Ron Paul: Just another pol[itician]?

[Nickel]

Interesting question from Jonathan Martin's Blog at the Politico today:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/

(Obviously I don't think he's just another politician, but this does raise an interesting question or two.)

==
Ron Paul: Just another pol?

Ron Paul is sending a defense and veterans-focused mail piece into South Carolina homes that doesn't mention the chief calling card of his campaign -- his opposition to the Iraq war.

In fact, the piece touts at the top that Paul "Pushed for an official Declaration of War with Iraq."

Now this is true, but he did so only because he takes a literal interpretation of the Constitution.

This is the only mention of Iraq, though, so it may leave a South Carolina voter who is uninformed about Paul's anti-war views to think he merely wanted a congressional green light to topple Saddam and was fully on board with shock-and-awe.

Paul does come out and state his opposition to invading Iran, but that a piece focused on national security would not make any mention his stance against the Iraq war is striking.

That it may, just may, have something to do with the fact that South Carolina is a military and retiree-heavy state is reenforced by other flashes of GOP politics-as-usual: a shot of a young Paul in uniform, a picture of Paul with a vet, a Ronald Reagan quote and promises to improve the VA.

Of course, lest you Paul'ites fear your guy is going conventional and giving in to The Man there is also a promise that a President Paul would never let our troops "serve under a U.N. flag."
==

Note: See the Blog for pictures of the mail piece and for comments.

 

[RonPaulFTFW]

He introduced that declaration because if we were going to war he thought we should at least do it the right way and use the constitution. He was trying to make a point, not cheer for the war.

And there is nothing wrong with Paul showing off his service and connections to swing votes.
He was in the army and he was friends with RR. That doesn't mean he can't be anti-war.

That's kind part of his appeal.

 

[RoyalShock]

I think Nickel's point is that he probably should have stated his stance of requiring congressional approval (via declaration of war), then explained his non-interventionist view. Then there is no misunderstanding about Paul's position.

 

[ItsTime]

This is the best they can come up with?

 

[AlexMerced]

lol, they target their materials well

- like the student slim jim don't mention he's pro choice

- and his hope for america ones don't mention he wan to end the drugs on war


It's good marketing: you identify what attributes are important to the target audience and you emphasize them

his views are the same, just his emphasis is different on different materials, I think it's just good campaigning

 

[Janet0116]

This is straw-grasping at its finest. lol

 

[freelance]

lol, they target their materials well

- like the student slim jim don't mention he's pro choice

- and his hope for america ones don't mention he wan to end the drugs on war


It's good marketing: you identify what attributes are important to the target audience and you emphasize them

his views are the same, just his emphasis is different on different materials, I think it's just good campaigning

Maybe that's because he's pro-LIFE.

 

[Mental Dribble]

Hes pro-life but wants the states to decide whats right for them. Not a federal gov out in no where land.

 

[USCisCarolina]

I'm a South Carolinian and I've lived here my whole life and IMO I think he should stress his message of less government here.

Sorry to say but the typical representative of my sad state stands there with his beer and mullet and states, "kill em' all". That's about the extent of the political mind here.

However, I fear my fellow statesmen are just too ignorant of the facts to even voice an opinion. If it were up to me I wouldn't allow South Carolina to vote due to their lack of education on the subject.

 

[maeqFREEDOMfree]

it's interesting to me how many people interpret the non-interventionist view in terms of our foreign policy and how it directly relates to the war in Iraq, Afghanistan...take your pick. I've found that people i speak with (most of whom are republicans) respond best when i relate RP's view to that of Ronald Regan (whom they love so much). When our enemy (Russia) started massing weapons and troops in one of our neighbors country (Cuba) had a non-interventionist stance. He didn't openly attack Russia, but instead he built out military up and made it so strong that our enemies thought better than to attack us.... Why are we surprised that countries like Iran are trying to do the same thing?

am i off base here?