Ron Paul is the best Candidate on Defense. But he needs to state this better.

[justinpagewood]

The primarily issue that Republicans disagree with Ron Paul on is foreign policy. Ron has a strong position, but he doesn't often state it in a way that is easy to digest by the average Republican voter. I put this article together as a proposal for a better way to state Ron's position.




RON PAUL IS THE TRUE DEFENSE CANDIDATE

Republicans are often so worried about patrolling the Middle East, and telling other countries what to do, that they easily forget about our borders.

But Ron Paul is the only candidate that would put protecting the United States as top priority over meddling in other countries. Yet he doesn’t make this very clear. The following statement is what I think he needs to say more often. He’s said it occasionally in various speeches, but doesn’t drive it home in a single comprehensive argument:

“I’d strengthen the military and actually protect the United States by bringing the troops home to our borders by placing more ground troops, tanks, and stations near the Mexican and Canadian borders. I’d install more submarines and sea ships to protect the waters in the Atlantic and Pacific. I’d set up more airplanes and jets to patrol the skies over the oceans. And if there are individuals and groups that we know are planning to attack us, we target them specifically and capture them as soon as possible, rather than taking over an entire country and getting distracted. Then we’d really be protected from other countries.

But stationing our troops far from our borders, setting up bases around the world, spreading ourselves thin, and getting distracted in the internal affairs of other countries greatly diminishes our ability to protect us here at home.”



View the original article here: http://justinpagewood.tumblr.com/

 

[freneticentropy]

Agreed, and have said as much in other threads. He needs a really good ad focusing on his 'america first' foreign policy, his support from the troops, and protecting the borders. Red staters will eat it up. I'd also like to see a short ten minute speech of Paul directly addressing all the 'soft on defense' accusations, and anti-israel accusations in a very forceful manner that we can direct people to who make this argument.

 

[Kevin Smyth]

Agreed, and have said as much in other threads. He needs a really good ad focusing on his 'america first' foreign policy, his support from the troops, and protecting the borders. Red staters will eat it up. I'd also like to see a short ten minute speech of Paul directly addressing all the 'soft on defense' accusations, and anti-israel accusations in a very forceful manner that we can direct people to who make this argument.

No, not at all, Ron Paul needs to convince Republican voters to love the other part of his platform so much that they will overlook his foreign policy because most of these Red staters are absolutely pro-war because they are fixated on 9-11 and want to keep attacking Muslim nations because they've been brainwashed into thinking this is how you prevent another 9-11. We aren't going to win the bulk of Republicans on foreign policy, we've got to win them on everything else and get them to realize that solving America's problems domestically is more important than obsessing over radical Islam.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

No, not at all, Ron Paul needs to convince Republican voters to love the other part of his platform so much that they will overlook his foreign policy because most of these Red staters are absolutely pro-war because they are fixated on 9-11 and want to keep attacking Muslim nations because they've been brainwashed into thinking this is how you keep America safe. We aren't going to win Republicans on foreign policy, we've got to win them on everything else and get them to realize that solving America's problems domestically is more important than obsessing over radical Islam.

This. I've gotten into arguments with Republicans who have said that Paul's insistence on a strong defense is not enough because, "How did that help us on 9/11?" Plus they don't buy the blowback counter arguments.

 

[Highstreet]

Yes, this and the "electability" issue are key to winning.

 

[Created4]

No, not at all, Ron Paul needs to convince Republican voters to love the other part of his platform so much that they will overlook his foreign policy because most of these Red staters are absolutely pro-war because they are fixated on 9-11 and want to keep attacking Muslim nations because they've been brainwashed into thinking this is how you prevent another 9-11. We aren't going to win the bulk of Republicans on foreign policy, we've got to win them on everything else and get them to realize that solving America's problems domestically is more important than obsessing over radical Islam.

I totally disagree. Most Republicans have no clue as to what his true foreign policy is. Most of them think he is a pacifist, and I have even read remarks that they heard him say he wants to get rid of the Pentagon.

Your points here are well-taken, but we MUST educate people on why Ron Paul's policy is a STRONG DEFENSE. We need to ALWAYS remind them that active military personnel support him more than all the other candidates combined. We need to remind them that Dr. Paul is the ONLY candidate to have actually served in the military during the 1960s as a flight surgeon, during the Cuban missile crisis.

They may not come around to his views due to their fear of "terrorists" and "Muslims", but we can at least clear up all these lies and misconceptions so that when the choice comes down to him and Romney, they will have an easier time of choosing Dr. Paul.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The primarily issue that Republicans disagree with Ron Paul on is foreign policy. Ron has a strong position, but he doesn't often state it in a way that is easy to digest by the average Republican voter. I put this article together as a proposal for a better way to state Ron's position.




RON PAUL IS THE TRUE DEFENSE CANDIDATE

Republicans are often so worried about patrolling the Middle East, and telling other countries what to do, that they easily forget about our borders.

But Ron Paul is the only candidate that would put protecting the United States as top priority over meddling in other countries. Yet he doesn’t make this very clear. The following statement is what I think he needs to say more often. He’s said it occasionally in various speeches, but doesn’t drive it home in a single comprehensive argument:

“I’d strengthen the military and actually protect the United States by bringing the troops home to our borders by placing more ground troops, tanks, and stations near the Mexican and Canadian borders. I’d install more submarines and sea ships to protect the waters in the Atlantic and Pacific. I’d set up more airplanes and jets to patrol the skies over the oceans. And if there are individuals and groups that we know are planning to attack us, we target them specifically and capture them as soon as possible, rather than taking over an entire country and getting distracted. Then we’d really be protected from other countries.

But stationing our troops far from our borders, setting up bases around the world, spreading ourselves thin, and getting distracted in the internal affairs of other countries greatly diminishes our ability to protect us here at home.”



View the original article here: http://justinpagewood.tumblr.com/

With this argument, the typical republican will say that not projecting power/empire building (having 10,000+ overseas bases,etc) means some other dastardly power will swoop in and fill the power vacuum. (I actually heard someone saying this on the radio!)

 

[Created4]

"I’d install more submarines and sea ships to protect the waters in the Atlantic and Pacific."

Is there a Youtube of him saying this somewhere? This is actually very convincing, because it means a shift in strategy away from boots on the ground doing nation-building (even most neocons are opposed to "nation building") to real defense. I would love to hear Dr. Paul actually say this.

 

[Southron]

If you listen to or read some of Pat Buchanan's old speeches you find a good model for this.

 

[freneticentropy]

Exactly. I think there are a lot of Republican who aren't happy with the nation building, the preemptive war and policing of the world. But somehow, they have it in their head that Paul is just some hippy pacifist who will hand over the keys to our nuclear arsenal and unilaterally disarm. I think there must be at least a good 10% we can gain if we can disabuse people of this notion.