PDA

View Full Version : Idea: Release "Foreign Policy Plan" and Hold Press Conference




Havax
01-20-2012, 06:43 PM
Identical to when he released his budget plan in Nevada:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awRha0LcY_0

and do this one in Nevada as well. It would be a great way to build momentum going into our strong caucus states out west.

We have released an economic budget plan which was a success and even the establishment says they love it. Releasing a foreign policy plan would be a perfect way to get people to re-evaluate Ron's foreign policy positions in a serious manner. This would also be a great excuse to hold a press conference like he did when he released his budget plan, clearly stating bullet points and fielding questions. This would also be great because neo-cons love to say that Obama "has no foreign policy plan" which would not only separate ourselves from Obama (which people compare us to already) but to also have something concrete people can look at. Then we could make TV ads based on this plan like in the "The Plan" ad we have out for his budget proposal already, and have something specific Ron can refer back to and reference people to - call it the "America-first Initiative":


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

As far as specifics, I'd like to hear some ideas from you guys. Cite statistics from polls on the number of people that want us home from Afghanistan and pledge to end that war too. I think Ron could gain a lot more support by at least 'appearing' less extreme and cold of just "pulling our troops out immediately" because people that means we don't care about the people we are leaving behind. We should talk specifics on ways we can make this transition smoothly (much like how Ron doesn't want to end the fed year one cold turkey but wants a transition).

I think this is a no-brainer and would do wonders for our support going forward. I feel really strongly about this and really want the campaign to listen on this one.

Working ideas for the press conference...

-> Get together 30 or so people in uniform or wearing "veterans for Paul t-shirts) to stand behind Paul at the press conference
-> Show blown-up chart (like they do in congress) of military donations of Paul vs. all others and talk about it plus give references
-> Show blown-up chart of top 3 donors to Obama and Mitt Romney (banks - shows they are controlled)
-> Talk up how he's the last veteran remaining in the race and give an actual story from his service that people will honor him for and start actually viewing him as a veteran
-> Open the floor with a 5-10 minute speech from Michael Scheuer (ex-CIA Bin Laden unit) touting his own experience and support for Ron Paul
-> Have ex-Army Colonel Douglas A. Macgregor introduce Ron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Macgregor

Working proposal...

-> Stop borrowing money from China to give foreign aid; end all foreign aid
-> Begin the transition of withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan and ending that war (cite poll with exact % of Americans wanting us out)
-> Transition to begin closing down obvious bases where our national security is not threatened one: Germany, South Korea, Italy, Japan, Bulgaria, Spain etc
-> Support Israel as our best friend in the middle east by granting them their sovereignty and not getting in their way. If they want to bomb Iran we should not give them road blocks. "Friendship and commerce with all, entangling alliances with none"
-> Emphasize that troops coming home will still have a job and will help to secure our borders and spend their money back home
-> End sanctions on Cuba (this one might not be the best political move for this plan)

Philosophy_of_Politics
01-20-2012, 06:47 PM
I fully support this. Many MSM viewers that have taken the blue pill, still view Ron Paul's foreign policy to be the reason why they don't vote for him. I see a common trend of people saying, "His economic and social policies are fantastic, but his views on Iran, Israel, and Foreign Policy scare me."

Xelaetaks
01-20-2012, 06:53 PM
I would like to see this. I think a foreign policy press release or conference could make all the difference long term.

Philosophy_of_Politics
01-20-2012, 06:55 PM
Remake the thread, with a poll.

Poll Question: Should the campaign publicly release Ron Paul's foreign policy via Press Conference?
A1: Yes
A2: No
A3: Other (Please Respond)

ohgodno
01-20-2012, 06:56 PM
Would love this - he has started to and should actually speak more in terms of what he will do as President.

Captain America
01-20-2012, 06:58 PM
I would love for the campaign to listen to this idea. The only reason why we are not winning outright is because of the misconception of the Liberty foreign policy.

Tyler_Durden
01-20-2012, 06:59 PM
Will the Campaign see this?

I noticed a thread yesterday suggesting Paul should say "I'm the only military veteran on stage" during the debate and sure enough he said it last night!! I had wondered if that was a coincidence or whether someone on the campaign saw the thread and suggested it directly to Paul.

Tyler_Durden
01-20-2012, 06:59 PM
I would love for the campaign to listen to this idea. The only reason why we are not winning outright is because of the misconception of the Liberty foreign policy.

And the ELECTIBILITY issue. That's a huge driving force.

coffeewithgames
01-20-2012, 07:00 PM
Sorry, hate to burst the positive thinking bubble. But I think the campaign is finished after SC. If the campaign was SERIOUS about running/winning, they would have addressed this foreign policy issue in a better way, long ago. Better ads, press conference, having RP actually go on more shows, instead of avoiding them. Debate coach/speech coach 24/7. Practice makes perfect.

If RP loses tomorrow, there is absolutely no point to give anymore money. Call me crazy, or explain to me why I'm wrong, but I don't see anything positive from a 3rd or 4th place finish. The campaign ignored 2 weeks of nothing but smear attacks by the media in December, that ultimately I believe, cost RP a first place win in Iowa.

How can a campaign raise so much money, have so many passionate and dedicated supporters, and not address issues people have been saying for months (years for some)? How can they ignore LEGITIMATE issues that are holding the campaign back? If they addressed two issues with ads, RP would have had this sealed months ago. Foreign policy, targeting seniors.
They have done neither in a meaningful way.

MAKES NO SENSE.

Philosophy_of_Politics
01-20-2012, 07:04 PM
Sorry, hate to burst the positive thinking bubble. But I think the campaign is finished after SC. If the campaign was SERIOUS about running/winning, they would have addressed this foreign policy issue in a better way, long ago. Better ads, press conference, having RP actually go on more shows, instead of avoiding them. Debate coach/speech coach 24/7. Practice makes perfect.

If RP loses tomorrow, there is absolutely no point to give anymore money. Call me crazy, or explain to me why I'm wrong, but I don't see anything positive from a 3rd or 4th place finish. The campaign ignored 2 weeks of nothing but smear attacks by the media in December, that ultimately I believe, cost RP a first place win in Iowa.

How can a campaign raise so much money, have so many passionate and dedicated supporters, and not address issues people have been saying for months (years for some)? How can they ignore LEGITIMATE issues that are holding the campaign back? If they addressed two issues with ads, RP would have had this sealed months ago. Foreign policy, targeting seniors.
They have done neither in a meaningful way.

MAKES NO SENSE.

You underestimate the potential of a 3-man race, and the other states coming up.

playpianoking
01-20-2012, 07:04 PM
agreed. good idea.

Tyler_Durden
01-20-2012, 07:05 PM
Sorry, hate to burst the positive thinking bubble. But I think the campaign is finished after SC. If the campaign was SERIOUS about running/winning, they would have addressed this foreign policy issue in a better way, long ago. Better ads, press conference, having RP actually go on more shows, instead of avoiding them. Debate coach/speech coach 24/7. Practice makes perfect.

If RP loses tomorrow, there is absolutely no point to give anymore money. Call me crazy, or explain to me why I'm wrong, but I don't see anything positive from a 3rd or 4th place finish. The campaign ignored 2 weeks of nothing but smear attacks by the media in December, that ultimately I believe, cost RP a first place win in Iowa.

How can a campaign raise so much money, have so many passionate and dedicated supporters, and not address issues people have been saying for months (years for some)? How can they ignore LEGITIMATE issues that are holding the campaign back? If they addressed two issues with ads, RP would have had this sealed months ago. Foreign policy, targeting seniors.
They have done neither in a meaningful way.

MAKES NO SENSE.

You realize he's at least 10 points higher than he was a few weeks ago, right? He just focused an ad campaign for Nevada and Minnesota. It's the long game. The campaign never really had high hopes for SC and FL. You can hang it up, but this Campaign and Movement will roll on....

Havax
01-20-2012, 07:10 PM
Please ignore the obvious trolls in this thread. I updated my OP with this:

Working ideas for the press conference...
-> Get together 30 or so people in uniform or wearing "veterans for Paul t-shirts) to stand behind Paul at the press conference
-> Show blown-up chart (like they do in congress) of military donations of Paul vs. all others and talk about it plus give references
-> Show blown-up chart of top 3 donors to Obama and Mitt Romney (banks - shows they are controlled)
-> Talk up how he's the last veteran remaining in the race and give an actual story from his service that people will honor him for and start actually viewing him as a veteran
-> Open the floor with a 5-10 minute speech from Michael Scheuer (ex-CIA Bin Laden unit) touting his own experience and support for Ron Paul
-> Have ex-Army Colonel Douglas A. Macgregor introduce Ron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Macgregor

Working proposal...

-> Stop borrowing money from China to give foreign aid; end all foreign aid
-> Begin the transition of withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan and ending that war
-> Transition to begin closing down obvious bases where our national security is not threatened one: Germany, South Korea, Italy, Japan, Bulgaria, Spain etc
-> Support Israel as our best friend in the middle east by granting them their sovereignty and not getting in their way. If they want to bomb Iran we should not give them road blocks. "Friendship and commerce with all, entangling alliances with none"
-> Emphasize that troops coming home will still have a job and will help to secure our borders and spend their money back home
-> End sanctions on Cuba (this one might not be the best political move for this plan)

coffeewithgames
01-20-2012, 07:15 PM
You realize he's at least 10 points higher than he was a few weeks ago, right? He just focused an ad campaign for Nevada and Minnesota. It's the long game. The campaign never really had high hopes for SC and FL. You can hang it up, but this Campaign and Movement will roll on....

I don't doubt the campaign will...just like in 2008. I just wonder what the title of the next book will be.
If it's about the "Movement" or message, why not make some ads showing/addressing issues like the Fed, National Debt crisis, and others? While they're at it, they know the media is not their friend, and Newt gets standing ovations for attacking the idiot media, why not do ads showing the media as liars? If you can discredit the media, that would only help the campaign.

Feeding the Abscess
01-20-2012, 07:24 PM
Drop the "support" Israel talk. I'd drop the entire thing, personally, but leaving the rest while simply deleting "support" would be a compromise for which I'd plug my nose.

Still think it would be too supportive of war, for what it's worth.

Emerick
01-20-2012, 07:32 PM
I don't doubt the campaign will...just like in 2008. I just wonder what the title of the next book will be.
If it's about the "Movement" or message, why not make some ads showing/addressing issues like the Fed, National Debt crisis, and others? While they're at it, they know the media is not their friend, and Newt gets standing ovations for attacking the idiot media, why not do ads showing the media as liars? If you can discredit the media, that would only help the campaign.

The key word here is: PATIENCE. A while ago, I thought the campaign was doing terrible, because it wasn't attacking anybody. But it was just a matter of timing. When they did attack, they crushed Newt in Iowa and NH. This is a FACT! Ron destroyed Newt in those two states.

So, the problem here is timing. We know this is a marathon. Ron has the organization, has the followers, has the ability to raise money with the people. Right now, we need to focus in tacking Santorum or Gingrich out of the race. I think the best thing would be to Santorum to burst.

Think about this: a month and a half ago there was 8 candidates. Four of them are gone: Cain, Bachmann, Huntsmann and Perry. It's a matter of time to Santorum or Gingrich (probably Santorum) to get out of the race. Then, there will be a 3 horse race, one of them being Ron Paul. As the race becomes narrower, people will have to report Ron's ideas more thoroughly. Then it will be the time for clarifying all the issues.

Of course, I agree with doing a Press Conference explaining Foreign Policy right away, because we know now that almost half of the Republican Party agrees with Ron -- and, of course, more than half of independents and democrats agree on that too.

But we don't need to get pessimistic. When it comes down to a 3 men race, then Ron and Romney will attack Gingrich (or Santorum), because they both have an interest in making this a two men race (Romney bets that the rejection to Ron is greater than to him, and that's what matter, because 70% of the republicans don't want Romney; and Ron knows Romney is here to stay, but all other can eventually go home).

Let me say again: the word is PATIENCE!

cdw
01-20-2012, 07:34 PM
This.. is a genius idea Havax. Wow, just thinking it over. A Foreign Policy Plan press conference would clarify Dr. Paul's position for seasoned voters who have misconceptions about it, while also attracting newcomers who are just now learning more about Dr. Paul. It wouldn't be just on the internet like his Economic Plan's press conference was, because now that the media around him has increased dramatically the jerks in our MSM would have to cover it on TV since media from all around the globe will at the press conference as well. And after he lays out his his plan, his followup question/answer session could be killer. He would have the opportunity to assure the media of those specific countries what he would do as President that would specifically strengthen U.S. relations with their countries and peoples. His image as the "peace candidate" would sky-rocket all around the globe, and every other candidate's scorched-earth's foreign policy would be put on the defensive. It would be a way for Paul to completely change the narrative and expose their foreign policy for the insanity that it is.

Emerick
01-20-2012, 07:59 PM
My two cents on the content of such a Press Conference:

1) MAKE THE MORAL CASE FOR NON-INTERVENTIONISM.

This should be easy. Start quoting the Bible on the Golden Rule. Get quotes from protestants, evangelicals, and catholics. Explain the Christian Just War Theory, which is summed up in number 2,309 of the Cathecism of the Catholic Church.

Then, go to the Founding Fathers, talk about the Constitution. End this argument saying that this is the true Republican and conservative Foreign Policy. Quote former members of the Party, denounce the neocon takeover, quote Russell Kirk on this issue (Kirk is usually considered the greatest American conservative thinker of the XXth century).

2) MAKE THE PRAGMATIC CASE FOR NON-INTERVENTIONISM

Show the total failure of the neocon agenda. How, after wasting trillions of dollars, killing hundreds of thousands of people, thousands of American soldiers, have dozens of thousands wounded, the interventions are resulting in scalation of the fundamentalism in some countries; how the Middle East is more unstable; how America suffers from more suicidal terrorist each month than in the 20 years before 9/11.

Also, point out that, strategically, it makes no sense borrowing money from China to engage in unnecessary wars.

3) MAKE THE ECONOMIC CASE FOR NON-INTERVENTIONISM

Explain the connection between foreign policy, the FED, the military industrial complex and, specially, the debt. Quote Eisenhower etc.

And, finally,

4) EXPLAIN HOW INTERVENTIONISM ABROAD MEANS THE END OF FREEDOM INSIDE AMERICA

This is very important. Ron should denounce how warmongering and specially fear propaganda make people give up their liberties for security, and how this is wrong. Connect the Patriot Act, the NDAA, SOPA, and PIPA to foreign policy. Explain this in details, talk how the due process of law is being destroyed and how he is the ONLY candidate, in both parties, to rise against this, to defend liberty of the people.

coffeewithgames
01-20-2012, 08:04 PM
Again, this is a great idea, I don't dismiss it. Some of us have been saying for months now that the campaign needed to do it. If they were serious about addressing the foreign policy issue, South Carolina was THE state to make that point, and they have failed.
There is no excuse for this. Patience? Newt was destroyed in Iowa by RP and Romney's campaigns, he was destroyed on two fronts...don't forget that.
The campaign had a 2 week warning (at least) that Santorum was rising in Iowa, and they failed to get an ad out on him...only to release on against him in SC? If you aren't trying to win South Carolina, why run negative ads against somebody in South Carolina...seems like a waste of funds, especially considering the ads would have made more sense in tanking that guy in Iowa, and getting him to drop out like Michele Bachmann.

Ilhaguru
01-20-2012, 08:07 PM
We need a whole website designed to explain Paul's foreign policy. A very good one too, not just another wikipedia page and bullet points.

coffeewithgames
01-20-2012, 08:08 PM
Oh, and if they are really going to do this, they better explain 100% that Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and all the others in the media are LIARS for saying RP blames America for 9/11...that crap is ticking me off to no end!

Also, they need to say HOW RP will deal with al Qaeda, specifically...
Al Qaeda did declare war on us under bin Laden in the 90s, and the campaign should address how RP will continue to "keep America safe" from a terrorist threat...

coffeewithgames
01-20-2012, 08:10 PM
We need a whole website designed to explain Paul's foreign policy. A very good one too, not just another wikipedia page and bullet points.

Herman Cain had multiple sites, and a national radio ad telling people to visit it for donations, and an "Iowa win" or some garbage.
Newt has a website to explain/lie about his graveyard in his closet. (Which btw, I heard a Newt radio ad today...so I have now heard Herman Cain and Newt, but no RP.)

rb3b3
01-20-2012, 08:11 PM
you guys are missing one HUGE HUMONGOUS talking point!!! i totally agree with this obviously, but while we are at it, WE MUST ALSO TALK ABOUT HIS ELECATABILITY!!! the majority of polls coming out, the people who are voting for romney are voting for him based solely on electability!!!!! WE MUST ADDRESS foreign policy and
electability!!! PLZZZZ

EBounding
01-20-2012, 08:38 PM
I completely agree with the OP. Here are some more points I would like Paul to put out there a National Defense strategy speech:

1) He supports a strong Navy that would continue to sail international waters to protect "the freedom of the seas" and peacefully project power instead of antagonizing other countries. Building a Navy is one of the few clearly defined roles of Congress and Ron Paul clearly supports this.

2) Paul believes submarines are a worthwhile weapon. Submarines pack incredible amounts of firepower that few nations can match. It's just another way to "project power" peacefully.

3) Our troops can be deployed anywhere within a matter of hours. This makes foreign occupation obsolete and counterproductive. It also doesn't antagonize nearby countries.

4) We have hypersonic weapons that can strike anywhere on Earth within an hour. I believe Paul has inferred that this is worthwhile defensive technology.

5) Ron Paul voted for Reagan's missile defense initiative and would certainly support continued spending on other defensive weapons systems.

6) Paul would still maintain relations with our allies, we just won't be giving them free aid to subsidize their social programs. If Israel needed weapons for instance, Paul would be completely open to the American market arming them. We can help struggling countries by trading with them.

7) There are a number of anti-missile systems in the Middle East that would make an Iranian nuclear missile attack (if they even had one) a completely absurd scenario. (See dusman's posts (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?352405-Can-someone-please-debunk-the-whole-Iran-wipes-Israel-off-the-face-of-the-Earth-BS.&p=4050570&viewfull=1#post4050570))

8) A strong economy with a fiscally responsible government is critical for defense. This is important because enemy nations will get emboldened if they think we no longer can pay the bills . Likewise, a strong economy will deter attacks if we can get everyone hooked on the goods we export and have a large pool of resources to go to war if needed. Again, this projects our strength to the world without firing a shot or occupying any territory.

I'd love to hear any of the candidates challenge him on these facts.

But I personally believe Paul doesn't say these things often because he thinks it's common sense and goes without saying. The reason he focuses on ending the wars is because no one else is serious about it, so that's why he emphasizes it so much in his message. But people DON'T know that he would truly have a strong defense because they believe the media narrative that he's a weak, naive, isolationist.

It feels like I've been spamming the boards with these Foreign Policy points the past week, but if he lays out specifics like he has for everything else, I'm certain he could get a significant number of conservatives to cross over to him. I believe this because it's what convinced me to support his foreign policy. The difference though is I was actually motivated to find out for myself; most voters don't have that motivation.

But even if this doesn't help him gain conservatives, I'll be able to sleep at night knowing he tried.

Gravik
01-20-2012, 08:46 PM
I suggest everyone go to the campaign website and go contact them. Maybe if they get enough requests, it will happen!!!!

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/contact-us/


Oh and SC lost half their delegates. It isn't near as big as it was in the '08 race.

toast
01-20-2012, 08:56 PM
This is an excellent idea. The campaign needs to make this happen ASAP.

Feeding the Abscess
01-20-2012, 08:57 PM
I completely agree with the OP. Here are some more points I would like Paul to put out there a National Defense strategy speech:

1) He supports a strong Navy that would continue to sail international waters to protect "the freedom of the seas" and peacefully project power instead of antagonizing other countries. Building a Navy is one of the few clearly defined roles of Congress and Ron Paul clearly supports this.

I'm not sure he does. Armed forces guarding private enterprise is a mercantilist idea, and I'd be surprised if Ron held that position, considering his criticism of mercantilism.

Brett85
01-20-2012, 08:59 PM
Ron needs to come out with a national defense plan in general, not simply a foreign policy plan. He needs to explain what we would do as an alternative to all of our intervention overseas.

toast
01-20-2012, 09:10 PM
I wrote the campaign and encourage all others to do so as well.

The Gold Standard
01-20-2012, 09:16 PM
It's a good idea, but if no media covers it, it is a waste of time.

MJU1983
01-20-2012, 09:22 PM
I just think we need to change the subject. Foreign Policy doesn't even register for most people - it's not a major concern for average Americans. It matters to Neocons, and only Neocons. They are trying DESPERATELY to set the narrative and to make Paul appear weak/unelectable any way they can.

I say we just stick to what matters, the economy, and win this thing.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y205/MJU1983/Facebook_econ_graphic.jpg

coffeewithgames
01-20-2012, 10:01 PM
I just think we need to change the subject. Foreign Policy doesn't even register for most people - it's not a major concern for average Americans. It matters to Neocons, and only Neocons. They are trying DESPERATELY to set the narrative and to make Paul appear weak/unelectable any way they can.

I say we just stick to what matters, the economy, and win this thing.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y205/MJU1983/Facebook_econ_graphic.jpg

The problem is they have already set the narrative against RP. When I encounter MULTIPLE Fox News watchers that all parrot the same lines, literally, "I agree with RP on 95% of the stuff, just not on FP." you know they are brainwashed against him, because of that one issue.

The campaign has failed to correct this in a meaningful way, and the campaign has failed to target the senior voters in any way (that I can tell). John McCain won SC in 2008, and was hated by the same media guys (Hannity, Rush, Levin, etc.,) because of his immigration stance, but he locked the older voters and won SC, even against Huckabee who had the evangelical base LOCKED.

Again, we can either look at history and take lessons from it, or ignore it at our own expense.

freneticentropy
01-22-2012, 03:47 PM
I just think we need to change the subject. Foreign Policy doesn't even register for most people - it's not a major concern for average Americans. It matters to Neocons, and only Neocons. They are trying DESPERATELY to set the narrative and to make Paul appear weak/unelectable any way they can.

I say we just stick to what matters, the economy, and win this thing.



A Facebook survey is completely unscientific and 100% meaningless. People do care. I hear it ALL THE TIME. Even if they don't say FP is at the top of their priority list, they STILL will not vote for Paul because they disagree with his FP. It is the tool used to bludgeon him in the media. Talk to some actual republican voters about why they won't vote for Paul. They'll tell you, it's his FP. Straight out. It MUST be addressed. It is, without a doubt, why he is losing. It is where the largest number of voters can be pulled to his campaign if they can just be assuaged that he has a reasonable FP.

I didn't see this thread before I posted my own thread on this issue. But I agree strongly with OP. He needs to announce a major policy speech on FP to the media. Get some buzz going, and lay out exactly why he has a STRONG (yet peaceful) foreign policy. Call it 'The Paul Doctrine'. Get a world class speechwriter to help him. Practice it over and over and make it sound presidential. I GUARANTEE it will change the conversation about Pauls FP in the media and WILL pull in millions of votes.

I don't like being negative. The campaign has been fantastic so far and has pulled in far more voters than I thought possible. But there IS a ceiling. It's much higher than pundits have claimed, but it's there.. and it is because of FP. Nothing else. If we don't do something drastic to bust through that ceiling, we're toast. We cannot afford to be myopic and we can't wait to learn this lesson until after the campaign. It must be addressed now. This is something that can be done at almost no cost. The downside is small and the potential benefits are enormous. If we don't take a chance and swing at the fences and do it now, we lose. We'll get a lot of delegates, we'll run a respectable campaign, but we'll lose. We have to do something to change the momentum. Now.

EBounding
01-22-2012, 04:22 PM
I'm not sure he does. Armed forces guarding private enterprise is a mercantilist idea, and I'd be surprised if Ron held that position, considering his criticism of mercantilism.

I said that because Doug Weade said that Paul would defend the "freedom of the seas" and would never let the threat get to that point anyway. I haven't really heard what Paul would do other than he would want to defend the Panama canal if the threat was credible.

This is why Paul himself needs to get specific about what the military will do in his administration. I feel stupid telling people things about Paul that may not be true.

raystone
01-22-2012, 04:25 PM
amazing, amazing

Havax
01-25-2012, 05:54 PM
bump

freneticentropy
02-01-2012, 05:39 PM
This is it. We're down to the wire. If we don't get some wins in February, we can call it quits.

Are you listening campaign? We need to do something drastic right now about foreign policy. This does not involve selling out Paul's views. It involves reassuring voters that Paul will be strong on defense and that a Paul presidency would be safe.

Ads aren't going to cut it at this point. He needs to inject himself into the foreign policy debate at the national level with a major policy speech along with an actual written plan (or outline). We need 'The Paul Doctrine'.

tocano
02-02-2012, 01:00 PM
Might I recommend adding something like the following:

Conservatives (and libertarians) recognize that liberals have an incomplete, inaccurate view of a market economy. They see risk and thus want govt to mitigate that risk, but they don't look far enough to see cause and effect. We recognize that when govt intervenes in the market, negative unintended consequences occur and that when govt intercedes to fix a problem, it often creates more problems that are often worse than the original. We understand, as counterintuitive as it might seem, that by neither having govt regulating every risk nor bailing out and aiding specific companies, the market can actually be a more safe and productive entity.

So why is it so impossible that govt intervention in the affairs of foreign countries creates negative unintended consequences? Why is it considered "crazy" to say that when govt intercedes in countries around the world to solve problems, that new problems are created (often worse than the original) by our very intercession? Just consider, could it be, as I have said, that as counterintuitive as it might seem to some, that by removing our military presence and interventions (both public and covert) from around the world, and focusing our attention and resources on strong *defensive* measures, that we could actually be more safe?