1 vote

"Ron Paul can't win the GOP nomination"

This is the kind of statement I'm hearing among diehard Republicans. They say he can't win because he is not hawkish. Of course, we disagree with neocons, but even a friend of mine who likes and largely agrees with Ron Paul (and even wants him to be our president) is convinced that he can't win.

In fact, here is what he said to me:

"To be a republican is to be a hawk on defending this nation, and Ron Paul's correct constitutional approach has always been communicated in precisely the backwards way. He should have stated what a hawk he would be in defending this nation *from our own shores.* (Missile defense, strong military retaliation strike capability, swift justice for terror threats on our own soil, etc..) Yet he hasn't been a hawk after 9/11, and instead he sounds like he doesn't take seriously the world's dangerous regimes. In some cases, he even sounds like he defends Iran and others to be aggressive military powers. And he doesn't seem to have the political common sense to realize he's shooting himself in the foot when he makes such claims. "

Keep in mind that this is the impression he gets from Ron Paul, so it could just be him, however, I think he does have a valid point: convincing republicans may require such a message where the people see how he would constitutionally defend America. In other words, Republicans want to see a military that displays might, not weakness. So, it's one thing to be against unconstitutional wars, policing the world and nation building, but it's another thing to demonstrate strong military defense which many Republicans appear to need. Basically, they perceive Ron Paul as a weakling because of the way his message is being communicated.

Moreover he adds:

"Jason, Ron Paul does not have a military message that can ever sell to republicans, and so Ron Paul will not be the GOP nominee, and thus will not be the U.S. President of the United States. it's his own fault for horrific messaging after 9/11. I agree with him 100% that we should not be the world's policeman; but, we should then be very prepared to defend from here at home and be ready for quick strike action once those aggressive regimes hit us. He's done little to assure the American GOP that he has a positive vision for strong U.S. military defense"

Obviously, we would disagree, since he Dr. Paul consistently receives the most amount in campaign contributions, but to a large extent, Dr. Paul hasn't really gone into detail regarding what a 'strong defense' looks like. So, I think my friend has an absolutely valid point.

Thoughts anyone?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


It's one thing to say you won't start unjust wars. Which is great. But what if we ARE attacked. That can happen. He doesn't offer much reassurance in that area. He's the anti-corruption candidate. So he'll always get my vote but, yeah, stuff like this bugs me. Especially when it could be so easily corrected.

He has stated that bringing

He has stated that bringing the military home does not mean kicking them out of the military. He has mentioned a strong National Guard, here and more border troops. He has talked (a bit) about bases here
and I am not afraid with him as President. You are right, I think he does have to discuss this, more. Instead of foreign policy he should describe our Defense more. You do have to remember, however, in 200 years, only the British actually attacked us on our own shores, as an invasion force. We saw them coming..we were ready. I do not think they would come here, en masse anyway, but...

I deal with this all the time from establishment republicans

Here is the key philosophy behind Ron Paul's defense of America.

He believes (as do I) that the foreign policy we have used in the last 60 years MAKES US LESS SAFE AS AMERICANS.

By occupying, sanctioning, attacking, meddling in and supporting foreign nations WE MAKE OURSELVES A TARGET as on 9/11.

He says a foreign policy of neutrality and NON-Interventionism is the best (Look at Switzerland for instance).


It means bringing our troops home from occupying foreign lands which many countries see as provacative and aggressive.

It means having those troops defending OUR borders, airspace and coastlines

It means having the best defense in the world -
Remember Dr. Paul was in the military for 5 years during the height of the Cuban missile crisis.

It means stopping the CIA from its many foreign dirty deeds like overthrowing leaders and meddling in their internal affairs.

I know this usually falls on deaf establishment republican ears but THAT IS his plan for securing our safety.

I happen to agree with this because what we've been doing in the middle east for the last 60 years hasn't worked, so WHY NOT try the Constitutional approach for a while?

What do we have to lose?

It boils down to treating other nations as we want to be treated, and the consequences we'll continue to face if we keep treating them as we are now.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

I completely agree with all

I completely agree with all of this. However, Republican seem to require a strong assurance that the military is still strong. That's the big concern.

I've heard arguments about islamo-fascism, and it is quite real, but not as big as the media (and Santorum) like to say it is. So, if there were to be another terrorist threat, how would Ron prevent such a thing from happening?

I'm aware of letters of marque and reprisal to go after criminals, but that would be after an attack, so what would Dr. Paul do to adequately prevent terrorism?

I agree that no more meddling in the middle east would significantly help, but I don't think it's enough to just say that as Republicans still want to perceive the military as a strong force that can protect America's borders and such.