Posted on 12/13/2011 2:24:45 PM PST by Slyscribe
Ron Paul is surging in Iowa according to the latest polls, but if the libertarian Texas Republican does become the flavor of the week, his foreign policy views will likely leave Republican voters with a sour taste.
The latest IBD/TIPP survey asked respondents which GOP presidential candidate they preferred on four issues: the economy, budget/taxes, health care and foreign policy. Paul is third behind Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, being the preferred choice by Republicans on the first three issues by margins of 9%, 10%, and 6%, respectively.
As today’s IBD story touched on, Paul is weakest on foreign policy, where he is the choice of just 4%, tying him with Jon Huntsman.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.investors.com ...
No, you are the one who refuses to admit his positions. There, fixed it.
Ok. So what are Ron Paul's positions on 9/11 and national defense?
Because the USSR wasn't run by complete raving lunatics, like every backasswards Islamic country is. The Ruskies understood the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, and it stayed their hand - and ours.
Ron Paul is a dreamy-eyed idealist, who doesn't understand the real world we live in.
Iran wouldn’t be a problem if not for the military adventurism of the last 10 years.
So Ahmahdinejad and the Forty Mad Mullahs are a peaceful bunch who wouldn't hurt a fly, except for the fact that America's been practicing military "adventurism"? Excuse the hell out of me, but we didn't sacrifice thousands of America's finest for a g-d damned ADVENTURE!
Pardon my being so blunt, fellow Freeper, but that's just plain nuts.
It’s either him or bachmann. Newt and romeny are awful. Both of them disgust me.
RoPaul is the only one of the Republican candidates I would not vote for against Obama. (Thankfully, Paul has zero chance of being the nominee.) I agree with him on eliminating unconstitutional federal programs such as the Department of Education and ending the welfare state. On that, he’s right. However, when it comes to foreign policy and national security, Ron Paul is nuts and naive. He actually would be more dangerous to our country than Obama, and national security is the #1 reason we have a federal government in the first place.
I am not basing my opinions on Ron Paul on what has been said *about* him. I am basing my opinions on Ron Paul on what I have heard come out of his own mouth.
Ron Paul fails to recognize militant Islam as the #1 threat to all civilized nations around the world and to the United States in particular. He is naive about Iran. He is living in a dream world. He excuses acts of terrorism committed against the United States—in that respect, he is no better than Jeremiah Wright.
Ron Paul is absolutely, utterly, disqualified from my consideration as a candidate. And I say this, even though I agree with him on getting rid of most of the bloated federal Leviathan—but even there, he is highly unrealistic in thinking that could be done overnight.
When he’s at these debates, rambling away, impassioned yet incoherent, he reminds me of the crazy uncle you’ve got living upstairs, but somehow he gets downstairs and embarrasses the heck out of the family at the dinner party.
Ron Paul isn't a conservative, but a nutjob libertarian. Condemning his liberal foreign policy positions isn't "eating our own."
Is sitting on a couch with Pelosi touting global warming crazy? Yeah. So can I call Gingrich supporters crazy?
What about calling me heartless because I don't want to give in-state tuition to illegals? What about shooting up teenagers with Gardisil? Crazy?
What about instituting a national sales tax without getting rid of the income tax. That is crazy talk (yeah, I know Cain is out) but supporting that is crazy.
Bachmann is simply a slogan chanter. Supporting her is probably not crazy, but she would get stomped by Zero.
And Romney, that is simply crazy to support someone who is the poster boy of every politician that has gotten us into the mess we are into today. Crazy to keep voting for that.
So, I pretty much have to choose crazy somewhere. And trust me, I think Paul has his head in the sand about those nutty Muslims. So like everyone on FR has been saying, all our choices pretty much suck. So I have to pick and choose. And I guess I am choosing Ron Paul simply because his economic policy proposals are head and shoulders above everybody elses. And my hope is if he does well, others will steal his economic ideas. What other candidate makes an ad with explosions getting rid of the Depts of Ed, Commerce, HUD, Interior?
I'm also sick of seeing our country getting its arse kicked in wars. War sucks. Kick arse and go home. I don't want to keep voting for politicians that keep us in these decade long wars. We are the US of Freakin A. Impose our will, or don't fight.
Just like the rules are different with Muslims than Ivan, the rules are different with media coverage, and you have to deal with that. We can't go fight wars anymore. Cripes, we are building mosques at WTC site. Same-o, same-o is not working. And unfortunately Paul is the best choice of a lot of low cards.
"Neo-cons"?
I've never heard a conservative call another conservative a neo-con. It's a liberal slur, and I resent you throwing it in our faces, just because most of us happen to disagree with Ron Paul.
It worked for King George III and Hitler....
It doesn’t matter. Ron Paul’s organization is structured to inflate his popularity. But in real time, he is not that popular.
Ron Paul is not popular on Free Republic and is not popular with the General Electric.
Most people supporting Ron Paul will support zero and the historical evidence is provided in the last election. In other words,
The majority of Ron Paul supporters have more in common with zero than the current front runner, Newt Gingrich. In addition, the Ron Paul supporters have a history of inflating his numbers in certain polling situations in order to give the impression that he is popular with conservatives and the tea party, WHICH HE IS NOT.
Hopefully, zero and his team will continue to indirectly push for Ron Paul as it only takes away votes from zero versus Newt.
So much for explanation. That's just empty opinionating, my friend.
For what it's worth, I understand your disgust. I'd also prefer to see at least one other face in this race, but she declined to enter the contest.
I agree that we've been dealt a raw hand this election, but I fail to see how Ron Paul is the best of the lot. Yes, his domestic policy is admirable, but that doesn't mean squat, if the president refuses to comprehend or acknowledge the federal government's number one job.
I'm as interested in lightening our military footprint around the world, and for ending the never-ending Afghanistan campaign as you are, but Paul is out of alignment with conservatives in those areas. He gives most of us the impression that he'd close every foreign base, and downsize our military to something on the order of Angola's. He also makes far too many conciliatory/apologetic noises about the Islamo-fanatics, for my taste or comfort.
It's primarily for these reasons that most conservatives emphatically rule him out as worthy of their support, but on top of all that, the man doesn't have a leadership gene anywhere in his body. He attracts hard-core ideologues, but most people want a strong, commanding personality for their CIC. Paul just doesn't have any of that in his make-up.
Those foreign policy stances are the door-closer for me. Fortunately, it`s just weird little Iowa, though. Hard to imagine him gaining meaningful traction beyond it... of course, with the muddled hot mess that is the Republican Party... who knows?
One certainty for me is.. I am NOT voting for Ron Paul.. ever.
The Soviets weren`t driven by a cult doctrine of nihilism, nor were they openly seeking to destroy Israel. They also didn`t hold American hostages for 444 days.
A comparison between the Soviet Union and Iran is a false one. Either Paul is too dangerously naive to understand it, or he`s too dangerously dishonest to let on that he DOES understand.
“Iran wouldn`t be a problem if not for the military adventurism of the past 10 years.”
Wow.. priceless.
OK, in bizarre Paulworld we`re supposed to believe Iran didn`t finance terror attacks by Hizbollah vs our Marines in 1983 and sponsor its attacks on Israel, meddle in Iraq`s Shiite population, fund Ansar al-Islam in northern Iraq, sponsor the terror group that bombed Khobar Towers and foment other acts of terror globally.
Believe what you will.. most of the rest of us prefer the bright light of reality.
I like Ron Paul because of foreign policy views. His economic and social views are too idealistic.
Paul is a Libertarian...which means...he’s your best shot to derail ObamaCare, shutter the useless depts of Education, EPA and Energy....Gingrich ain’t gonna do any of it....no matter how loud he talks about it.
Problem is ...Paul would end military policing around the world..which is OK because its time to mind the store at home for a few election cycles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.