The foreign policies of both are the same, get attacked, blame America.
Ah, yes, that old canard. It is one of my favourites, and it proves why most "conservatives" today are not trustworthy in the White House. Ron Paul, at a debate, said ”Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years." Now, the entire GOP, along with the lefty Giuliani, were up in arms that he "blamed America" and that he "said 9/11 was our fault."
So, one must ask, given that it can't be America's fault, why do you and others worry so much about Obama? What if he allows Iran to get nukes? What if he drops our security and allows them to bring a weapon into NYC? What if he ignores all the credible reportst that a weapon is there and it is detonated killing everyone in Manhattan? It wouldn't be his fault, because that would be blaming America. Surely you wouldn't blame America, now would you? And why worry about what Paul would have done, since it couldn't be his fault either? America is infallible after all.
The truth of course is much scarier, and more telling about all of the cheerleaders in this issue. What Giuliani, and everyone cheering him, and everyone screaming that Ron Paul "blames America," are actually saying is that foreign policy shouldn't be considered important, or thought too much about. Don't worry yourself America, because nothing we do can ever contribute to future bad stuff. If it could, then it could be our fault, and that is blasphemy remember? Only Ron Paul actually thought that what Presidents do matters, and only he argued that it deserves care. I certainly am not interested in trusting a person who thinks he has supernatural protection and can do no wrong or ever be responsible. And I am just saddened that the party that used to be the defenders of responsibility have now joined the people who consider holding people responsible an evil act. Very sad.
I never said I supported John McCain, (If you look back at my posts for the last 10 years you will see I have opposed him 95% of the time), What I said was that cut and run Paul was the only person running for the Republican nomination who was worse than John McCain.
That is my point. You supported McCain over the real conservative. McCain has made it totally clear that he will sell out every conservative value to the highest bidder. Paul has generally stood firm in his principles. And his principles are conservative principles.
Ron Paul would not react even after an attack. Remember, he is the one who said "It was America's fault the terrorists attacked us."
How do you know this? Ron Paul certainly never insinuated that attacks should be ignored. He has always been a very strong supporter of our fighting forces, and believes in a strong national defense. He simply disagrees that invading places like Iraq does us any good, and I tend to agree with him.
He did vote for the authority to attack Afghanistan.
While Paul's defense policy is too isolationist and Taftian for my tastes, his domestic vision is the closest to conservative that we could have. I'd rather be having foreign policy debates with anti-war folks like Paul than the Chavez/Ahmadinejad worshipping goons that have taken over the mainstream anti-war movement and the White House.