LibertyEagle had an interest comment that I thought could use it's own thread:
One thing that's perplexed me for awhile now is Ron's continued instance on not backing off one inch from his "
bring ALL troops home and close ALL foreign bases" talking point. It's a silly statement that undermines his very valid argument that many foreign bases should be closed/phased out... It's the only 'absurd' position he still pushes in the debates and is akin to his pushing of "social security, FED, medicare & federal income tax = unconstitutional and need to be shut down asap" positions from 2008.
Why does Ron continue to push this
all-or-nothing position when he has already taken the very large and politically smart step to modify the way he frames domestic-Entitlement-spending and war:
- Entitlement Spending (re: social security, medicare, federal taxes, the Federal Reserve, etc.) = "By cutting spending elsewhere, I'm the only one with a plan to take care of those currently dependent on these programs. My goal would be to slowly phase them out..."
- War - "If there's a threat to our national security, I will take the issue to congress. If congress votes for a declaration of war, I will go in, win and get out... no nation building" ... "I'm not against wars of defense... I'm against undeclared wars of aggression". etc.
Playing the 'the other candidates will take us to war with Iran' card = brilliant politics (70%+ of voters are more fearful of a new war than they are another terrorist attack or nuclear iran). We can win A LOT of independents on this issue alone so we need to make the most of it, especially in NH.
But following up his very
wise and entirely
realistic anti-war position/message with "we also need to bring ALL troops home and close ALL foreign bases" muddies that message because so few voters support "closing ALL foreign bases" (just like very few voters support ending social security, medicare & the FED immediately and entirely). Continuing to push "close all bases now" allows the other candidates to focus their attack on this one weak-spot and extrapolate out that ALL of Dr. Paul's foreign policy = "dangerous", "ridiculous", "absurd", etc.
Long story short, this talking point hurts more than helps (especially with 'conservatives' older voters) and is going over about as well as Ron's "end social security, the FED, taxes and medicare NOW" positions did in 2008.
Ron can very easily temper down this talking point to something far more in line with his positions on Entitlements & War platform... the foreign bases can be "phased out" just like social security, the FED and all of the other federal programs which do more hard than good.
Anyways, thoughts on how the only absolute/all-or-nothing position Ron still pushes is also the one position which has opened him up to the most aggressive (and successful) attacks from both pundits and opponents?
