Forget Sarah Palin: It's Rand Paul's moment and Ron Paul's opportunity

The Hill, Washington, DC ^ | 2010-05-17 | Brent Budowsky

[Bokababe]

I didn't make up the paid thing. Did he not pay for votes at the SRLC? Are you unaware of that?

At SRLC Ron Paul lost to Romney and Sarah came in third. Apparently buying blocks of tickets at SRLC and giving them out to supporters who will vote for you is part of that game -- RP didn't make it up and Romney was obviously more willing to shell out the cash to win. And at CPAC, Ron Paul came in first, Romney second and Palin third again.

Ron Paul may be right about a few things, but he's wrong about some critical ones. He won't protect America. Sarah will.

Being the world's policeman and declaring war on every country that irritates you, isn't "protecting America" -- it's making America more vulnerable. Because playing that world cop role demands that we belong to UN, NATO, the OSCE and every other globalist entity as part of the price for global dominance -- surrendering more of our sovereignty every decade. I want someone who is more worried about defending our borders than defending someone country's borders. I'm tired of sponsoring politicians who think that the world is theirs to play with instead of realizing that they were elected to take care of our country's needs first.

Ron Paul may be too dogmatic about his foreign policy philosophy, but Sarah Palin has to carry around Randy Scheunemann in her pocket to even pretend to have "a foreign policy philosophy". Sorry, not exactly a real confidence-builder.

[SoConPubbie]

Ron Paul is the Patrick Henry or the Barry Goldwater, not the Thomas Jefferson, George Washington or Ronald Reagan, of this movement. He's brought youth and life back to a dying Party, even as he becomes too old to capture the presidency for himself.

Thank God for his blessings.

[ohioWfan]

We have not ever had a President in our history who 'declared war on every country that irritated' us.

That statement alone negates your entire testimonial to Paul's greatness and suitability for the presidency.

There are times when protecting America requires going to war against foreign nations. That was true regarding Germany (who didn't attack us), Japan, Afghanistan and Iraq.

When we have a terrorist network in multiple countries whose desire is to kill as many Americans as possible, we must have a President who is not afraid to defend us, as Paul is.

Neither Sarah nor Ron have extensive foreign policy experience (the only recent President who did was GHWBush). But having a President with the right goals and the guts to do the difficult thing to keep Americans safe is one of the highest priorities we must have.

I don't know yet whether Sarah has what it takes, but I know for sure that Ron Paul doesn't.

I wouldn't care how old he was if he were qualified. But he's not.

[ohioWfan]

I should add that it is even more critical to have a strong national defense President after four years of weakness and encouragement of terrorism under Obama.

This is the worst time in history to have a weakling leading us, no matter how good his concept of the economy is. We need strength, and Paul represents weakness.

[Bokababe]

"When we have a terrorist network in multiple countries whose desire is to kill as many Americans as possible, we must have a President who is not afraid to defend us, as Paul is.....I don't know yet whether Sarah has what it takes, but I know for sure that Ron Paul doesn't. I wouldn't care how old he was if he were qualified. But he's not."

First of all, I am not arguing a case for "Ron Paul for President". I said that earlier. But in terms of who is more "qualified on foreign policy"? That's a joke, right?

Ron Paul has been in Congress for over thirty years and sits on two House Foreign Affairs Committees: "The Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight", and "The Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere". RP voted FOR authorizing George Bush the use of military force against those who were responsible for the 9/11 Bombing, but against the Iraq war.

Sarah Palin's "experience" is as Mayor of Wassila, Alaska and as a one term Governor of Alaska which she quit halfway through. Without Randy Scheunemann , she couldn't find her way back to the US mainland, let alone understand the politics of any other country.

And who is Randy Scheunemann ? Scheunemann was President of "The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq", who has argued for toppling Saddam Hussein as far back as 1998. He's a lobbyist for government contractors and oil companies, and he is part of the Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kristol, neocon machine that has gotten us into every war since Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia. Scheunemann was also MCain's foreign policy adviser and is on the Board of McCain's shadow foreign policy organization, the IRI. Thanks to following "Randy's advice" on getting into wars, George Bush also left us heavily financially indebted to China and Russia, who we really should be worried protecting ourselves from but instead are indebted to.

Sarah Palin knows absolutely nothing about "defending America" but is instead getting her foreign policy advice from the political equivalent of The Devil. Thanks, but no thanks!

[Bokababe]

"Outside of his little cult, people reject him, and have been for decades."

Times change, Ansel. And Ron Paul's "little cult" has grown considerably. Election 2012: Barack Obama 42%, Ron Paul 41%

I'd never read Ron Paul's bio before, but thanks to you, I just read Ron Paul's Wiki entry. What I see is a guy who was well ahead of his time, who consistently warned us the ticking time bombs of policies that ultimately exploded in our faces. And he was a lone voice until recently when various individuals have claimed many of those issues as their own.

My guess is that history is going to be far kinder to Ron Paul than most people are willing to acknowledge now.

[rbmillerjr]

Ron Paul is a Kook.

Rand Paul is pretending to be a conservative or he’d be a joke like his father.

[ansel12]

Nothing has changed, the perennial candidate will continue to lose any race outside of his congressional district, the guy’s sleaziness turns people off once they see him. It has happened in every race that he has attempted outside of his safe district. This guy is a 40 year politician, he knows the score and how to game the system on the small scale though.

All of these Ralph Nader, Alan Keyes, Ron Paul, Lyndon LaRouche, type guys love the lifestyle and donor base that their cynical exploitation brings them, but the public at large always see through them.

[Bokababe]

"All of these Ralph Nader, Alan Keyes, Ron Paul, Lyndon LaRouche, John McCain, George Bush, Dick Cheney type guys love the lifestyle and donor base that their cynical exploitation brings them, but the public at large always never sees through them."

There, fixed it.

I happen to agree with Alexander Haig on one important point. He said something to the effect of, "If you are looking for where and when this country went wrong, it went wrong with George H. Bush". It went wrong because the globalist, corporatist, neocon Liberal interventionist Rotweillers like McCain, Scheunemann, Dick Cheney, and Rumsfeld, were let off the very short leash that Reagan had them on, and were instead allowed to run wild in the name of "national defense". Pretty soon, these Rotties found common ground with their counterparts on the Democratic side of the aisle (where they really belonged in the first place) and the American people would be screwed for the next 20 years.

Ron Paul was one of the few people who continued to rail against that cabal, against the ever expanding government and debt as a result, and no one was listening.

And some people are still closing their ears because they don't want to hear that doing the same thing that didn't work before isn't going to work this time either.

I could care less about defending Ron Paul as a candidate for election, but what he tried to do was not wrong. It was the right thing but he was all alone and no one was listening -- and apparently quite a few are still closing their ears.

[rbmillerjr]

Yeah, because as Ron Paul stated, the terrorists are hear because we are there, or words to that effect.

Ron Paul doesn’t have a clue about national security. I wouldn’t trust a school to his care let alone a nation.

Even on economic matters, which is his strength, I’ve seen few real answers from him.

The tired Fed conspiracy mantra is old. He offers no solutions except audit the Fed. Bottom line is that he has a safe CD and likes to have his regular political season of fun. But, in reality, he is a light weight.

[oneamericanvoice]

I don’t always agree with everything the party does, same as you don’t always agree with everything a friend or spouse does. I was a Democrat and a liberal who saw the light, and will never be anything but Republican. I’ve seen pseudo Republicans and Paul is one. They are Libertarians, and while I have some libertarian beliefs, they are too Libertarian for me. Well, now the ball is in your court. Let’s see what it gains you.

BTW, do you know their foreign policy? Military policy? That Ron, and I’ll bet Rand, thinks we should privatize our military, issue Letters of Marque, withdraw all our troops worldwide.

[Bokababe]

Yeah, because as Ron Paul stated, the terrorists are hear because we are there, or words to that effect.

Yes -- that's the essence of what he said.

So do you really think that American foreign policy has been so impotent that it has no effect whatever (intended or unintended) on how others perceive us or behave toward us? Because that is the only possible argument against what Ron Paul said, and I don't believe that's true for a second.

9/11 was the result of a massive US foreign policy and intelligence failure. It may have been a shock to ordinary Americans going about their normal lives, who in no way shape or form deserved it, or could have seen it coming -- but that does not let off the hook those in power who knew the hornets nests that were being stirred up overseas and did it anyway putting us all in jeopardy. And further, those in power also did nothing to protect us when it was obvious that al Qaeda was ramping up and had already attacked the WTC once already six years earlier. 9/11 was not a result of being "blindsided", it did not "come out of nowhere" although it may have felt that way to us, it was a massive screw-up on an enormous scale.

There is a very big difference between "blame America" and blame those US political leaders who screwed up on a massive scale. But we have continued to allow these same people to profit by exploiting the memory of 9/11 to keep these wars going on forever while it puts money in their pockets.

America has no reason to apologize to anyone, but those political leaders involved in leaving us vulnerable to such an attack and who try to exploit our patriotism for profit, owe us a hell of a lot more than "a apology" And those same people should never be allowed anywhere near that kind of power again, yet we keep recycling them and hoping for a different outcome. Yeah, good luck with that -- just keep putting more money into the "McCain re election fund" because he's willing to stay there for "a hundred years".

[Deb]

Libertarians are nothing but anarchists in brown shoes. For some reason there are FReepers who willingly buy his brand of crazy, anti-American blather.

[rbmillerjr]

“So do you really think that American foreign policy has been so impotent that it has no effect whatever ... on how others perceive us or behave toward us?”

So you really believe that the radical jihadists would let America alone if we appeased them? That is what Paul and you believe. We should appease the jihadists. It’s no less wrong than when Chamberlain guaranteed “peace in our time” with Hitler.

No less wrong than when American media demanded that Reagan appease the Soviets. Reagan brought down the Soviets by keeping the pressure on them through a policy of “peace through strength” and engaging them diplomatically, economically, intelligence wise, and by using covert actions.

---

“political leaders ....who try to exploit our patriotism for profit”

That’s the typical RonPaul zombie conspiracy crap that strips away your credibility.

One of the things that Bush got very right...was his Bush Doctrine, where we will consider striking back at countries that house, train, finance and support terrorists. Afghanistan is the model for this and there is no serious debate about whether we should be in Afghan or not.

DU would agree with you though, as would uber Leftists at moveon, huffingtonpost, Olbermann etc.

[FreeReign]

It's Rand Paul's moment and Ron Paul's opportunity

It's Rand Paul's opportunity to show that he is not a libertarian and it's Ron Paul's moment to shut up.

[Bokababe]

So you really believe that the radical jihadists would let America alone if we appeased them?

And what in the hell do you think we are doing now? Does your bank offer Sharia mortgages? Ever heard of CAIR?

I've been writing about Muslim jihadists for the last 20 years, when they were putting down roots in Bosnia -- yes BOSNIA--and not only did we let them, we helped them do it even though we knew bin Laden had trained them. And then we invited them over here. Why don't you ask the people in Utica, NY what the Bosnian Muslims there are like? Or better yet, check out the Utah Trolley Square shooter!

Eleven years ago, I was on TV talking about the the mistakes we were making in managing the Balkan Muslim connection when we used NATO to bomb the Serbs on behalf of the Muslim Albanians. Then we invited thousands of those Muslim Albanians to our shores -- and what did we get out of it? Four of the Fort Dix Six! Several others were arrested in the last few months on separate terror charges here in the US, not to mention those arrested in organized crime, drug running and counterfeiting But hey, as long as John McCain gets a cool $Miliion from them for his political campaigns, I guess it doesn't matter!

Blah, blah, Hitler, Chamberlain, you belong at DU, moveon...

Typical blather from someone who hasn't the vaguest idea of what he is talking about, so save it.

[rbmillerjr]

You evaded my points about appeasing muslim jihadists by deflecting to Bosnia/Serbia etc.

We’ve all heard your swan song on Serbia. Nobody cares.

The point is that you believe in kooky conspiracy theories about how US politicians are making money off the WOT. What utter bullshit.

RonPaul and his goonies are kooks that don’t understand national security issues.

Nice try deflecting though.

[Bokababe]

You evaded my points about appeasing muslim jihadists by deflecting to Bosnia/Serbia etc.

I was trying to connect the dots for you -- if you'd have bothered to check any of the links, you'd have seen the first known document from al Qaeda since you brought up "the jihadists", but sorry, I don't have a remedial version for you.

[rbmillerjr]

You don’t have the comprehension skills to connect any relevant dots.

You conspiracy PaulNuts concoct wild twisted tales that have no basis in reality.

Oh, I’m sure what you say has a reality ...TO you, but it’s not related to my point.

It’s a deflection...that has nothing to do with your belief in appeasing terrorists and how American Foreign Policy is at fault.

[rbmillerjr]

fyi...I looked at your links...

It’s all about Bosnia....

I don’t give a shit about Bosnia...and your BS propaganda.

F Bosnia...I’m American...I care about America.