PDA

View Full Version : Republicans don't really love war...




TNFreedom
01-07-2008, 08:54 PM
They have just been programmed to think they do...

I posted this post a few days as one of my first posts and was asked to put it back out here again. These are my insights as a new Ron Paul convert and former die hard Republican (you guys probably would have called me a neocon). I guess you could say this is the thought process of the enemy. Using this strategy has already helped me to reach some of my old friends on the dark side and at least get them to listen to some of Ron Paul's polices. I truly think this is the key catching the ear of the Republican base...CLEARLY EXPLAIN THE OPPOSITION TO THE WAR AND EXPLAIN THAT DR. PAUL IS NOT A LIBERAL. Here is a link to and excerpt from that post that was very well received....

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=75937


Thought #1
Why don't most Republicans that I know even give Ron Paul a listen or a chance?

One reason.The anti-war stance. Period. That's all there is to it.
The new Republican core/base has become so overwhelmingly programmed to defend the war against Democrats and liberals that as soon as they hear the words 'bring the troops home' they IMMEDIATELY AND COMPLETELY SHUT DOWN and stop paying attention.

"What? anti-war? This guy must have walked into the wrong room!"

Once they hear that, Ron Paul ceases to be a legitimate candidate for them. Not because they necessarily love this new policy of war and nation building but because subconsciously we have been programmed to think that anybody that is against it must be a liberal and they "don't sport the troops!" Never mind the fact that all this war loving didn't used to define the Republican party. Never mind the fact that if they actually thought about it and listened to Ron Paul's rationale against the war that they would probably agree with it (or at least acknowledge that he is not a crazy liberal). Never mind the fact that RP is the least liberal guy running in this race and that other than this issue, Ron Paul would probably be their DREAM CANDIDATE if they just gave him a chance and listened to what he had to say.

But they don't. As soon as they hear the words 'bring the troops home' the conditioning kicks in and so do the ear plugs.

"Error. Does not compute. Response is unusual and different, likely liberal, cease listening now."

And he is written off as the weirdo fringe candidate who doesn't have a chance and thatís it.

Thatís why most Republicans haven't even listened to Ron Paul's message.

Thought#2

So is it hopeless? Are these people unreachable?

No itís absolutely not hopeless, they can be reached. Look at me, I actually gave him a chance and a listen for some reason and now I'm sitting here posting in a forum on Friday night with a bunch of crazies (crazy in a good way, I love what I've seen out of you guys so far...).

How can they be reached?

Very very easy. Now that Dr. Paul has proven that he is legitimate with his performance in Iowa, he calmly and eloquently explains why he is against the war in a television commercial. The script might go something like this....

"Greetings my Republican friends. As many of you probably know, I have been branded as the anti-war candidate and thatís true, I am against this war, and I would love to tell you why. Its not because I am a liberal, in fact Iíve been consistently honored as one of the top conservatives in the nation. I am against this war because....

1. I believe (and so does the 9/11 report by the way) that it is our recent policy of foreign intervention that has caused much of the world including all these islamofascists to hate and attack us and that continuing with this occupation will only increase the likelihood of getting attacking again.

2. If we don't get out now we will likely be there for a very long time, like decades...think Korea.

3. This war is costing you, the taxpayers Xbillion dollars per day and going up and we're not getting ANYTHING out of it.....and yet we have many many problems getting worse here at home.

Thats why I'm against this war and thatís why I approve this message."

I know thatís probably a really long commercial but you get the drift. He needs to explain specifically why he is against the war somehow

Thought# 3
I have never seen so much energy and spirit out of group of people like I have seen from you guys. Your passion is truly remarkable. A problem that I see though is that a lot of this passion and energy is negative, focusing on disappointment and paranoid conspiracy theories. As an outsider that is very tuned into Republican politics, I can say that none of these paranoid theories that you guys spend a lot of time discussing are true. Why? See point #1 above. Nobody really even knows who the heck RP is or what he stands for, they donít take him seriously and certainly donít spend any of their time hatching out and executing clever plans to hold him back.

My point? Imagine what we can do and what we might accomplish if all the passion and energy in this group were directed and focused on positive goals instead of whining, crying, and developing crazy paranoid theories.

The "no-chance" candidate was in it last night and has a chance now. I'm hopeful we can focus on that huge success and build on it.


So thatís all of my thoughts for today. I am glad to be in here with all you guys.

CountryRoads
01-07-2008, 08:56 PM
It's because every time Neo-cons want to do something around the world, blow things up, spend endless amounts of money ... all they have to do is say 9/11 and it instantly terrorizes the populace into compliance. Research the Nazi party. Hitler used the burning of the reichstag to scare the people into compliance with the state for fear of being attacked by communists.

roversaurus
01-07-2008, 09:02 PM
The war in Iraq is a proxy war against Democrats.


The Neo-Con mind is trapped. They perceive anyone opposed
to them as a liberal Democrat. So opposition to the war means
that you are Democrat and a "liberal" who is opposed to
everything they believe.

We have got to break that mindset.
Ways to do that???

Say: We won the war! Now it is just nation building and I'm opposed to nation
building.

Say: We need to kill Osama Bin Ladin. Dr Pauls idea about letters of Marque and
Reprisal are a good way of doing that.

Say: We need to end the nation building. I know that Iraq will be a mess
after we leave. I don't really care. Arab countries have been a mess
longer than anyone can remember. It is not our responsibility. They
let Saddam lead them. Let them clean up after him.

tfelice
01-07-2008, 09:15 PM
I believe Paul's problem reaching the GOP base is because he is using the same rhetoric regarding the war that they have heard from the extreme left. When they hear terms like "illegal war" and "American empire" they associate Paul with liberal Democrats, even though their positions on the war are entirely different.

Paul could have owned this issue and captured a large percentage of the GOP base if he would have addressed it as an economic issue rather than addressing it as a "neocon" issue.

TNFreedom
01-07-2008, 09:20 PM
I believe Paul's problem reaching the GOP base is because he is using the same rhetoric regarding the war that they have heard from the extreme left. When they hear terms like "illegal war" and "American empire" they associate Paul with liberal Democrats, even though their positions on the war are entirely different.

Paul could have owned this issue and captured a large percentage of the GOP base if he would have addressed it as an economic issue rather than addressing it as a "neocon" issue.

Bingo. Nail on head. Not illegal war but expensive war without a goal. Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy own "illegal war" and I cannot even begin to describe the hatred that the average Republican has for that crowd. We cannot continue to be associated with them if we are going to appeal to the mainstream Republican base.

Soccrmastr
01-07-2008, 09:21 PM
Dude, I love this post. Although, a LOT ARE just straight out pr0-war warhawks.

TruckinMike
01-07-2008, 09:23 PM
TNFreedom
Republicans don't really love war...
They have just been programmed to think they do...

I posted this post a few days as one of my first posts and was asked to put it back out here again. These are my insights as a new Ron Paul convert and former die hard Republican (you guys probably would have called me a neocon). I guess you could say this is the thought process of the enemy. Using this strategy has already helped me to reach some of my old friends on the dark side and at least get them to listen to some of Ron Paul's polices. I truly think this is the key catching the ear of the Republican base...CLEARLY EXPLAIN THE OPPOSITION TO THE WAR AND EXPLAIN THAT DR. PAUL IS NOT A LIBERAL. Here is a link to and excerpt from that post that was very well received....


Yes.. absolutely... and you ARE hitting on something important.

Our WORDS shape their opinions. If we say things that libs say, they think we are libs...

Like: Bush lied... Cheney lied... stop the war!(chants)...

I made a post early on called "do you quack like a duck?" raising these points. It seems not many are interested.

In the end- Its all about marketing.

If you look smart, they think you are smart

If you look like a hippie, they think you think like a hippie.

If you say things that Libs/dems say, you must be a lib/dem.


And thats all there is to it.

note-- even the revolution banner has a bit of a hippie/ lib feel to it.

2cent$

TMike

Broadlighter
01-07-2008, 10:11 PM
While out canvassing I chatted with a guy who had been a vet and a fireman. He considered himself to be a libertarian/conservative. He liked Ron Paul's libertarianism, but was very uneasy about his position on the war in Iraq.

He believed we should stay in Iraq to 'finish the job.' When I told him that we are building an embassy larger than the vatican and with all of the rhetoric about going after Iran, it didn't look like we have any plans to 'finish the job,' at least not anytime soon.

The evidence suggests the U.S. is planning to maintain a long term presence in the Middle East.

That made him think again.

I've had discussions with other mainstream Republicans about the war position and some respond very positively about the idea that it's not our moral duty to police the world.

The problem is that there is an ideological divide within the Republican rank and file. Everybody says they support smaller government, less taxation, more local control of issues like schools and environment, more support for the self-employed. They also share an inherent distrust of the United Nations.

The Neocons will tell you they believe in the same things, but insist on the U.S. asserting a supreme leadership role in foreign policy. If you dig further into their ideology you'll discover that they believe in keeping the U.S. engaged in perpetual wars. This is the thing most rank and file Republican voters don't get.

They want to believe that we are fighting a war to save America from exteme Islamic ideologies and that this war can be won by a military victory. They need to see that the Neo-cons are not so much interested in a final military victory as in maintaining a perpetual, war-time government. The Neo-cons are not going to tell this to the rank and file.

It's a difficult thing to get across to mainstream Republican voters, but you need to keep telling them the facts and back them up with sound reasoning.

War is a big government program. Ron Paul is not against going to war, but if we go to war, we need to go to war using the constitution as our guide. The people need to be behind it as expressed in a congressional declaration of war. The goals for victory need to be clear and a plan to resume peacetime commerce needs to be made.

Another point to make with self-described conservatives is that warfare creates welfare. When you have a war, you're going to get a lot of banged up vets coming home and the government has a moral duty to care for them. The sooner we resume peacetime commerce, the sooner we can dissolve the need for welfare programs. We Ron Paul supporters often refer to the welfare/warfare state. That's because these things are connected.

murrayrothbard
01-07-2008, 10:16 PM
The irony of the whole ideological situation is astounding. Neoconservatives ARE basically liberal democrats. The only difference is they spice up their rhetoric with more socially conservative talking points.

blackbird12
01-07-2008, 10:17 PM
Suggestion: Follow Ron's lead. Turn this issue into a positive. Instead of saying he's against the war, state that he is for increasing our national defense. How? By returning the military resources that have been spread so thin around the world back to our own soil to better protect us.

jake
01-07-2008, 10:18 PM
fiscal conservatism and constant war cannot coexist

Broadlighter
01-07-2008, 10:20 PM
The irony of the whole ideological situation is astounding. Neoconservatives ARE basically liberal democrats. The only difference is they spice up their rhetoric with more socially conservative talking points.

My soundbyte description of Neo-Conservatives is that they Big Government Democrats on steroids.

TNFreedom
01-07-2008, 11:52 PM
While out canvassing I chatted with a guy who had been a vet and a fireman. He considered himself to be a libertarian/conservative. He liked Ron Paul's libertarianism, but was very uneasy about his position on the war in Iraq.

He believed we should stay in Iraq to 'finish the job.' When I told him that we are building an embassy larger than the vatican and with all of the rhetoric about going after Iran, it didn't look like we have any plans to 'finish the job,' at least not anytime soon.

The evidence suggests the U.S. is planning to maintain a long term presence in the Middle East.

That made him think again.

I've had discussions with other mainstream Republicans about the war position and some respond very positively about the idea that it's not our moral duty to police the world.

The problem is that there is an ideological divide within the Republican rank and file. Everybody says they support smaller government, less taxation, more local control of issues like schools and environment, more support for the self-employed. They also share an inherent distrust of the United Nations.

The Neocons will tell you they believe in the same things, but insist on the U.S. asserting a supreme leadership role in foreign policy. If you dig further into their ideology you'll discover that they believe in keeping the U.S. engaged in perpetual wars. This is the thing most rank and file Republican voters don't get.

They want to believe that we are fighting a war to save America from exteme Islamic ideologies and that this war can be won by a military victory. They need to see that the Neo-cons are not so much interested in a final military victory as in maintaining a perpetual, war-time government. The Neo-cons are not going to tell this to the rank and file.

It's a difficult thing to get across to mainstream Republican voters, but you need to keep telling them the facts and back them up with sound reasoning.

War is a big government program. Ron Paul is not against going to war, but if we go to war, we need to go to war using the constitution as our guide. The people need to be behind it as expressed in a congressional declaration of war. The goals for victory need to be clear and a plan to resume peacetime commerce needs to be made.

Another point to make with self-described conservatives is that warfare creates welfare. When you have a war, you're going to get a lot of banged up vets coming home and the government has a moral duty to care for them. The sooner we resume peacetime commerce, the sooner we can dissolve the need for welfare programs. We Ron Paul supporters often refer to the welfare/warfare state. That's because these things are connected.

Beautiful post. Spoken like someone who has been out there fighting the war(you) vs. someone who is just commentating on it (me). Thanks for the work that you have done.

Broadlighter
01-08-2008, 12:11 AM
Republicans pride themselves on being rational, logical thinkers. You have to appeal to this side of them. The emotional appeal of "War is bad because it kills people" doesn't fly with conservatives.

When it comes to conspiracies and stuff like that, you have to keep it on the level of ideology. Paranoia about nefarious covert actions will lose the average person.

The trouble is, most people in the liberal and conservative camps are unaware of the real ideological battles being fought every day. You won't get it from talk radio and you certainly won't get it from the MSM.

The real ideological battles in politics are between national sovereignty versus globalism. Liberals tend to distrust national sovereignty because it sounds too much like nationalism to them. Conservatives distrust the United Nations and other globalist fronts because they look rogue nations trying to dictate policy for us.

What's not apparent to conservatives is that the problems of illegal immigration and terrorism are the results of globalist policies. Globalists seek to override American internal politics.

We're trying to steer people's focus back to real American issues and real American values. The Globalists in both Democrat and Republican parties are not really interested in those unless there is some tie-in with their agenda.

Keep your eye on the ball. Understand the real battle being waged and then you can win these people over.