And He Went...

[XLFD]

Most mainstream Republicans and conservative pundits will berate Presidential candidate Ron Paul for his views on foreign policy.  But besides Rick Perry, Ron Paul is the only veteran running for the office, whose support among the military eclipses all other candidates.  The kookiness of his policy:  that 1) he wants any military action (war) to be approved by Congress, 2) he wants to draw back the US presence around the world, and 3) he wants Uncle Sam to stop being the world's policeman.  Pretty weird until you devote some thought to it, and listen to his rationale behind it.

 

The first is just what the Constitution declares, and is a refreshing change from other candidates, who are trying to increase the power of the presidency by allowing them the ability to get into conflicts without congressional oversight.  The second is sensible when you look at all the places where our military have bases in where they are not really needed-- 700 bases in 130 countries?!   The third is arguably a burden that just one country should not be responsible for, diluting the resources of our country.  Exposing weaknesses as we get overextended in areas not vital to our national security.

 

To me, this makes more common sense than what hawkish conservatives and the dove-ish liberals propose.  The reaction to Ron Paul's military policy by the other candidates and right-leaning media figures is thus typically visceral and negative.  But do they not have conflicting loyalties?  Ron Paul made a point with one of the "chicken hawks" over this last weekend.

 

 

Ron Paul with son Rand when he was in San Antonio in the Air Force.

 

Ron Paul's three biggest contributors are the PACs of Armed forces.  This money comes from servicemen and their families.  Mainstream, hawkish, Republicans (the rest of the pack) who owe allegiance to the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned about at the end of his presidency, cannot match Mr. Paul's total when you add all their financial support from the military together. 

Why is this?  I think it's along this line.  Military service is voluntary.  Those who join believe in what they're doing and are generally young and idealistic enough to believe the oath they take to support and defend the Constitution.  They see this quality in Ron Paul in his lifelong devotion to this founding document of America.  They see it absent in their current commander in chief, and other candidates. 

Almost all of recent history's overseas conflicts have been initiated with little regard for that document, or have been politically based or fitted to loose alliances, etc.   The military sees in Paul someone who will use armed forces judiciously and according to the Constitution's ideals.  Among the rest, no one else will.  Without consolidating the ever-expanding spending on redundant military and social programs and policies, America's empire is doomed to the fate that all over-reaching empires eventually meet.  Would the historian in Newt Gingrich debate that point?

[AQUAMAN]

About time someone had the real guts and fortitude to support Paul on this overly criticized and brainwashed abuse he takes daily on this stance. The quick and rude incorrect and libelous statements of isolationism are totally hogwash and BS imho. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to identify with the realities and wisdom Paul is trying to get across. But, the nay-sayers and liberal media keep tossing this out so to create a fear mongering. If he's so wrong, how come 9-1-1 happened right here at home on our soil? Along with the Pentagon fiasco? Along with the underwear bomber? Why is there still total chaos reigning down in the mid-east and many other places around the world? Why haven't we actually won a war since WWII? The military industrial complex fears by Ike have been raining down on our country for decades already, if anyone cared to wake up and look at the record and expense of lost soldiers and funding. And for what? What did all this over-buildup and helping/policing the rest of the world get us, the USA. NOTHING! Except debt and deficits that are ruining us here at home in every corner of the country.

[XLFD]

The message is very simple, as you state, which is one reason the mainstream media and political pundits, liberal and conservative, try to block it, and ridicule it.  I wouldn't fault anyone for not liking Ron Paul for some of his policies, but please give his reasoning a fair and critical look before dismissing it as hogwash. 

The myth of his unelectability in the general election will be heralded after his strong second place finish in NH.  But like Romney, polls have shown Paul holding his own and/or beating Obama.  Other so-called electable candidates, fall short.

[AQUAMAN]

In many ways, Ron Paul reminds me of Ross Perot, same initials too btw, strange, or is it? Gotta just think of this, was Ross so wrong in what he said and warned about? Our trade deficit and lost jobs because of NAFTA/GATT? Is our RP of today any wronger? The pundits say yes, I just say look at the reality of record, for the last 20 years since. Are we as a people and our economy so much better off listening to the sameo's of today and yesterday? The same parading R's and D's that don't change DC, but just fluff it up, as they feather their own nests? DC needs to be totally overhauled, totally changed, totally dismantled from it's present status, to a new and revised status, that which will put our society back on track, back in the black financially. And that just isn't going to happen with the sameo attitudes and slight adjustments liberal or conservative we've witnessed for a long time now. We approach this new decade on the greater than not possibility of total financial collapse in the USA. Where do we turn next when no more bail outs are approved? Run out of ink and worthless paper money? When banking institutions totally close and collapse? When real estate is worthless? When you have to protect your front door and garage with firearms? Is this what we are coming to? I'm not predicting nor wanting this, but some of the most astute and intelligent financial experts are already saying it's here now, and we better be ready. Are you ready? This experiment in Democracy is so twisted and turned upside down, where do we as a people go next? It's obvious we cannot continue to follow the sameo path of doom that many want to ignore and pretend isn't happening. Strong words, but more importantly, strong and sober thought, just look around us.

[XLFD]

A Paul-Perot double-Texas ticket would sure make things interesting.  Perot is still in the world's wealthiest 100 people, and could help bankroll the effort, and add even more color to the run.

[snide]

I think alot of this media following the candidates is a HUGE waste of time. None of the present GOP talking heads have a remote chance at beating Obama......Paul appears to have mere cult status, gingrich will get killed on his past and many Republicans hate Romney, so what chance do you have...?Voting against someone ,instead of for someone.....? 

[Marty Redman]

I cannot remember any election in my memory except maybe 1984 where I voted for someone rather than voted against the other.  Lesser of 2 evils.  By November your sick of both of them.

[AQUAMAN]

Very good point Marty, and just what I was getting at. Having to vote for the lesser of two evils is why the apathy and small voter turn out continues nationwide in these important national elections. Notice how when anyone tries to counter with an Independent or Constitutionally favored type party, the other R's and D's jump all over them? And how they always state it will help the Dems? Get that 66% that don't vote, to support a Tea Party type candidate, we might see some real change in DC, and I mean for the better all the way around. Too many special interest pacs and such for the D's and R's to answer to yet, and so it continues until they are kicked out of DC, to let candidates keep promises and commitments made in speeches on the records for a change.

[XLFD]

Snide, current polls seem to indicate that Romney or Paul could hold their own against Obama quite well, and Barack can tell us what a success his first term has been, but unless there is an amazing turnaround in the economy over the next year, he will be quite vulnerable. 

Paul would be best, because he is a total opposite of Obama, and could contend quite well if the Republican establishment backed him.  However, in the unlikely chance he wins, that Republican establishment might just shoot themself in the foot and have a traditional Republican run third party.  Yet they try to hobble Paul by continually wondering whether he's going third party if he loses.  I doubt he would unless the Party totally ignores his ideas in their platform.

[easymoney]

Same ol, same ol.

I'm not a paul fan, for a variety of reasons.

Now, I'm giving some serious thought to Santorum, namely cause he sticks to his roots.

But, when the rubber hits the road, digusted or not, I will hold my nose and vote anyone but O. This country cannot handle another four yrs. of O and his hatred of the US

I am well prepared to protect whats mine, to the point of dying for it if neccessary

[Willy]

I don't think there is a true conservative amongst all of the Republican candidates. Back in the days of Kennedy these Republicans would have been classified as moderate liberals due to their views. The US has to many people who have been influenced by the liberal media and most cannot truly claim to know what conservatism is all about.

[XLFD]

The main thing I dislike about most of the Republican field is that they don't stick to their philosophy over a period of time-- except for Paul.  You can fault Paul for many of his stances, and actively disagree with it, but he is consistently pro-Constitution and pro-liberty.  You know what you're buying when you back him-- and I consider that important.

Are those principles we want in the Oval Office?  You got to think they're better than what goes for principles in the Obama White House.  I don't see any fatal flaws in any of the remaining Republicans that would make me vote for Obama over them.

[Max]

Very good X!  Ron Paul (and Gary Johnson), are the only real alternative to Obama.  The rest of the Republican candidates are not that different from Obama, let alone each other.

Here is a good Ron Paul video that is worth watching: