message is communicated but in a way that resonates with the average voter. Maybe by saying "We need to put American defense first above the interests of other countries" might play better. Until this is tested we do not know the best way to communicate the message. The message is a good one, and one I think we can win on. However, the words that are being used are not ones that are selling the message.

[FreedomHorn]

He needs to somehow convey the point that he's the one that's not scared of them, and neither should we be, because we're America and our military can't be touched. It could frame his policy in a different way and inspire some folks. Also needs to point out that 9/11 was a national defense breakdown, which he wants to shore up by not having us spread so thin around the globe.

[Brett85]

So it seems to me you answered your question: convince folks Ron is strong on defense.

Use Ron's words when they are effective at this. Use his advisors words when they are better. Use your own words when they are best. Use youtubes and the like as well.

It's hard to convince folks that Ron is strong on defense when he never talks about defense. Ron hasn't laid out any kind of national defense strategy. He only talks about what he's opposed to.

[EBounding]

It's not worth the time to try and change most entrenched warhawks by the SC primary. That is why I think the campaign is smart.


No! This is not true!

I voted for Bush and McCain. I was pretty entrenched in the view that the wars were keeping us safe. If they're convinced about Paul's other issues, they can easily be convinced on FP if Paul just starts speaking their language. This is the Republican primary. We need Republicans. Paul speaks about foreign policy as if he is addressing Independents and Democrats. He can express the same message by simply explaining what he would do specifically for national defense.

Like Senator Tom Davis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPy_U6k5W-k&feature=youtu.be), it also took me some time to research Paul's positions on foreign policy before I could fully support it. I took the time to research him because I knew he was the only one serious about addressing the debt problem and I WANTED to find a reason to support him. But the reason it took me so long is because Paul is never specific about what he would do for national defense. I had to find random interviews where he does describe specifics.

Unlike myself though, a lot of people have no interest in researching more about Paul. Which is why he needs to say it himself!

[aclove]

Here's the bottom line.

Ron Paul is a Jeffersonian. So are his supporters.

Most of the GOP base are not Jeffersonians. They are Jacksonians. They like tough talk, they NEED it to get behind someone.

Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum are also not Jacksonians. They are Wilsonians. The Jacksonian base actually has more in common with Jeffersonians than they do Wilsonians, but the Wilsonian candidates are willing to lie and say whatever Jacksonians want to hear in order to win.

Ron Paul, the only Jeffersonian candidate, is simply not willing to do this...and he never will be. We're asking him to try to sound like a Jacksonian in order to "trick" the Jacksonian base into thinking he's one of them, when he's not. I simply don't think Ron is willing to do that, nor would he be convincing if he tried.

Anyone who has watched Ron over the years knows that in his heart, he doesn't really want to be President. He is willing to be President because he feels duty-bound to fill that role if that's what the country wants and needs. But he's only willing to do that if people flock to his positions without him having to "package" them in a way that is even a little bit indirect and sly. That's the limitation the campaign team is up against, and I think they know it. Ron simply will not tell people what they want to hear if it involves masking or crafting his message even slightly. That's just the way it is.

What we're really asking Ron to do is run like Rand would run. But Rand isn't running this time. Ron is. The sooner we accept that and move on, the less frustrated we'll be.

[PaulConventionWV]

So he doesn't agree with winning wars quickly when our country gets attacked?

Maybe, why don't you ask him? The point is that he doesn't like creating a response to a problem before there is a problem. That is deceptive, and Ron Paul doen't deceive people. I think he could probably say what he believes better, but I am not so arrogant that I think I know what he believes. Maybe he believes such soundbites are either deceptive or not in line with the current situation. I don't pretend I can just create words and put them in his mouth, assuming he would agree with them. Have you ever gotten annoyed at someone who told you to say something a certain way and told them, "I'm going to say it the way I want to say it." Imagine how Ron feels with a million people telling him "you should say it like this" or this, or this, or this, or this, or this, etc....

Only Ron knows what he is comfortable with saying.

[tbone717]

No! This is not true!

I voted for Bush and McCain. I was pretty entrenched in the view that the wars were keeping us safe. If they're convinced about Paul's other issues, they can easily be convinced on FP if Paul just starts speaking their language. This is the Republican primary. We need Republicans. Paul speaks about foreign policy as if he is addressing Independents and Democrats. He can express the same message by simply explaining what he would do specifically for national defense.

Like Senator Tom Davis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPy_U6k5W-k&feature=youtu.be), it also took me some time to research Paul's positions on foreign policy before I could fully support it. I took the time to research him because I knew he was the only one serious about addressing the debt problem and I WANTED to find a reason to support him. But the reason it took me so long is because Paul is never specific about what he would do for national defense. I had to find random interviews where he does describe specifics.

Unlike myself though, a lot of people have no interest in researching more about Paul. Which is why he needs to say it himself!

Well stated, +rep

[jolynna]

Start with: Ron Paul advocates National Defence NOT International Offense, the latter will have their grandchildren living in perpetual war and perhaps participating in that war if a draft is made into law. And then add that the military support for Ron Paul is large - why is that? Share the reasons given by the military personnel --> they were lied to and are fighting for something other than what is best for America. They need to come home and defend our borders.

THIS.

My son is in the military. I correspond with about 30 women that have sons or husbands in the military. It is EASY for Romney or Newt or Santorum to be all gung-ho about war when none of THEM was willing to serve their country. Nor are their own children fighting.

There is no goal in Afghanistan? How will we know when we've won?

Our nation was fooled into Vietnam because we were told the world would fall to communism if we weren't there. 60,000 young lives were sacrificed. We LEFT Vietnam in a humiliating way. NOT ONE new country became communist because the U.S. left Vietnam. Our presence and the 60,000 lost lives in Vietnam were for nothing.

We were told there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There weren't. After 9 years of our occupation, once we left the tribes went back to warring and squabbling just like they have always done. We've been in Afghanistan for 10 years. When we leave they were do the same. If we stay in Afghanistan for 5 more years, 10 more years or 30 more years, when we leave they will go back to being as they were before we came.

[Brett85]

Maybe, why don't you ask him? The point is that he doesn't like creating a response to a problem before there is a problem. That is deceptive, and Ron Paul doen't deceive people. I think he could probably say what he believes better, but I am not so arrogant that I think I know what he believes. Maybe he believes such soundbites are either deceptive or not in line with the current situation. I don't pretend I can just create words and put them in his mouth, assuming he would agree with them. Have you ever gotten annoyed at someone who told you to say something a certain way and told them, "I'm going to say it the way I want to say it." Imagine how Ron feels with a million people telling him "you should say it like this" or this, or this, or this, or this, or this, etc....

Only Ron knows what he is comfortable with saying.

Ron should know what he's saying isn't working when he's behind Gingrich and Romney significantly in the polls. It all comes down to whether Ron actually wants to win or simply wants to spread his message.

[unknown]

Ron Paul's position has been explained relatively well.

We cant discount the constant, almost endless hammering and spin about his foreign policy by the media.

Not saying that he couldnt drop some memorable sound bites but lets be objective, the endless chorus of "hes good on domestic policies but..." has had an undeniable impact.

When I talk to people on phone from home, those are almost verbatim the words that they use, like theyve been trained to say it. As though they media has stamped it into their brains, like the media was repeating it over and over and over, oh wait...

[PaulConventionWV]

Ill address those one by one, because I was a little short on my last answer. I had to take my kid to school.

1. The media is what it is, this is the arena we are in and if we cannot win in the arena we might as well call it a day. We cannot expect them to help us, so we work around it as best as we can. If we cannot win with a hostile media, then as I said we can save a lot of money and call it quits now. I don't think any of us want to do that.

2. Paul needs to make a decision whether he wants to win this or not. If he is not winning because of a point or two that needs to be changed, and he is unwilling to do so, then we have to question his desire to see this country changed. I don't think he feels that way. I think he does want to succeed otherwise he wouldn't be dragging himself all over the country, living out of suitcase and eating on the run.

3. There are no guarantees of course, but we need to do everything possible to win. If that requires making some changes, then we make changes.

4. I disagree with this. A change in language can be made quickly, and since we are moving in what appears to be another phase of the campaign with less people in the race there is still plenty of time.

5. Again I disagree. Having talked to more people that you can imagine, I do not view the average GOP voter as hawkish in the least. I think it is an unfair characterization that we place on people. The average voter is a lot more sensible than we give them credit for.

So how does the language get changed? It is simple. You test the message. If that requires focus groups then you do it. Like it or not, a campaign is all about marketing & selling a message. You can say the same exact thing two different ways and get different reactions depending upon the way something is said. So maybe "stop being the policeman of the world" isn't resonating. So how do we (and the campaign) say that differently so that the same message is communicated but in a way that resonates with the average voter. Maybe by saying "We need to put American defense first above the interests of other countries" might play better. Until this is tested we do not know the best way to communicate the message. The message is a good one, and one I think we can win on. However, the words that are being used are not ones that are selling the message.

A lot of this relies on assumptions about what needs to be done and what Ron Paul is willing to do. Assumptions that come from your own beliefs and your own experience, which may not be representative of the whole nation. I try not to make assumptions, and right now, I'm just trying to tell you that it's not a simple fix. It's just not a simple thing because trying to taylor the way you talk to millions of people not a simple thing, let alone just talking to millions of people. I have learned from my education that politics is not a simple thing, and I think trying to make it sound simple is a gross mischaracterization of the problem.

[nayjevin]

The 'win people over with better soundbytes' theory results in soft support.

Listening to Ron over time results in the most solid base in the campaign.

[tbone717]

Ron should know what he's saying isn't working when he's behind Gingrich and Romney significantly in the polls. It all comes down to whether Ron actually wants to win or simply wants to spread his message.

Right. And I do not think he is so bull headed and inflexible that he isn't willing to explain his message in language so it is appealing to the average voter. He has done so well on his economic message, which is a lot different than the 08 campaign. It is the same message, but this time it is delivered in a way that appeals to voters. He can do the same with FP and it is not too late to do so.

[Brett85]

It also isn't unrealistic for Ron to lay out a national defense/foreign policy strategy. He doesn't have to say, "well I can't talk about this since it hasn't actually happened." Voters need to know how he would handle a potential threat to our national security.

[tbone717]

The 'win people over with better soundbytes' theory results in soft support.

Listening to Ron over time results in the most solid base in the campaign.

You need a combination of soft and hard support in order to win. Not everyone needs to be a diehard Paul supporter in order to vote for him.

[Brett85]

The 'win people over with better soundbytes' theory results in soft support.

Listening to Ron over time results in the most solid base in the campaign.

You need soft support in order to win an election. A solid 10-20% base isn't going to win a primary.

[PaulConventionWV]

Here's the bottom line.

Ron Paul is a Jeffersonian. So are his supporters.

Most of the GOP base are not Jeffersonians. They are Jacksonians. They like tough talk, they NEED it to get behind someone.

Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum are also not Jacksonians. They are Wilsonians. The Jacksonian base actually has more in common with Jeffersonians than they do Wilsonians, but the Wilsonian candidates are willing to lie and say whatever Jacksonians want to hear in order to win.

Ron Paul, the only Jeffersonian candidate, is simply not willing to do this...and he never will be. We're asking him to try to sound like a Jacksonian in order to "trick" the Jacksonian base into thinking he's one of them, when he's not. I simply don't think Ron is willing to do that, nor would he be convincing if he tried.

Anyone who has watched Ron over the years knows that in his heart, he doesn't really want to be President. He is willing to be President because he feels duty-bound to fill that role if that's what the country wants and needs. But he's only willing to do that if people flock to his positions without him having to "package" them in a way that is even a little bit indirect and sly. That's the limitation the campaign team is up against, and I think they know it. Ron simply will not tell people what they want to hear if it involves masking or crafting his message even slightly. That's just the way it is.

What we're really asking Ron to do is run like Rand would run. But Rand isn't running this time. Ron is. The sooner we accept that and move on, the less frustrated we'll be.

There is always someone who can say it better. Thanks for this post. It's what I've been trying to get across. Ron isn't necessarily open to the idea of changing his message the way many want him to because he disagrees with it on a philosophical level. You can't ask someone to advocate a position they don't hold, and that's why I believe, as the above poster does, that Ron Paul wouldn't necessarily want to just change his words. He DOES want to win for the sake of the country, but he wants to do it the way he wants to do it, not the way others think he should do it.

[tbone717]

A lot of this relies on assumptions about what needs to be done and what Ron Paul is willing to do. Assumptions that come from your own beliefs and your own experience, which may not be representative of the whole nation...It's just not a simple thing because trying to taylor the way you talk to millions of people not a simple thing, let alone just talking to millions of people. I have learned from my education that politics is not a simple thing, and I think trying to make it sound simple is a gross mischaracterization of the problem.

That is why you need to test the message to different groups and see how it plays. This is nothing new, it has been done in both politics and marketing for years and years.

[PaulConventionWV]

Ron should know what he's saying isn't working when he's behind Gingrich and Romney significantly in the polls. It all comes down to whether Ron actually wants to win or simply wants to spread his message.

I think Ron wants to win, but only if people are willing to support his message the way he is saying it. He doesn't want to pander. I think Rand would do it differently, but this time, Ron is running and he doesn't want to do it that way.

[Highstreet]

I just got off the phone with my parents in SC. The Perry news has reached the average voter, the Newt story has not yet hit. My folks said that a lot of people like Paul on the economy, but his FP is what holds them back. They live in a very large 55+ over community (over 10,000 residents). It is a upper middle class, educated crowd.

That confirms what has been said here by others for a while now. The campaign needs to more clearly define the FP in a language that is understandable to the average voter. We are going to always have to combat media spin of course, but we do need to get this message out in a more succinct means that allows the average voter to feel confident in Paul's ability to protect the country.

Paul has a tendency to speak in on this issue in a way that doesn't connect with the average voter. This needs to be worked on. We cannot expect the average voter to do the research and understand the nuances in the way that folks like us do. This needs to be brought down to a simple point by point explanation that allows the average voter to embrace what Paul has been talking about.

We need to be his surrogates and explain it to them.

There is no other way. Even when he does get to explain parts of it, the media chop it up so it sounds weak.

Talk to them again, ask them what they think is his FP because many times the news spins it wrong to keep people from liking him. Then explain it.

[nayjevin]

To me the key to understanding the proper foreign policy is understanding how it can be possible that so many people advocate the wrong one.

It has nothing to do with being strong, and it has nothing to do with national defense. It has to do with profit, power, and control of resources.

Once this is understood, it's easy to see why all the wrong ideas are on T.V., and all the right ideas are coming from individuals who do not have ties to the military industrial complex.

[LibertyEagle]

Trust me. I know these people, they are not warhawks by any stretch of the imagination. Paul has not done a good job at explaining his FP in a way that the average voter can understand it. He does great with the economic stuff - cut a trillion, close departments, balance the budget. But he has not been able to sound bite the FP at all in a way that it sells to the average voter. Remember that most people just get a small snapshot of the news everyday, they don't live in our world of reading article after article and watching video after video. Case in point, we have known about this Newt scandal for what 12 hours or more? My folks haven't even heard of it yet because they are busy living their normal lives.

I totally agree.

It is wrong of people on here to just call everyone who doesn't understand Paul's FP a warhawk. More than that, it is stupid. I love Dr. Paul, but he has not laid out his foreign policy well at all. Actually, it's been absolutely horrible, in my opinion.

It is not realistic to expect voters to read reams of Dr. Paul's speeches and read some books by foreign policy experts, so that they can understand what the heck he is talking about. It is up to him to explain it so that his audience can understand it. Tom Davis could do it in a short interview; Dr. Paul should be able to do it too.

[raystone]

Gunnyfreedom is right

"My foreign policy is if we are actually threatened or attacked, we declare war and destroy the enemy worse than any enemy has ever been destroyed before, and leave them to rebuild themselves so they no longer pose a threat to us or anybody."

Please repost to get the message to the campaign.

[PaulConventionWV]

That is why you need to test the message to different groups and see how it plays. This is nothing new, it has been done in both politics and marketing for years and years.

I know. My above post still applies.

[tbone717]

I think Ron wants to win, but only if people are willing to support his message the way he is saying it. He doesn't want to pander. I think Rand would do it differently, but this time, Ron is running and he doesn't want to do it that way.

You aren't pandering when you rephrase something. The message does not need to change, the delivery may need to change. We need to find out how to say the same thing two different ways and which of those two ways elicits a positive response.

[nayjevin]

You need soft support in order to win an election. A solid 10-20% base isn't going to win a primary.

LOL, the implication here being that my statement included the words 'we don't need soft support to win the election.'

If you'll look again, I said no such thing.

[tbone717]

We need to be his surrogates and explain it to them.

There is no other way. Even when he does get to explain parts of it, the media chop it up so it sounds weak.

Talk to them again, ask them what they think is his FP because many times the news spins it wrong to keep people from liking him. Then explain it.

Oh I do this, but I am only one man with limited time to do so.

[LibertyEagle]

You need a combination of soft and hard support in order to win. Not everyone needs to be a diehard Paul supporter in order to vote for him.

Yup.


You aren't pandering when you rephrase something. The message does not need to change, the delivery may need to change. We need to find out how to say the same thing two different ways and which of those two ways elicits a positive response.

Absolutely. Why do people suggest someone is asking for him to pander, when it is the delivery that is being talked about?

The message is fine. The delivery is not.

[PaulConventionWV]

Gunnyfreedom is right

"My foreign policy is if we are actually threatened or attacked, we declare war and destroy the enemy worse than any enemy has ever been destroyed before, and leave them to rebuild themselves so they no longer pose a threat to us or anybody."

Please repost to get the message to the campaign.

That is not Ron Paul's position and he will not say it. Stop trying to put words in his mouth. If he hasn't said what you want to hear by now, then maybe that is a clue that he doesn't agree with what you say.

[cavalier973]

With regard to Newt Gingrich saying that we should have Andrew Jackson's attitude toward our enemies: "Kill 'em", Dr. Paul should point out that Andrew Jackson's enemies were the American Indians, who posed no threat to us, but had something the government wanted--land.

Also, I think Dr. Pauls should reiterate the point I heard Sen. Davis making, that American troops based here in the U.S. can reach anywhere in the world in 13 hours; that we don't actually need bases sprinkled around the earth to keep us safe.

[nayjevin]

It is wrong of people on here to just call everyone who doesn't understand Paul's FP a warhawk. More than that, it is stupid.

That's a good point, but calling it stupid is the same problem. I just didn't quite see it until you said it.


I love Dr. Paul, but he has not laid out his foreign policy well at all. Actually, it's been absolutely horrible, in my opinion.

He has, in his books. And he has in debates, in my opinion. But of course crowd noises can make a difference in how we perceive it.

[PaulConventionWV]

You aren't pandering when you rephrase something. The message does not need to change, the delivery may need to change. We need to find out how to say the same thing two different ways and which of those two ways elicits a positive response.

Did you see the post about the Jacksonians and Jeffersonians and Wilsonians? You need to go back and read it again. You still don't seem to be able to comprehend that Ron Paul would disagree with saying it in a hawkish way on a philosophical level.

[EBounding]

Ron Paul says in every debate that he's for a STRONG national defense.

Can anyone tell me if he has ever explained what a Strong National Defense is in the debates? I don't think he ever has and that's his problem.

He's leaving his "strong national defense" statement up to the viewers to define. If the viewers think he's a isolationist peacenik, then that's lens they're going to view his national defense stance. But if he defines it himself and get's specific they can't use that lens and they suddenly have to question what they thought about Paul before.

[tbone717]

Also, I think Dr. Pauls should reiterate the point I heard Sen. Davis making, that American troops based here in the U.S. can reach anywhere in the world in 13 hours; that we don't actually need bases sprinkled around the earth to keep us safe.

Agreed. Honestly, the surrogates do a better job explaining FP than the candidate does. Don't get me wrong, I think Paul is awesome. This will be my third time voting for him (88 General, 08 Primary, 12 Primary). He hits home runs all the time when talking about domestic issues, if the FP issue were fine tuned we would be in a much better position in SC. That's what I am hearing from my "boots on the ground" in SC. People are willing to settle for Romney because they just can't understand Paul's FP positions the way they have been stated so far.

[ohgodno]

Mainstream voters have an immediate gag reflex when the truth is pointed out so bluntly (years of lies will do that) - I see no harm tempering the delivery to break down their defenses so they become receptive to the overall message.

We KNOW the FP is based on profit, power, and control of resources — but people are not willing to believe that yet.

But open their minds to non-intervention by speaking to defense ( the thing they're scared Dr. Paul won't do ) and THEN the discussion can occur where the truth is revealed. The most important thing right now is getting people receptive to the idea of non-intervention.

We have 46% convinced said the Zogby poll - the rest need the message delivered differently. This much is clear.

[nayjevin]

Has anyone ever thought of the diplomatic implications of acting strong militarily? If he becomes president, he needs to NOT be the 'bomb Iran' guy. It's actually quite important for our national security and our childrens' future that he is CLEARLY NOT the 'bomb Iran' guy.

Maybe he should start quoting Neville Chamberlain and walking around with a limp wrist and forget about SC.

LOOL

[Brett85]

That is not Ron Paul's position and he will not say it. Stop trying to put words in his mouth. If he hasn't said what you want to hear by now, then maybe that is a clue that he doesn't agree with what you say.

Again, how is it not Ron Paul's position that we should respond with overwhelming force when we get attacked? Are you saying that Ron is a pacifist?

[cavalier973]

Really, all Dr. Paul needs to do is hammer the NDAA. Romney said he would have signed it, and got roundly boo'd. I'm pretty sure Gingrich supports it, too. Dr. Paul could say something along the lines of, "it would be a shame for our soldiers to come home only to find that the America they fought for is no longer free, that they and their families must live under the threat of their own government charging them with terrorism and, without a trial, imprisoning them indefinitely."

[tbone717]

Really, all Dr. Paul needs to do is hammer the NDAA. Romney said he would have signed it, and got roundly boo'd. I'm pretty sure Gingrich supports it, too. Dr. Paul could say something along the lines of, "it would be a shame for our soldiers to come home only to find that the America they fought for is no longer free, that they and their families must live under the threat of their own government charging them with terrorism and, without a trial, imprisoning them indefinitely."

My parents and their friends (who were the basis of my OP) have no idea what the NDAA is.

[Brett85]

Ron Paul says in every debate that he's for a STRONG national defense.

Can anyone tell me if he has ever explained what a Strong National Defense is in the debates? I don't think he ever has and that's his problem.

That's almost his entire problem. He won't actually lay out a national defense strategy. He won't talk about the alternative to intervention overseas which would be border security, a strong missile defense program, defending our ports, having a strong military defending us here at home, etc. I don't see why he couldn't lay out a national defense strategy the way that he laid out a plan to cut 1 trillion from the budget.

[cavalier973]

My parents and their friends (who were the basis of my OP) have no idea what the NDAA is.

Another opportunity for educating people. Rember, an objection is not a rejection, but rather a request for more information.

[Brett85]

I totally agree.

It is wrong of people on here to just call everyone who doesn't understand Paul's FP a warhawk. More than that, it is stupid. I love Dr. Paul, but he has not laid out his foreign policy well at all. Actually, it's been absolutely horrible, in my opinion.

I agree. I do know some people who are "warhawks" who would never vote for Ron even if he explained his fp views better. However, these people are now a minority within the GOP. The polls show that a majority of Republicans are opposed to endless war overseas. A CBS poll showed that 58% of Republicans agreed with Obama's decision to pull the remaining troops out of Iraq, which shows you that the other GOP candidates are much more hawkish and interventionist than the average Republican voter. A majority of Republican voters at least agree with the foreign policy that George W. Bush ran on in 2000, which is a "humble, less interventionist foreign policy." There's no reason Ron couldn't reach out to these people and get their support.

[ohgodno]

Much of the objection I hear from people is that they feel RP is "anti-war" meaning against all war – even defensive ones according to just war theory.

It's not so much that they don't agree with removing troops from overseas - although the hardcore neocons disagree with that and we'll never convince them, it's that they fear he won't defend the country. Again this is anecdotal evidence so there's that.

[tbone717]

Another opportunity for educating people. Rember, an objection is not a rejection, but rather a request for more information.

Education is an option of course, but keep in mind that the majority of people spend very little time watching or reading the news. My group reference in the OP is a 55+ crowd living in a gated retirement community of 10,000. What is important to them is golf, canasta, tennis and what's on sale this week at Kroger. That's not to say that they are stupid, or misinformed at all - they simply live a much different life than those of us who are constantly consumed with news.

Issues like this take a lot of time to resonate. Look how long it took us for people to wake up to the Fed issue. In my opinion, we need to address the hot topics, not introduce new ones.

[Forty Twice]

The average voter has very little idea what's going on. But majorities can see they have not benefitted personally from the Mideast Wars. Elderly people are overwhelmingly concerned about their Social Security and inflation. What the elderly need to understand is that we cannot have all three of wars, social security, and low inflation. We can have two of these but not three. Ron Paul is the only candidate offering social security and low inflation.

The others are offering wars for sure and probably social security. That means we will have high inflation and your fixed income financial assets will lose real value over time.

Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Corporate Media are owned by powerful interests who plan to make tremendous profits off of the wars. These powerful interests intend to steal our savings to buy wars for their benefit. Not to benefit elderly middle class Republicans.

[parocks]

Also, why does Ron let the moderators get away with saying that his foreign policy views "are to the left of Obama?" I can't believe that Ron seems to just accept that statement.

Agree with this. Explain who Robert Taft was and who Irving Kristol was. Give the history lesson.

I'd like to see a commercial called 1968.

In 1968, Irving Kristol supported the Democrat nominee Hubert Humphrey. Newt Gingrich supported Nelson Rockefeller, and was his southern director. He finished 2nd in delegates. Mitt Romney's dad, George finished 5th in delegates. Mitt was living in a castle in France as a Mormon Missionary. Ronald Reagan finished 3rd in delegates. Richard Nixon won. Ron Paul was in the Air Force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Republican_National_Convention

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Ron Paul Presidential Campaign Committee PCC keyword Matt Collins Jesse Benton Doug Wead search

"My foreign policy is if we are actually threatened or attacked, we declare war and destroy the enemy worse than any enemy has ever been destroyed before, and leave them to rebuild themselves so they no longer pose a threat to us or anybody."

Ron Paul Presidential Campaign Committee PCC keyword Matt Collins Jesse Benton Doug Wead search

"My foreign policy is if we are actually threatened or attacked, we declare war and destroy the enemy worse than any enemy has ever been destroyed before, and leave them to rebuild themselves so they no longer pose a threat to us or anybody."

Reposted so as to increase the chance that the campaign sees this. Great idea Gunny

[coffeewithgames]

Agree with this. Explain who Robert Taft was and who Irving Kristol was. Give the history lesson.

I'd like to see a commercial called 1968.

No, RP does not have time to explain anything in a debate. He needs to talk in soundbytes. He needs to simply say, "You're wrong. I'm running to the right of President Obama, and my opponents up here are running to the left of the Constitution. President Obama has continued the foreign policy of President Clinton, and Al Gore."

[LibertyEagle]

No, RP does not have time to explain anything in a debate. He needs to talk in soundbytes. He needs to simply say, "You're wrong. I'm running to the right of President Obama, and my opponents up here are running to the left of the Constitution. President Obama has continued the foreign policy of President Clinton, and Al Gore."

That would be good. :)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I totally agree.

It is wrong of people on here to just call everyone who doesn't understand Paul's FP a warhawk. More than that, it is stupid. I love Dr. Paul, but he has not laid out his foreign policy well at all. Actually, it's been absolutely horrible, in my opinion.

It is not realistic to expect voters to read reams of Dr. Paul's speeches and read some books by foreign policy experts, so that they can understand what the heck he is talking about. It is up to him to explain it so that his audience can understand it. Tom Davis could do it in a short interview; Dr. Paul should be able to do it too.

I guess I am the only one who thinks Dr. Paul explains his FP positions clearly. How many times does he have to repeat the Jeffersonian non-interventionist neutral position of Peace, Trade, Friendship, and no entangling alliances? Ergo, close all foreign bases, bring the troops home, end the wars, get out of NATO, UN, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, etc., unilateral free-trade, end all sanctions. Pretty clear to me.

Just because he doesn't speak the language of the warmongers, hawks, bloodlusters and the war-profiteers doesn't mean he isn't articulating the position well. I do think he lacks emphasis especially concerning the erosion and danger to liberty that war, militarism, and imperialism wrought. He should also stress more the destruction of the family that war causes and civil society. War is antithesis to Civilization. If anything I think Paul can be too soft-hawkish sometimes. Of course I am probably in the minority on that position. :p

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ron Paul says in every debate that he's for a STRONG national defense.

Can anyone tell me if he has ever explained what a Strong National Defense is in the debates? I don't think he ever has and that's his problem.

He's leaving his "strong national defense" statement up to the viewers to define. If the viewers think he's a isolationist peacenik, then that's lens they're going to view his national defense stance. But if he defines it himself and get's specific they can't use that lens and they suddenly have to question what they thought about Paul before.

What's wrong with being a peacenik? Peace is Civilization. War is the enemy of Civilization, Property Rights, and Liberty.

[kylejack]

I just got off the phone with my parents in SC. The Perry news has reached the average voter, the Newt story has not yet hit. My folks said that a lot of people like Paul on the economy, but his FP is what holds them back. They live in a very large 55+ over community (over 10,000 residents). It is a upper middle class, educated crowd.
FP is the issue that is holding us back...with a senior community.

We've never been able to depend on a strong senior contingent. Try and explain Ron's FP in the best way possible, but ultimately we can't change directions to probably NOT pick up many seniors while simultaneously losing people that love Ron's FP.

No, I think young people and Independents are our destiny.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Again, how is it not Ron Paul's position that we should respond with overwhelming force when we get attacked? Are you saying that Ron is a pacifist?

That's never been Ron's position. He has always advocated the Just War Theory. If you know anything about it, one of the planks calls for a PROPORTIONATE response. He certainly wouldn't wage war like the IDF where one or two Israeli's are killed, and in response level the entirity of Palestine and kill tens of thousands. How is waging war that way justified? Certainly is not.

[AuH20]

What's wrong with being a peacenik? Peace is Civilization. War is the enemy of Civilization, Property Rights, and Liberty.

Peaceniks are what's on the menu, if you get my drift. In our world, you cannot marry yourself to one credo, because you will get yourself as well as your loved ones killed. And this judicious approach applies to wanton belligerency as well. Extremes don't work out too well. As human beings we must look at each potential confrontation uniquely, analyzing the facts as best as possible and arriving at a decision. Some situations call for a violent response, while others lead to a peaceful outcome.

[tbone717]

I guess I am the only one who thinks Dr. Paul explains his FP positions clearly. How many times does he have to repeat the Jeffersonian non-interventionist neutral position of Peace, Trade, Friendship, and no entangling alliances? Ergo, close all foreign bases, bring the troops home, end the wars, get out of NATO, UN, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, etc., unilateral free-trade, end all sanctions. Pretty clear to me.

Just because he doesn't speak the language of the warmongers, hawks, bloodlusters and the war-profiteers doesn't mean he isn't articulating the position well. I do think he lacks emphasis especially concerning the erosion and danger to liberty that war, militarism, and imperialism wrought. He should also stress more the destruction of the family that war causes and civil society. War is antithesis to Civilization. If anything I think Paul can be too soft-hawkish sometimes. Of course I am probably in the minority on that position. :p

No offence, but you have 6000+ posts in a political forum, you read Mises and are schooled in Austrian Economics. You are like us, but you are no where near like the average GOP voter who spends very little time on these subjects.

[Southron]

FP is the issue that is holding us back...with a senior community.

We've never been able to depend on a strong senior contingent. Try and explain Ron's FP in the best way possible, but ultimately we can't change directions to probably NOT pick up many seniors while simultaneously losing people that love Ron's FP.

No, I think young people and Independents are our destiny.

I don't know. Young people voted heavily for Obama.

[kylejack]

Ron did not agree with the decapitation of the Afghan government. He favored a proportional response, which was setting loose Blackwater types with marque and reprisal or tactical strikes against Al Qaeda with special forces.

[kylejack]

I don't know. Young people voted heavily for Obama.
Well, Obama isn't running in the Republican primaries, so we can borrow them until we get the nomination. That's how we did so well in Iowa and New Hampshire.

[Brett85]

What's wrong with being a peacenik? Peace is Civilization. War is the enemy of Civilization, Property Rights, and Liberty.

There's nothing wrong with non intervention overseas, which means that we shouldn't just go around the world starting different wars. But the term "peacenik" makes it sound like Ron wouldn't defend the United States in the event of an attack or an imminent threat to our national security. Ron should make it clear to voters that he believes in defending our country in the case of an attack or an imminent threat to our security.

[wgadget]

I don't know. Young people voted heavily for Obama.

And now they are severely disillusioned.

[Brett85]

That's never been Ron's position. He has always advocated the Just War Theory. If you know anything about it, one of the planks calls for a PROPORTIONATE response. He certainly wouldn't wage war like the IDF where one or two Israeli's are killed, and in response level the entirity of Palestine and kill tens of thousands. How is waging war that way justified? Certainly is not.

Sometimes ending a war early through overwhelming force can save lives in the long run. There's usually more casualties in the long, endless wars.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Peaceniks are what's on the menu, if you get my drift. In our world, you cannot marry yourself to one credo, because you will get yourself as well as your loved ones killed. And this judicious approach applies to wanton belligerency as well. Extremes don't work out too well. As human beings we must look at each potential confrontation uniquely, analyzing the facts as best as possible and arriving at a decision. Some situations call for a violent response, while others lead to a peaceful outcome.

How are peaceniks on the menu when they own military hardware? The only justified defense is a Militia. Standing Armies are like a bull in a china shop -- they're designed for one thing and one thing only invasion, enslavement, and enforcement of State-dictates. Anyone who desires, pushes, or advocates war is a danger to civil society, Civilization, liberty, and property rights. If you desire security above all else, then rest lightly in your chains of servitude. I'll brave the turbulence of liberty. (In any event, I still hold that Militia's are better deterrence than Standing Army)

[kylejack]

There's nothing wrong with non intervention overseas, which means that we shouldn't just go around the world starting different wars. But the term "peacenik" makes it sound like Ron wouldn't defend the United States in the event of an attack or an imminent threat to our national security. Ron should make it clear to voters that he believes in defending our country in the case of an attack or an imminent threat to our security.
He does. He virtually always follows his comments in debates or interviews with "Now if there's an imminent attack, then yes, but that's never happened in our country in 230 years."

[EBounding]

What's wrong with being a peacenik? Peace is Civilization. War is the enemy of Civilization, Property Rights, and Liberty.

Because a lot of Republicans think Peacenik = Weak.

If he just explained his National Defense policy, it wouldn't be left up to interpretation. That's all he has to do. But for some reason he won't in debates.

I mean, I remember an interview where he said submarines are worthwhile weapons. What do submarines do? They patrol under international waters so they can deploy at any time and strike with stealth. I remember reading that some subs have firepower that exceeds what was dropped on all of Japan during WWII. If he would just state facts like these, it would be clear that he is not weak on National Defense.

[AuH20]

How are peaceniks on the menu when they own military hardware? The only justified defense is a Militia. Standing Armies are like a bull in a china shop -- they're designed for one thing and one thing only invasion, enslavement, and enforcement of State-dictates. Anyone who desires, pushes, or advocates war is a danger to civil society, Civilization, liberty, and property rights. If you desire security above all else, then rest lightly in your chains of servitude. I'll brave the turbulence of liberty. (In any event, I still hold that Militia's are better deterrence than Standing Army)

I meant peaceniks who openly advertise their non-aggression principles and who don't own any weapons. Pure peaceniks who will leave themselves susceptible to conquest.

[Brett85]

He does. He virtually always follows his comments in debates or interviews with "Now if there's an imminent attack, then yes, but that's never happened in our country in 230 years."

I've certainly never heard him say that in the debates.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Sometimes ending a war early through overwhelming force can save lives in the long run. There's usually more casualties in the long, endless wars.

Sometimes? Care to prove the case? Even if it is the case, killing innocents purposefully is never justified no matter what rationalization you use to try and justify those atrocities. Whether it be the bombing of Dresdon, or the fire-bombing of Japanese cities that killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, it is never justified. This whole idea of Democracy brought about Total War. Sickening, sad, and so destructive.

In any event, proportionate response does not = endless wars. In fact, the argument can be made that proportionate response end conflicts sooner with less cost in lives, property and liberty than your idea of Total War and 'overwhelming force'. I guess it was justified for Sherman to burn, rape, and pillage the South in the War of Northern Aggression because it ended the war sooner. Posh.

There are codes of conduct, honor, and justice to uphold when waging war.

[Brett85]

Sometimes? Care to prove the case? Even if it is the case, killing innocents purposefully is never justified no matter what rationalization you use to try and justify those atrocities. Whether it be the bombing of Dresdon, or the fire-bombing of Japanese cities that killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, it is never justified. This whole idea of Democracy brought about Total War. Sickening, sad, and so destructive.

In any event, proportionate response does not = endless wars. In fact, the argument can be made that proportionate response end conflicts sooner with less cost in lives, property and liberty than your idea of Total War and 'overwhelming force'. I guess it was justified for Sherman to burn, rape, and pillage the South in the War of Northern Aggression because it ended the war sooner. Posh.

There are codes of conduct, honor, and justice to uphold when waging war.

So I guess a "proportionate" response to 9-11 would've been to knock down a building with 3,000 innocent people in it? That doesn't make any sense either. I've never seen a situation where a country had a response that was "proportionate" to the attack that occurred in their country.

[RP4Peace]

Very good discussion and questions. I'm just wondering why one of us could ask these questions to Dr.Paul directly in one of those town halls?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I meant peaceniks who openly advertise their non-aggression principles and who don't own any weapons. Pure peaceniks who will leave themselves susceptible to conquest.

There's a difference between a peacenik (one who desires or advocates peace) and a pacifist. I have nothing against pacifists and in certain circumstances I think their approach is vastly superior to meeting force with force. I'd rather have a pacifist than a hawk though any day of the week. I suppose it is my nature as a lover of liberty to err on the side of peace than war, liberty than enslavement, and inquisition than barriers.

[PaulConventionWV]

Ron Paul Presidential Campaign Committee PCC keyword Matt Collins Jesse Benton Doug Wead search

"My foreign policy is if we are actually threatened or attacked, we declare war and destroy the enemy worse than any enemy has ever been destroyed before, and leave them to rebuild themselves so they no longer pose a threat to us or anybody."

Reposted so as to increase the chance that the campaign sees this. Great idea Gunny

Just stop it already. Ron Paul does not agree with that position, so stop trying to put words in his mouth? Would he attack if we were attacked? Yes. But, Ron Paul disagrees philosophically with saying things in a way that makes interventionists think he is one of them. He will not say it because he doesn't want to be deceptive and give people the impression that he is a pro-war candidate when no known situation even calls for that kind of language. You CANNOT tell Ron Paul to advocate he doesn't agree with.

Terrible idea, Gunny, and shame on everyone who thinks they can just repost this stupid bullshit and get the campaign to say, "oh we never thought of that before, now let's try to force this down Ron's throat."

FFS

[kylejack]

I've certainly never heard him say that in the debates.

Q: If you were president, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities?

ROMNEY: You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have to do.

HUNTER: It depends on one thing: the president does not need that if the target is fleeting.

PAUL: Absolutely. This idea of going & talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don’t we just open up the Constitution & read it? You’re not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war. Now, as far as fleeting enemies go, yes, if there’s an imminent attack on us, we’d never had that happen in 220 years. The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the US is preposterous. There’s no way.

HUNTER: Not an imminent attack a fleeting target.

PAUL: This is just continual war propaganda, preparing this nation to go to war and spread this war, not only in Iraq but into Iran, unconstitutionally. It’s a road to disaster if we don’t read the Constitution once in a while.
10/9/2007

And he does it plenty this cycle as well.

[kylejack]

So I guess a "proportionate" response to 9-11 would've been to knock down a building with 3,000 innocent people in it? That doesn't make any sense either. I've never seen a situation where a country had a response that was "proportionate" to the attack that occurred in their country.
When people make a plan and kill your people, you kill or capture the people that planned it and carried it out. That doesn't necessarily require a full-scale invasion of a country and a regime change.

Indeed, the Taliban had offered to turn Bin Laden over if Washington would just show them the evidence that he was responsible.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

So I guess a "proportionate" response to 9-11 would've been to knock down a building with 3,000 innocent people in it? That doesn't make any sense either. I've never seen a situation where a country had a response that was "proportionate" to the attack that occurred in their country.

I would say how we handled the Barbary Pirates was pretty close to adherence to the Just War Theory. A proportionate response to 9-11 were the letters of Marque and Reprisal which would have meant targetting those who committed/plotted those acts. Your idea is the exact idea that Bush went with. What we got was a full-frontal invasion of an entire country, ended up losing Bin Laden in Tora Bora because of it, and we paid the cost in liberty lost at home through wealth confiscation to the war-profiteers & the destruction of our civil liberties with bills like Patriot Act. No, sir, Total War is not only destructive of the liberties of the innocence overseas, but of us at home. It is the creed of the Democrat (Not the political party), of the warmonger, and profiteers, and the State.

You should really read Aquinas Just War Theory & Hoppe's Democracy: The God that Failed.

[PaulConventionWV]

Sometimes ending a war early through overwhelming force can save lives in the long run. There's usually more casualties in the long, endless wars.

You're making a lot of assumptions with that statement.

[Brett85]

Just stop it already. Ron Paul does not agree with that position, so stop trying to put words in his mouth?

How do you know that Ron Paul doesn't agree with that position? I believe I've heard him say before in debates that when we go to war we should use overwhelming force in order to end it quickly. It's just that he doesn't say it nearly often enough.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

How do you know that Ron Paul doesn't agree with that position? I believe I've heard him say before in debates that when we go to war we should use overwhelming force in order to end it quickly. It's just that he doesn't say it nearly often enough.

He's never said overwhelming force. He has said to end the war quickly, which does not necessitate 'overwhelming force', and further you couldn't even remember him talking about imminent attacks (which I agree are preposterous), but you can about him saying something he's never said. Ron advocates the traditional Classical Liberal position -- the same of Ludwig von Mises, Richard Cobden, Henry Bright, Frederic Bastiat, Thomas Paine, and the rest.

You simply disagree to the degree of which he is not as hawkish as you. Fine. It's silly however to think he will ever change his position to pander for votes. That's not who Ron Paul is. I still can't believe the extent of people who have not realized this yet.

Ron is for repealing the AuMF since Bin Laden died, the whole point to Letters of Marque and Reprisal which would have gotten Bin Laden years and years earlier.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-olNr4UuVqY

[PaulConventionWV]

So I guess a "proportionate" response to 9-11 would've been to knock down a building with 3,000 innocent people in it? That doesn't make any sense either. I've never seen a situation where a country had a response that was "proportionate" to the attack that occurred in their country.

I hate to say this, but wow... your view of liberty is so warped. You don't even understand the idea of finding your target and using a justified and proportional response. You can't just knock down a building with 3000 people. WHose building woud it be? As far as I know, Al Qaeda doesn't have any skyscrapers. It's hard to believe you can't even imagine what proportional force would be. Regardless, you must realize that your idea of overwhelming force and total war is not Ron Paul's position, so stop trying to get him to advocate it.

[Brett85]

Your idea is the exact idea that Bush went with. What we got was a full-frontal invasion of an entire country, ended up losing Bin Laden in Tora Bora because of it, and we paid the cost in liberty lost at home through wealth confiscation to the war-profiteers & the destruction of our civil liberties with bills like Patriot Act.

Yes, but I never supported the subsequent occupation and nation building effort that we had and still have there. I believe we should've left Afghanistan 6 months after went in there, because we had already displaced the Taliban and had Al-Quada on the run. The letters of marque and reprisal are a good idea as well, but I don't think it's a strong enough response to an attack that killed over 3,000 of our people.

[kylejack]

How do you know that Ron Paul doesn't agree with that position? I believe I've heard him say before in debates that when we go to war we should use overwhelming force in order to end it quickly. It's just that he doesn't say it nearly often enough.


Criteria of Just War theory

Just War Theory has two sets of criteria. The first establishing jus ad bellum, the right to go to war; the second establishing jus in bello, right conduct within war.[11]




Jus ad bellum

Just cause
The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."
Comparative justice
While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.
Competent authority
Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war. "A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Dictatorships (i.e. Hitler's Regime) or a deceptive military actions (i.e. the 1968 US bombing of Cambodia) are typically considered as violations of this criterion. The importance of this condition is key. Plainly, we cannot have a genuine process of judging a just war within a system that represses the process of genuine justice. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice".<[3]>
Right intention
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
Probability of success
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
Last resort
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.
Proportionality
The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality.

In modern terms, just war is waged in terms of self-defense, or in defense of another (with sufficient evidence).




Jus in bello

Once war has begun, just war theory (Jus in bello) also directs how combatants are to act or should act:

Distinction
Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction. The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against civilians.

Proportionality
Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. An attack cannot be launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality).

Military necessity
Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction.

Fair treatment of prisoners of War
Enemy soldiers who surrendered or who are captured no longer pose a threat. It is therefore wrong to torture them or otherwise mistreat them.

No means malum in se
Soldiers may not use weapons or other methods of warfare which are considered as evil, such as mass rape, forcing soldiers to fight against their own side or using weapons whose effects cannot be controlled (e.g. nuclear weapons).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory#Criteria_of_Just_War_theory


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbn2-LfHXgM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dyyd4rcuZc

[Brett85]

I hate to say this, but wow... your view of liberty is so warped. You don't even understand the idea of finding your target and using a justified and proportional response. You can't just knock down a building with 3000 people. WHose building woud it be? As far as I know, Al Qaeda doesn't have any skyscrapers. It's hard to believe you can't even imagine what proportional force would be. Regardless, you must realize that your idea of overwhelming force and total war is not Ron Paul's position, so stop trying to get him to advocate it.

I didn't say that we should knock down a building with 3,000 people in it. I was criticizing that idea. But that's what a "proportionate" response would actually be, because it's exactly the same thing that happened to us.

But, I think you can support liberty and still support defending our country.

[tbone717]

It's silly however to think he will ever change his position to pander for votes. That's not who Ron Paul is. I still can't believe the extent of people who have not realized this yet.

Just to clarify, since I am the one that started the thread, I don't suggest that he change his position, nor should he pander. That is what Romney does when he flip-flops and changes his positions to suit the mood of the day. There is a huge difference between pandering and changing the words you use to describe your position so that your intended audience is receptive to your message. He has done this with his economic plan and has done so successfully. He can very well do the same with FP.

[AuH20]

He's never said overwhelming force. He has send to end the war quickly, which does not necessitate 'overwhelming force', and further you couldn't even remember him talking about imminent attacks (which I agree are preposterous), but you can about him saying something he's never said. Ron advocates the traditional Classical Liberal position -- the same of Ludwig von Mises, Richard Cobden, Henry Bright, Frederic Bastiat, Thomas Paine, and the rest.

You simply disagree to the degree of which he is not as hawkish as you. Fine. It's silly however to think he will ever change his position to pander for votes. That's not who Ron Paul is. I still can't believe the extent of people who have not realized this yet.

It is implied that to bring a conflict to an end, you will need to strike a decisive blow. That reminds me of a great Barry Goldwater quote:


“If I had inherited the mess that Johnson got into, I would have said to North Vietnam, by dropping leaflets out of B-52s, 'You quit the war in three days or the next time these babies come over there going to drop some big bombs on you.' And I'd make a swamp out of North Vietnam ... I'd rather kill a hell of a lot of North Vietnamese than one American and we've lost enough of them,”

No dinking around. War is hell and you bring it to a resolution as soon as possible. Goldwater was one never to go around looking for a fight, as opposed to these treacherous neocon vermin, but he knew how to end them.

[Brett85]

Also, "using overwhelming force" doesn't mean that we should intentionally target civilians. That's somewhat of a straw man argument. "Using overwhelming force" to end a war quickly can simply mean bringing enough troops to get the job done. Ron should point out that we don't have the troops that we need to win wars quickly because they're spread out in countries like Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. That's another argument in favor of closing down bases in those countries and using our troops for our own defense.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I didn't say that we should knock down a building with 3,000 people in it. I was criticizing that idea. But that's what a "proportionate" response would actually be, because it's exactly the same thing that happened to us.

But, I think you can support liberty and still support defending our country.

I think you should open a dictionary because you have no idea what the word proportionate means.

[kylejack]

There are many good things about Goldwater, but he was dead wrong on the war of aggression against the Vietnamese people to prop up an unelected dictator.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It is implied that to bring a conflict to an end, you will need to strike a decisive blow. That reminds me of a great Barry Goldwater quote:



No dinking around. War is hell and you bring it to a resolution as soon as possible. Goldwater was one never to go around looking for a fight, as opposed to these treacherous neocon vermin, but he knew how to end them.

So you have no problem with Scorched Earth and Total War? I suppose you also aren't a Southerner who didn't have any family get massacred by Sherman, or say, Indian relatives get massacred by Jackson. Easy to spout that BS when you are on the other side. There's no justification for Total War, period. It's inhumane and a characteristic of a State which places no value on life, liberty, or justice -- it is the creed of the totalitarian State.

[AuH20]

There are many good things about Goldwater, but he was dead wrong on the war of aggression against the Vietnamese people to prop up an unelected dictator.

Goldwater agreed that getting involved in North Vietnam was a mistake, but after the conflict reaches a certain plateau there is no going back. If I was president I would have done the same thing Goldwater advocated, especially if the war was in it's early stages. I would have left the NVA and Viet Cong with one ultimatum. Formally and informally discard all aspirations to conquer South Vietnam or we will remove you from the map via conventional means. Very simple and to the point. And Goldwater was proved correct because North Vietnam eventually abandoned the agreement in the Paris peace accord and successfully invaded the South. Anytime you operate from a position of weakness, bad things usually occur.

[AuH20]

So you have no problem with Scorched Earth and Total War? I suppose you also aren't a Southerner who didn't have any family get massacred by Sherman, or say, Indian relatives get massacred by Jackson. Easy to spout that BS when you are on the other side. There's no justification for Total War, period. It's inhumane and a characteristic of a State which places no value on life, liberty, or justice -- it is the creed of the totalitarian State.

No, that choice would ultimately be determined by the enemy. I would offer them a proposal with certain terms and conditions.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No, that choice would ultimately be determined by the enemy. I would offer them a proposal with certain terms and conditions.

Again, you have this Democratic ideal that you believe whole heartily. It is at the very heart of Total War and Scorched Earth. The Government is not the people, and the people aren't the Government. There's never a justification to wantonly massacre innocents, period. I think it's sickening you even consider such a thing justifiable. What about all those Germans in Dresden who had nothing to do with Hitler and the Nazi's? Or all the innocent Southerners getting ploughed through by Sherman, or the innocent Cherokee and Seminoles massacred by the USG?

This is where you just fundamentally disagree with Ron. I think it's well known that you aren't a Classical Liberal, but you have to understand Ron is, and he will never accept your position.

[Brett85]

Again, you have this Democratic ideal that you believe whole heartily. It is at the very heart of Total War and Scorched Earth. The Government is not the people, and the people aren't the Government. There's never a justification to wantonly massacre innocents, period. I think it's sickening you even consider such a thing justifiable. What about all those Germans in Dresden who had nothing to do with Hitler and the Nazi's? Or all the innocent Southerners getting ploughed through by Sherman, or the innocent Cherokee and Seminoles massacred by the USG?

This is where you just fundamentally disagree with Ron. I think it's well known that you aren't a Classical Liberal, but you have to understand Ron is, and he will never accept your position.

I've never really heard Ron discuss this issue, so I don't really know how anybody can say with certainly which side he would be on. It's obvious that he doesn't believe in pre-emptive war, and I believe everybody here is opposed to pre-emptive war. But he hasn't really talked about what tactics we should use during a war.

[kylejack]

Goldwater agreed that getting involved in North Vietnam was a mistake, but after the conflict reaches a certain plateau there is no going back. If I was president I would have done the same thing Goldwater advocated. I would have left the NVA and Viet Cong with one ultimatum. Formally and informally discard all aspirations to conquer South Vietnam or we will remove you from the map via conventional means. Very simple and to the point. And Goldwater was proved correct because North Vietnam eventually abandoned the agreement in the Paris peace accord and successfully invaded the South. Anytime you operate from a position of weakness, bad things usually occur.
Uh, why? The people of South Vietnam wanted reunification. They never elected Ngo Dinh Diem, and he was torturing and executing them for their political beliefs. The Viet Cong was a South Vietnamese resistance force that was fighting to overthrow a dictator and reunify with North Vietnam. We were backing the dictator. We were the "bad guys."

A Vietnamese general told McNamara after the fact, (paraphrase) "Don't you understand? As far as we were concerned, you were just the next colonial power trying to control us after the French left. We were fighting for our freedom."

[Matthanuf06]

We can debate this all day and night. It is pretty simple, if Ron doesn't change his FP message than he is certain to fail. I listen to his debates, and his FP makes no sense unless you are very well versed. It just isn't easy to follow. He rambles, and his message isn't conherent. Last debate he went on about "military vs defense", which makes sense to us, made no sense to anyone else. Even the moderator was confused. We can continue to blame the voter, but blaming the voter does not get you elected. We have to help the voter, educate the voter, and convince the voter. It really is in Ron's court. He botches literally every FP question because he doesn't phrase it in a manner that the average voter can digest. The average voter is certainly not a war hungry neocon. They just want to rebuild the nation's economy, and be safe. The average voter does not think Ron will keep us safe. We (Ron especially) need to stop blaming them and educate them.

He needs to have clear answers: bring troops home and reallocate/open bases here in the US, protect our borders, and defend our nation through declared war if attacked or if there is an imminent threat. He needs to quit focusing on the hypothetical BS. Just say, if we are attacked (or if there is an imminent threat) that he will go to war and fight it to win it. He needs to say he is going to close foreign bases that offer limited strategic bases and move those troops to bases here. He needs to talk about protecting the borders and other "defense" related things. I don't care what the question is. Spin it back to the pillars of his foreign policy.

The thing that sucks, is Paul has by far the best foreign policy of the group, but he frames it so poorly that it makes him look like he has the worst; even to people that could easily be ideologically aligned with him. It is a ton of lost votes. I can't even count the number of people I know that believe Paul is going to let us get nuked.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I've never really heard Ron discuss this issue, so I don't really know how anybody can say with certainly which side he would be on. It's obvious that he doesn't believe in pre-emptive war, and I believe everybody here is opposed to pre-emptive war. But he hasn't really talked about what tactics we should use during a war.

Yes he has!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dyyd4rcuZc

[AuH20]

Again, you have this Democratic ideal that you believe whole heartily. It is at the very heart of Total War and Scorched Earth. The Government is not the people, and the people aren't the Government. There's never a justification to wantonly massacre innocents, period. I think it's sickening you even consider such a thing justifiable. What about all those Germans in Dresden who had nothing to do with Hitler and the Nazi's? Or all the innocent Southerners getting ploughed through by Sherman, or the innocent Cherokee and Seminoles massacred by the USG?

This is where you just fundamentally disagree with Ron. I think it's well known that you aren't a Classical Liberal, but you have to understand Ron is, and he will never accept your position.

But I'm not the party that chose Total War or whatever term suits you. My opponent had a choice. There is no egalitarian give and take in war. You're trying to apply humanitarian concerns to war, which is a construct that is blatantly immoral at it's core. Secondly, I'm not going to specifically target civilians, but I will do all in my power to make certain that my enemy can no longer wage war and in turn, they eventually will agree to my terms of conditions.

[EBounding]

I think this thread is starting to fall off the rails. The discussion is what should Ron say to appeal to more Republicans without compromising principles in regards to foreign policy. To be honest, I think him saying "decimate the enemy country into submission" would compromise Ron's principles, even if it was in reaction to a real threat. I could never imagine him saying that. It's too absolutist and I personally wouldn't agree with it either.

But can we all agree that it would be helpful for Paul to simply lay out the facts of his National Defense strategy, like he has for every other issue?

[AuH20]

Uh, why? The people of South Vietnam wanted reunification. They never elected Ngo Dinh Diem, and he was torturing and executing them for their political beliefs. The Viet Cong was a South Vietnamese resistance force that was fighting to overthrow a dictator and reunify with North Vietnam. We were backing the dictator. We were the "bad guys."

A Vietnamese general told McNamara after the fact, (paraphrase) "Don't you understand? As far as we were concerned, you were just the next colonial power trying to control us after the French left. We were fighting for our freedom."

Tell that to the 300,000 South Vietnamese who ended up in re-education camps after the North ran roughshod over the South. There certainly was no love for the catholic Diem but there was similar distaste for the Northern communists.

[kylejack]

He needs to quit focusing on the hypothetical BS. Just say, if we are attacked (or if there is an imminent threat) that he will go to war and fight it to win it.
????

[kylejack]

Tell that to the 300,000 South Vietnamese who ended up in re-education camps after the North ran roughshod over the South. There certainly was no love for the catholic Diem but there was similar distaste for the Northern communists.
Then why would you bomb the people of North Vietnam? Why not bomb Diem? Or how about bombing nobody?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

But I'm not the party that chose Total War or whatever term suits you. My opponent had a choice. There is no egalitarian give and take in war. You're trying to apply humanitarian concerns to war, which is a construct that is blatantly immoral at it's core. Secondly, I'm not going to specifically target civilians, but I will do all in my power to make certain that my enemy can no longer wage war and in turn, they eventually agree to my terms of conditions.

War must be a magical word. All laws of morality, good conscience, honor, justice, and codes of conduct are thrown out. This is why war is so dangerous as it breeds this maniacly dangerous viewpoints and beliefs. I can't believe you cannot even see you contradicted yourself in the same sentence. In order to prevent an entity from having the means to wage war, it necessarily means attacking civilians, infrastructure, hardware, basic living quarters, food supplies, etc. You are the one choosing Total War. You are free to not target civilians, housing, food, water, and the rest, and respond in proportion.

It would be like the cops arresting the entire city block because there are a few criminals residing there. It's completely insane. People like you make me look fondly back on the Monarchs, if only for a fleeting moment. King George had better morals than you!

[AuH20]

Then why would you bomb the people of North Vietnam? Why not bomb Diem? Or how about bombing nobody?

Diem was eventually assassinated, with Western backing I suspect. Nevertheless, the North Vietnamese feared him and he did prove to be a stalwart against their desires:


Upon learning of Diệm's ouster and death, Hồ Chí Minh reportedly said, "I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid." The North Vietnamese Politburo was more explicit, predicting: "The consequences of the 1 November coup d'état will be contrary to the calculations of the U.S. imperialists ... Diệm was one of the strongest individuals resisting the people and Communism. Everything that could be done in an attempt to crush the revolution was carried out by Diệm. Diệm was one of the most competent lackeys of the U.S. imperialists ... Among the anti-Communists in South Vietnam or exiled in other countries, no one has sufficient political assets and abilities to cause others to obey. Therefore, the lackey administration cannot be stabilized. The coup d'état on 1 November 1963 will not be the last."[55]

[AuH20]

War must be a magical word. All laws of morality, good conscience, honor, justice, and codes of conduct are thrown out. This is why war is so dangerous as it breeds this maniacly dangerous viewpoints and beliefs. I can't believe you cannot even see you contradicted yourself in the same sentence. In order to prevent an entity from having the means to wage war, it necessarily means attacking civilians, infrastructure, hardware, basic living quarters, food supplies, etc. You are the one choosing Total War. You are free to not target civilians, housing, food, water, and the rest, and respond in proportion.

It would be like the cops arresting the entire city block because there are a few criminals residing there. It's completely insane. People like you make me look fondly back on the Monarchs, if only for a fleeting moment. King George had better morals than you!

I'm not an advocate for war, since I clearly understand the unholy ramifications. We agree. But you apparently want to act paralyzed, when certain events make the ability to turn back the proverbial clock impossible. That is where we differ.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Diem was eventually assassinated, with Western backing I suspect. Nevertheless, the North Vietnamese feared him and he did prove to be a stalwart against their desires:

The US had no business being involved in Vietnam, especially not in a war. In any event, you are considerably more hawkish than Paul or a lot of others here, that's for sure.

[BLS]

I think you all have bigger fish to fry than to argue on the internet.

For the record, i agree Ron needs to change the wording of his message. it doesn't mean you change how you feel, but more how you CONVEY it.
Words have meaning.

[AuH20]

The US had no business being involved in Vietnam, especially not in a war. In any event, you are considerably more hawkish than Paul or a lot of others here, that's for sure.
Agreed. Goldwater agreed as well. The U.S. had no business meddling in Vietnam, going back to Eisenhower as well as Kennedy. But at a certain stage, with so much American blood being spilled, you have to force the issue and stop your enemy cold. It got personal after Tet.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm not an advocate for war, since I clearly understand the unholy ramifications. We agree. But you apparently want to act paralyzed, when certain events make the ability to turn back the proverbial clock impossible. That is where we differ.

My actions would be dictated by the initial response of the aggressor. Ergo, if say, a robber entered my home with a baseball bat, I'm not going to launch a RPG at him. Or, say my neighbor decides to take a few shots at my house, I'm not going to drop a bomb that would wipe out the block on him. You seem to think any means necessary is perfectly fine, and if that means the destruction of an entire country to find one person, then so be it. I simply disagree, especially with your Democratic view of war, people, and the State.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Agreed. Goldwater agreed as well. The U.S. had no business meddling in Vietnam, going back to Eisenhower as well as Kennedy. But at a certain stage, with so much American blood being spilled, you have to force the issue and stop your enemy cold. It got personal after Tet.

Can you even define what 'certain stage' means? Should we have doubled-down on Beirut? If we have no business there in the first place, then it means immediate withdrawal. To commit more innocent lives to death, more property to destruction, and more liberty lost at home -- that's simply incalculable. How can you even agree to such a position!

[AuH20]

My actions would be dictated by the initial response of the aggressor. Ergo, if say, a robber entered my home with a baseball bat, I'm not going to launch a RPG at him. Or, say my neighbor decides to take a few shots at my house, I'm not going to drop a bomb that would wipe out the block on him. You seem to think any means necessary is perfectly fine, and if that means the destruction of an entire country to find one person, then so be it. I simply disagree, especially with your Democratic view of war, people, and the State.

But I'm not going to ante up in terms of response, until I talk to my neighbor. For example, if my neighbor acknowledges I possess the capabilities to follow through on my threats, they will be more likely to hammer out a peaceful solution. I'm simply not an advocate for disproportionate collateral damage. I think the golden rule of vigilance is to not allow the military industrial complex to lure us into decade long conflicts of their choosing, so as to force us into these horrible decisions, predicated largely on self-defense.

[Brett85]

We can debate this all day and night. It is pretty simple, if Ron doesn't change his FP message than he is certain to fail. I listen to his debates, and his FP makes no sense unless you are very well versed. It just isn't easy to follow. He rambles, and his message isn't conherent. Last debate he went on about "military vs defense", which makes sense to us, made no sense to anyone else. Even the moderator was confused. We can continue to blame the voter, but blaming the voter does not get you elected. We have to help the voter, educate the voter, and convince the voter. It really is in Ron's court. He botches literally every FP question because he doesn't phrase it in a manner that the average voter can digest. The average voter is certainly not a war hungry neocon. They just want to rebuild the nation's economy, and be safe. The average voter does not think Ron will keep us safe. We (Ron especially) need to stop blaming them and educate them.

He needs to have clear answers: bring troops home and reallocate/open bases here in the US, protect our borders, and defend our nation through declared war if attacked or if there is an imminent threat. He needs to quit focusing on the hypothetical BS. Just say, if we are attacked (or if there is an imminent threat) that he will go to war and fight it to win it. He needs to say he is going to close foreign bases that offer limited strategic bases and move those troops to bases here. He needs to talk about protecting the borders and other "defense" related things. I don't care what the question is. Spin it back to the pillars of his foreign policy.

The thing that sucks, is Paul has by far the best foreign policy of the group, but he frames it so poorly that it makes him look like he has the worst; even to people that could easily be ideologically aligned with him. It is a ton of lost votes. I can't even count the number of people I know that believe Paul is going to let us get nuked.

Absolutely. You said it very well.

[AuH20]

Can you even define what 'certain stage' means? Should we have doubled-down on Beirut? If we have no business there in the first place, then it means immediate withdrawal. To commit more innocent lives to death, more property to destruction, and more liberty lost at home -- that's simply incalculable. How can you even agree to such a position!

No, the Beirut incident was easily ignorable. It didn't merit a response. Same with Somalia. Discretion is the better part of valor in some cases. Vietnam became personal after Tet, though the war should have been over far before that. Any theoretical, meaningful peace in that region could not have been hammered out without the US decisively winning that war at the ground level. We saw what happened when the North Vietnamese were main drivers of the peace agreement and the US was basically handcuffed, thanks to the years of prior bungling as well as the increase in popular dissent back at home.

[GunnyFreedom]

Tabling ahead of the debate. On iPhone so pictures are at Facebook/glenbradley

Joe Scarborough just lied on Ron Paul and I shouted NO!

[georgiaboy]

Tabling ahead of the debate. On iPhone so pictures are at Facebook/glenbradley

Joe Scarborough just lied on Ron Paul and I shouted NO!

cool. can you elaborate?

[GunnyFreedom]

cool. can you elaborate?

He said no Republican candidate wants to balance the budget or make big cuts. Someone in the audience shouted Ron Paul. Joe said 'oh well he wants to get rid of everything.' I shouted 'NO!'

[ohgodno]

We can debate this all day and night. It is pretty simple, if Ron doesn't change his FP message than he is certain to fail. I listen to his debates, and his FP makes no sense unless you are very well versed. It just isn't easy to follow. He rambles, and his message isn't conherent. Last debate he went on about "military vs defense", which makes sense to us, made no sense to anyone else. Even the moderator was confused. We can continue to blame the voter, but blaming the voter does not get you elected. We have to help the voter, educate the voter, and convince the voter. It really is in Ron's court. He botches literally every FP question because he doesn't phrase it in a manner that the average voter can digest. The average voter is certainly not a war hungry neocon. They just want to rebuild the nation's economy, and be safe. The average voter does not think Ron will keep us safe. We (Ron especially) need to stop blaming them and educate them.

He needs to have clear answers: bring troops home and reallocate/open bases here in the US, protect our borders, and defend our nation through declared war if attacked or if there is an imminent threat. He needs to quit focusing on the hypothetical BS. Just say, if we are attacked (or if there is an imminent threat) that he will go to war and fight it to win it. He needs to say he is going to close foreign bases that offer limited strategic bases and move those troops to bases here. He needs to talk about protecting the borders and other "defense" related things. I don't care what the question is. Spin it back to the pillars of his foreign policy.

The thing that sucks, is Paul has by far the best foreign policy of the group, but he frames it so poorly that it makes him look like he has the worst; even to people that could easily be ideologically aligned with him. It is a ton of lost votes. I can't even count the number of people I know that believe Paul is going to let us get nuked.

YES x 9,001

I've been trying to make this point for so long, and have taken so much shit for it too. All voters want is him to express a clear idea of his vision to defend the country concisely during the debates.

[GunnyFreedom]

I shoulda yelled "YOU LIE!" but I didnt exactly expect it.

[nayjevin]

I've been trying to make this point for so long, and have taken so much shit for it too. All voters want is him to express a clear idea of his vision to defend the country concisely during the debates.

Be patient. :)

[kylejack]

Agreed. Goldwater agreed as well. The U.S. had no business meddling in Vietnam, going back to Eisenhower as well as Kennedy. But at a certain stage, with so much American blood being spilled, you have to force the issue and stop your enemy cold. It got personal after Tet.
You break into a guy's house, he punches you in the nose, and you think the moral choice is to kill him rather than just leaving his house where you don't belong?

Any theoretical, meaningful peace in that region could not have been hammered out without the US decisively winning that war at the ground level.
The peace came after we packed our shit and headed home, which is what we should have done at every stage of the conflict.

[Matthanuf06]

YES x 9,001

I've been trying to make this point for so long, and have taken so much shit for it too. All voters want is him to express a clear idea of his vision to defend the country concisely during the debates.

All Ron needs to do is make people believe that he will keep them safe. Posters here say he can't "compromise his principles", but the truth is if his "principles" don't make Americans safe then none of us should vote for him anyways. Point being, making Americans safe is part of his principles, and while different than the status quo, makes us safe nonetheless. He just needs to pound it into the heads of voters, 1000x different ways, that they'll be safe under POTUS Paul. And people don't want/need an academic lecture in doing so, he just needs to let them know that his ear will be to the ground for possible threats, and when America is at risk he will be willing to fight for our safety. If he cannot do that, then none of us should vote for him anyways. And that what hurts so much, the biggest barrier for him is the biggest no brainer.

[Matthanuf06]

You break into a guy's house, he punches you in the nose, and you think the moral choice is to kill him rather than just leaving his house where you don't belong?

The peace came after we packed our shit and headed home, which is what we should have done at every stage of the conflict.

If we use this for our current "wars", then what do we do if we "leave the house", yet they continue to follow us attacking. Do we fight back, even though we caused the initial skirmish?

[kylejack]

If we use this for our current "wars", then what do we do if we "leave the house", yet they continue to follow us attacking. Do we fight back, even though we caused the initial skirmish?
Sure, we should defend ourselves. Ron Paul says we have a right to defend ourselves from an imminent attack.

[ohgodno]

Be patient. :)

***tries to be patient***

[AuH20]

The peace came after we packed our shit and headed home, which is what we should have done at every stage of the conflict.


With the endgame being a meaningless "peace" which resulted in more deaths.

[kylejack]

With the endgame being a meaningless "peace" which resulted in more deaths.
Not nearly as many as the millions that died due to us propping up a brutal dictator. Killing innocent civilians to defend a tyrant is indefensible. That blood is on our hands. Sure, people died after we left, but that's on the people that did it, not us.

We were not defending freedom or the people of South Vietnam. We were defending capitalism as a principle, and a brutal tyrant as an aside.

[jolynna]

I guess I am the only one who thinks Dr. Paul explains his FP positions clearly. How many times does he have to repeat the Jeffersonian non-interventionist neutral position of Peace, Trade, Friendship, and no entangling alliances? Ergo, close all foreign bases, bring the troops home, end the wars, get out of NATO, UN, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, etc., unilateral free-trade, end all sanctions. Pretty clear to me.

Just because he doesn't speak the language of the warmongers, hawks, bloodlusters and the war-profiteers doesn't mean he isn't articulating the position well. I do think he lacks emphasis especially concerning the erosion and danger to liberty that war, militarism, and imperialism wrought. He should also stress more the destruction of the family that war causes and civil society. War is antithesis to Civilization. If anything I think Paul can be too soft-hawkish sometimes. Of course I am probably in the minority on that position. :p

I think he is explaining his position just fine too.

Everyone who votes ISN'T a war-hawk. This CNN poll shows that a majority of Americans opposed our intervention in Iraq. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
OUr soldiers that been in Iraq and Afghanistan say it isn't worth it: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/05/survey-veterans-say-afghanistan-iraq-wars-not-worth-it/

The stacked audience at the Fox South Carolina debate are not the only people out there. The interviews with Karl Rove that Fox viewers are exposed to over and over and over again hardly gives faithful Fox Network viewers a balanced view of world events.

Maybe being the only NON-bomb-Iran candidate makes Ron Paul the most sane candidate. Obama was elected because he promised to get us out of Iran and Afghanistan as soon as he got in office. Some have become disenchanted with Obama because he didn't keep that promise.

I LOVE Ron Paul for BOTH his domestic AND his foreign policies.

Many DO worry about "what if Iran gets nukes" but, Pakistan and North Korea--hardly hotbeds of stability--have nukes. And we aren't bombing or invading them. Plus if we take on Iran, we also take on Iran's alliances with China and Russia. Would taking on Iran and China and Russia keep America SAFE?

If we bomb a nuclear facility in Iran, what about all of the pollution from the nuclear facility getting into airstreams or the water? Some of those airstreams go over into Europe. Would polluting the middle east and Europe with nuclear fallout make this world and America safer?

With our economy in jeopardy is wasting more money in the middle east, taking away promised benefits (Ron Paul IS the ONLY candidate who has promised NOT to cut promised social security or medicare--he's giving young people under 25 the opportunity to opt out) keeping America safe?

Israel is RIGHT THERE with a huge MODERN military. They are good allies, who have shown NO hesitation about handling Iran's nuclear situation. Maybe we need to stand back and LET THEM.

I just won't apologize for Ron Paul's common sense to satisfy those who got caught up chanting at the last debate for Gingerich's and Santorum's war slogans like Jerry Springer's audiences do.

Running through the same wrong mazes, time after time after time, is going to make the U.S. a whole lot poorer, less free and LESS SAFE.

--Strictly my opinion.

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes, but I never supported the subsequent occupation and nation building effort that we had and still have there. I believe we should've left Afghanistan 6 months after went in there, because we had already displaced the Taliban and had Al-Quada on the run. The letters of marque and reprisal are a good idea as well, but I don't think it's a strong enough response to an attack that killed over 3,000 of our people.

I respect your opinion, but just keep in mind that you are in disagreement with Ron Paul on that issue, so don't try to speak for him.

[PaulConventionWV]

I didn't say that we should knock down a building with 3,000 people in it. I was criticizing that idea. But that's what a "proportionate" response would actually be, because it's exactly the same thing that happened to us.

But, I think you can support liberty and still support defending our country.

Proportional doesn't mean "the same." That's what I meant when I said you had a warped view. Proportional means you only do what's necessary. I know you have the intellect to figure this out. Reason is all that's necessary. If the people who attacked you aren't a country, then go for the people who did it, specifically. That is justified and proportional. Look it up in a dictionary if you are still confused.

[PaulConventionWV]

I've never really heard Ron discuss this issue, so I don't really know how anybody can say with certainly which side he would be on. It's obvious that he doesn't believe in pre-emptive war, and I believe everybody here is opposed to pre-emptive war. But he hasn't really talked about what tactics we should use during a war.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe that's the reason he's not saying what you want him to say? Think about it.

[PaulConventionWV]

We can debate this all day and night. It is pretty simple, if Ron doesn't change his FP message than he is certain to fail. I listen to his debates, and his FP makes no sense unless you are very well versed. It just isn't easy to follow. He rambles, and his message isn't conherent. Last debate he went on about "military vs defense", which makes sense to us, made no sense to anyone else. Even the moderator was confused. We can continue to blame the voter, but blaming the voter does not get you elected. We have to help the voter, educate the voter, and convince the voter. It really is in Ron's court. He botches literally every FP question because he doesn't phrase it in a manner that the average voter can digest. The average voter is certainly not a war hungry neocon. They just want to rebuild the nation's economy, and be safe. The average voter does not think Ron will keep us safe. We (Ron especially) need to stop blaming them and educate them.

He needs to have clear answers: bring troops home and reallocate/open bases here in the US, protect our borders, and defend our nation through declared war if attacked or if there is an imminent threat. He needs to quit focusing on the hypothetical BS. Just say, if we are attacked (or if there is an imminent threat) that he will go to war and fight it to win it. He needs to say he is going to close foreign bases that offer limited strategic bases and move those troops to bases here. He needs to talk about protecting the borders and other "defense" related things. I don't care what the question is. Spin it back to the pillars of his foreign policy.

The thing that sucks, is Paul has by far the best foreign policy of the group, but he frames it so poorly that it makes him look like he has the worst; even to people that could easily be ideologically aligned with him. It is a ton of lost votes. I can't even count the number of people I know that believe Paul is going to let us get nuked.

He has been saying all of these things. Where have you been?

[GunnyFreedom]

Is that an actual Paul quote?

No, but it should be. ;)

[tbone717]

Well, I have to say after tonight it looks like the language did change to a degree. There wasn't much FP tonight, but what Paul did put out there he did succinctly. I appreciated the comment about having bases in Korea, Japan and Germany. I would have loved to have him end that statement with "we even have a base in Portugal - how the heck is that benefit our national defense?"

[kylejack]

Well, I have to say after tonight it looks like the language did change to a degree. There wasn't much FP tonight, but what Paul did put out there he did succinctly. I appreciated the comment about having bases in Korea, Japan and Germany. I would have loved to have him end that statement with "we even have a base in Greenland - how the heck is that benefit our national defense?"
Well, Fox loves to talk FP. Most major FP conflicts for Paul have come in Fox News debates, this cycle and last.

[coffeewithchess]

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe that's the reason he's not saying what you want him to say? Think about it.

There was one interview, where he said, "Congress would declare war, we would specifically know our enemy, and we would go and win it decisively and come back." Something along those lines...

[tbone717]

Well, Fox loves to talk FP. Most major FP conflicts for Paul have come in Fox News debates, this cycle and last.

True. and btw I edited the post you quoted to say Portugal. The Greenland base is where we have our missile defense stuff, probably because of its geographic position. Bases like that I don't have as much of an issue with. I consider that more like renting space from a country for a few pieces of equipment.

[raystone]

That is not Ron Paul's position and he will not say it.

You're wrong. He has said he will go war, commit, win it and come home. And his constitutional no foreign aid policy means not rebuilding the country we just bombed.


If he hasn't said what you want to hear by now, then maybe that is a clue that he doesn't agree with what you say.

You've replied in this same fashion to several similar posts from others. These replies of yours are an immature, snotty, and arrogant presumption to type.

[Brett85]

You're wrong. He has said he will go war, commit, win it and come home. And his constitutional no foreign aid policy means not rebuilding the country we just bombed.



You've replied in this same fashion to several similar posts from others. These replies of yours are an immature, snotty, and arrogant presumption to type.

Yep.

[Brett85]

I respect your opinion, but just keep in mind that you are in disagreement with Ron Paul on that issue, so don't try to speak for him.

No, I have the EXACT same position on that issue that Ron Paul has. Ron Paul VOTED for the authorization that started the war in Afghanistan. He turned against the war when it turned into a nation building mission, as did I.

[low preference guy]

You've replied in this same fashion to several similar posts from others. These replies of yours are an immature, snotty, and arrogant presumption to type.


i agree.

[Johncjackson]

With a lot of the war-monger voters, the communication and finessing of the message is not the issue. It is genuine disagreement. There are many voters, especially in the Republican Party, who will not vote for anyone who supports civil liberties, opposes torture, and refuses to bomb on a whim.

This is not something the campaign doesn't "get." Being right is not popular and there have been many movements on issues that were unpopular but eventually became taken for granted as the acceptable view.

There's nothing a liberty candidate can really say to appeal to a mass of idiots without completely undermining the whole point of the campaign.

[Johncjackson]

War being Just and the issue of Constitutionality are 2 separate issues, BTW. A declaration of war would not make a war worthy of support. It just would remove the objection on Constitutional ( not moral) grounds.

Ron Paul saying that if he really HAD to go to war, that a Declaration, short mission with defined outcomes would be preferable, does not mean that would be good or that he would WANT to.

He's already tailoring his message to the pro war crowd more than he should. There's nowhere else to go. And I think the Afghanistan vote mention is a little bit of a backtrack and attempt to appeal to that crowd because in reality that mission did not fit the criteria he normally applies.

[Lord Xar]

I think Paul could decimate Newt by just saying this at the debate.

"I agree, Newt is a good debater. But a good debater will not win against Obama. Newt is everything Obama is. Big government spender, beholden to the lobbyists. Supported the Bailouts. Infact, Newt suggested in 2006 that the internet must be controlled and that the 1st amendment should be debated in regards to the internet. No, Newt will not win against Obama. His politicies, in effect, are just like Obamas. There is not contrast. If you want a nicely packaged product you elect Newt and the Obama's of the world. If you want solutions, you elect me."

or something like that. You need to let the viewers/voters see the contrast of what they are really voting for, and what is important. Once you make that connection, many I feel, will come to their senses.

[Brett85]

There are many voters, especially in the Republican Party, who will not vote for anyone who supports civil liberties, opposes torture, and refuses to bomb on a whim.

Yes, but these people are now a minority within the GOP. Polls showed that 58% of Republicans agreed with Obama's decision to remove all of our troops from Iraq. 50-60% of Republicans aren't the "every war is a good war" type. A lot of Republican voters would be reachable if the message was refined, and if Ron would actually put forth a national security strategy.

[Varin]

You could win with a non interventionist message if you framed it as in our interest, to expensive, pay for their own defense, Usama is dead mission accomplished time to come home. You can not win saying US foreig policy is immoral and that you should ask Pakistan for permission to go after Usama.

[GunnyFreedom]

That is not Ron Paul's position and he will not say it. Stop trying to put words in his mouth. If he hasn't said what you want to hear by now, then maybe that is a clue that he doesn't agree with what you say.

Perhaps you don't understand Ron Paul's war policy then. :confused:

The problem is not that Paul doesn't explain it clearly, he explains it very clearly. The problem is that the propagandists have changed the meanings of words in ways that confound Paul's clear policy statements.

People aren't wanting him to explain it more clearly, it's already blatantly clear. They are wanting him to explain the same identical concepts using the neo-orwellian language that the propagandists have foisted on us against our will, so that the brainwashed masses can actually understand him.

[Brett85]

You could win with a non interventionist message if you framed it as in our interest, to expensive, pay for their on defense, Usama is dead mission accomplished time to come home. You can not win saying US foreig policy is immoral and that you should ask Pakistan for permission to go after Usama.

I agree completely. A non interventionist foreign policy would be popular with Republicans if it was framed in the right way.

[nayjevin]

I agree completely. A non interventionist foreign policy would be popular with Republicans if it was framed in the right way.

In a way you're correct, non-intervention is becoming popular within the Republican party as folks realize that it is the proper foreign policy. This is because of the way Ron Paul has been framing non-intervention in the debates and on the campaign trail.

[tbone717]

I agree completely. A non interventionist foreign policy would be popular with Republicans if it was framed in the right way.

I totally agree. It is all in how you sell the message. Right now, Paul has a great FP message but the packaging of that message is sub par. Change the packaging, but not the message and it will appeal to a lot more voters.

[nayjevin]

Imagine you say, 'I support non-intervention!' and a few people join you, so you say 'No meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations!' and a few more join you. So you say, 'No nation building and policing the world!' and a few more join you. So you say, 'If war is necessary, declare it, win it, and come home!' and you get a few more.

How far should you go?

I say Ron is doing perfectly well. Going much further gets the people who are right about foreign policy to start questioning him.

[kylejack]

Polls showed that 58% of Republicans agreed with Obama's decision to remove all of our troops from Iraq.
Bush made the decision and we were bound by treaty to withdraw by 12/31/11.

[klamath]

Every one of these threads shows exacly why RP is failing on foreign policy. In RP's very hard core base they are arguing what RP beliefs are on foreign policy are. That should NEVER be happening!
Out of all the debates RP got one question right on foreign policy. "Declare war go in fight and GET OUT."
OBL question should have been. "GO in get him and get out, and no nation building!" That answer right there would have been in agreement with the majority of the republicans.

[Brett85]

In a way you're correct, non-intervention is becoming popular within the Republican party as folks realize that it is the proper foreign policy. This is because of the way Ron Paul has been framing non-intervention in the debates and on the campaign trail.

Then why won't they vote for him?

[Brett85]

Every one of these threads shows exacly why RP is failing on foreign policy. In RP's very hard core base they are arguing what RP beliefs are on foreign policy are. That should NEVER be happening!
Out of all the debates RP got one question right on foreign policy. "Declare war go in fight and GET OUT."
OBL question should have been. "GO in get him and get out, and no nation building!" That answer right there would have been in agreement with the majority of the republicans.

Yep. In my opinion, the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden is a good example of what we should have been doing all along, rather than using 100,000 troops to nation build in Afghanistan. But Ron screwed it all up by saying that we shouldn't have even gone into Pakistan to kill Bin Laden.

[kylejack]

Ron didn't say we shouldn't have gotten Bin Laden. He says we should have consulted with Pakistan in organizing the operation.

Of course, none of that would have been necessary, had we simply shown our proof against Bin Laden to the Taliban prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, who were willing to hand him over.

[GunnyFreedom]

Then why won't they vote for him?

I know right?

In SC, almost everyone's objection to Paul was foreign policy, and almost all of those liked the policy when described in words they actually understood.

I want to stress again, it's not Paul's fault that the people do not understand him, they have been systematically dumbed down and had the meanings of their words shifted and changed.

Although it is somewhat the people's fault for not understanding him "because they have no love of truth," it is primarily the fault of the propagandists for programming them and shifting the language around until they can no longer comprehend Paul's simple FP message.

I disagree with nayjevin here, I don't think you will lose a significant quantity of core support simply by telling the truth in another language, which is what is needed to accumulate the soft support needed to win. The more radical core supporters will say "arrgh! I hate the way that sounds, but it's still truth, oh well, I guess he's just trying to win the race."

You may lost one or two who are just as obstinate our way as the William Kristols are their way, but for every 1 core guy you turn off, you can draw 5000 softs, and that core guy will still probably come out and vote anyway, he just won't knock on doors or make calls. Which may be a good thing, because he's the type to try and sell Paul on what HE likes rather than selling Paul on what they voter likes anyway.

We don't have to like politics to engage in it and win, any more than George Washington had to like warfare to win the Revolution. "Don't hate the player, hate the game." (even while 99% of the 'players' are indeed hate-worthy)

[GunnyFreedom]

Yep. In my opinion, the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden is a good example of what we should have been doing all along, rather than using 100,000 troops to nation build in Afghanistan. But Ron screwed it all up by saying that we shouldn't have even gone into Pakistan to kill Bin Laden.

Yeah....even YOU misunderstood what Paul said there. His objection was merely procedural, not substantive.

[buffed]

We've been discussing this problem and people have made good suggestions. I hope some of these ideas have been read or presented to Dr. Paul. Peter Schiff talked about it in post SC interview in which he said we need to bring the "I like Paul's view on economics but can't vote for him because of foreign policy into the fold" (Not and exact quote)

[gb13]

Ron Paul Presidential Campaign Committee PCC keyword Matt Collins Jesse Benton Doug Wead search

"My foreign policy is if we are actually threatened or attacked, we declare war and destroy the enemy worse than any enemy has ever been destroyed before, and leave them to rebuild themselves so they no longer pose a threat to us or anybody."

THIS!

[Brett85]

Yeah....even YOU misunderstood what Paul said there. His objection was merely procedural, not substantive.

I understand Ron's position on that. I just disagree with it. I think that Pakistan would've tipped Bin Laden off if we had tried to work with them.

[GunnyFreedom]

I understand Ron's position on that. I just disagree with it. I think that Pakistan would've tipped Bin Laden off if we had tried to work with them.

Not if it were done right. An asset on the ground could have been (and probably was) shadowing Bin Laden long before we moved in. If Pak leaked the word to Bin Laden and he starts moving, the shadow asset could maintain tracking to direct/coordinate the SEAL team to wherever he was going and then we'd have had the moral high ground AND took out Bin Laden.

[kylejack]

Not if it were done right. An asset on the ground could have been (and probably was) shadowing Bin Laden long before we moved in. If Pak leaked the word to Bin Laden and he starts moving, the shadow asset could maintain tracking to direct/coordinate the SEAL team to wherever he was going and then we'd have had the moral high ground AND took out Bin Laden.
Yes, CIA had a safehouse in the city. I'm quite sure they had 24 hour surveillance on him. And hey, there's always a backup drone strike if it looks like he's bolting.

Many of our high-value captures have come from the Pakistani government, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.