"It's time for Ron Paul's 15 minutes to be up"

[misconstrued]

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/6863

Oops. Seems this is already being talked about.

 

[jon_perez]

I like the article! It's a funny and entertaining read but I don't find it scathing at all.

Sure, not all of Ron Paul's ideas are solidly well-formed, but among all the candidates out there, he still seems to be the one who's talking the most sense, by a big margin. Nobody's perfect and Paul would be the first to humbly admit it. But I am convinced Ron has a guiding vision of how he wants the country to work and everything he has said so far has convinced me that he is neither a dreamer nor an unrealistic fool.

 

[PaleoForPaul]

It's clearly an attack article. I'd like to touch on one point from the article:

The U.N. has problems, sure, but does anyone serious really believe that the world would be better off without the United Nations?

No, we believe the UNITED STATES would be better off without the UN.

They still don't get it.

They still don't want a government to put the American people first.

 

[huchahucha]

3. Iraq. Let's assume Paul is right that foreign-policymaking powers are vested in the Congress. Why, then, does he keep promising that as president he will "immediately" pull U.S. troops out of Iraq? Presumably he intends to govern as he says the Founders intended. But there's a deep contradiction here. If as president he will have no authority to execute foreign policy except as Congress dictates, how can he promise on the campaign trail to get American troops out of Iraq? I don't get it.

Actually, this is false. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that I have ever heard say to the general public that his platform is just his ideas on how to fix the country's problems, but if elected he would have to work with Congress. And to answer the question on how he is going to get the troops out of Iraq - that is easy. Right now the only way to end the war is for the Democrat majority in Congress to vote on not funding it anymore. They won't do it because the Republicans will spin the decison as cowardice and troop hating; it would be political suicide for the Democrats. If Ron Paul were President, he could say "I want to end the war and I hope Congress will agree". The Dems would have an out because they would not have to stop funding, they would just have to agree with the President, and the Republicans could complain or follow along with little consequence.

 

[James R]

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/6863

Oops. Seems this is already being talked about.

Its just a blog. Waste of time to defend Ron Paul on a blog unless its one of the biggest ones.

 

[jblosser]

Actually, this is false. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that I have ever heard say to the general public that his platform is just his ideas on how to fix the country's problems, but if elected he would have to work with Congress. And to answer the question on how he is going to get the troops out of Iraq - that is easy. Right now the only way to end the war is for the Democrat majority in Congress to vote on not funding it anymore. They won't do it because the Republicans will spin the decison as cowardice and troop hating; it would be political suicide for the Democrats. If Ron Paul were President, he could say "I want to end the war and I hope Congress will agree". The Dems would have an out because they would not have to stop funding, they would just have to agree with the President, and the Republicans could complain or follow along with little consequence.

They're only over there now because the President has unconstitutionally exercised his authority to put them there. Ron Paul as President will not continue that unconstitutional action, thus he will bring them home.

It's fallacious to think the President can do *nothing* without Congressional approval. He can do plenty, he just can't do the kinds of things Bush and co have been doing. A Constitutional President can certainly stop doing the things that others have been doing that aren't allowed in the first place.

 

[Corydoras]

This is clearly a significant piece, because while Foreign Policy mag is NOT the CFR's Foreign Affairs piece, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which DOES publish Foreign Policy, is hardly a bit player in international matters. Foreign Policy was founded by Samuel Huntington, the famous "Clash of Civilizations" CFR guy.

The significance of this blog piece is that Ron Paul has finally become enough of a threat to the current American foreign policy establishment for them to actually make arguments against him.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/About_FP
"Founded in 1970 by Samuel Huntington and Warren Demian Manshel, and now published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C., FOREIGN POLICY Magazine is the premier, award-winning magazine of global politics, economics, and ideas. Our mission is to explain how the world works—in particular, how the process of global integration is reshaping nations, institutions, cultures, and, more fundamentally, our daily lives."

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/about/
"The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing cooperation between nations and promoting active international engagement by the United States. Founded in 1910, its work is nonpartisan and dedicated to achieving practical results."

Yeah, that's Carnegie as in the founding of the Federal Reserve.

 

[TVMH]

That entire article was a complete misrepresentation of Dr. Paul's political philosophy, in my opinion.

Either the writer did it intentionally, or he is an idiot.

Whatever the case may be, I stopped at the paragraph on "noninterventionism".

 

[MGreen]

Haha, that's a horrible article. The guy's an idiot.

 

[drpiotrowski]

Actually, this is false. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that I have ever heard say to the general public that his platform is just his ideas on how to fix the country's problems, but if elected he would have to work with Congress. And to answer the question on how he is going to get the troops out of Iraq - that is easy. Right now the only way to end the war is for the Democrat majority in Congress to vote on not funding it anymore. They won't do it because the Republicans will spin the decison as cowardice and troop hating; it would be political suicide for the Democrats. If Ron Paul were President, he could say "I want to end the war and I hope Congress will agree". The Dems would have an out because they would not have to stop funding, they would just have to agree with the President, and the Republicans could complain or follow along with little consequence.

Not to mention, the President is head of the executive branch and commander in chief. By removing troops he is only administering a check against a congressional decision (if one were to exist).

The President and the Congress both have the ability to limit each other when it comes to sending out the military, therefore they both must agree to do it. If President Paul wishes to bring the troops home, he can.