Idea: Release "Foreign Policy Plan" and Hold Press Conference

[coffeewithgames]

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]

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]

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]

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)

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]

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]

This is an excellent idea. The campaign needs to make this happen ASAP.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

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]

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]

I wrote the campaign and encourage all others to do so as well.

 

[The Gold Standard]

It's a good idea, but if no media covers it, it is a waste of time.

 

[MJU1983]

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.

 

[coffeewithgames]

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.

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]

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]

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]

amazing, amazing

 

[Havax]

bump

 

[freneticentropy]

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]

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?