Paul: Social issues are a loser in the election

posted at 10:25 am on February 20, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Yesterday on CNN’s State of the Union, Candy Crowley asked Ron Paul about the new focus in national politics on social issues and whether a national debate focusing on them would help Republicans in November.  Paul called it a “losing position,” but neglects to mention  that he has campaigned on his opposition to abortion at least since the Ames straw poll, an omission caught by CNS News:

“Do you–are you uncomfortable–certainly Rick Santorum is the one who has been in the forefront of some of this talk on social issues, but there have been others in the race,” Crowley asked Paul. “Are you uncomfortable with this talk about social issues? Do you consider it a winning area for Republicans in November?”

“No,” said Paul. “I think it’s a losing position.

“I mean, I talk about it because I have a precise understanding of how difficult problems are to be solved,” Paul continued. “And they’re not to be at the national level. We’re not supposed to nationalize these problems. The founders were very clear that problems like this, if there needs to be legislation of sorts, the state has the right to write the legislation that they so choose. And that solves a lot of our problems.”

Back on Dec. 19, Paul signed the “Personhood Pledge” published by PersonhoodUSA. This pledge says in part: “I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting ‘the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,’ and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I ‘support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”

The current context of the debate on social issues hinges on federal mandates, a point which Paul acknowledges in this interview.  Why would that be a loser?  It’s practically the entire context of his campaign — reducing the power of federal government to issue the kind of mandates like the HHS mandate for employers to essentially provide free contraception to their employees.  Tying that in with social issues should make the argument stronger, at least if it’s handled correctly.

Matt Lewis argues that not only is Paul wrong, but history shows that Republicans do well when social issues are in play:

As Jeffrey Bell’s forthcoming book (per the Wall Street Journal’s review) notes,

“Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964. … The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period.

“. . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections.”

(Emphasis mine.)

As much as moderate Republicans and cosmopolitan conservatives might lament the resurrection of the culture wars (which were foisted upon us, and appear to have been rekindled once again by liberal overreach), they were electorally fruitful for the GOP.

What is more, the notion that running on the economy (what Mr. Romney presumably seems comfortable doing) is a panacea, is dubious. The economy appears to be recovering (at least, the unemployment rate is dropping), a point which will obviously make it harder, should the trend continue, to oust Obama.

Even more to the point, history does not seem indicate that a struggling economy — regardless of who is to blame — or who currently occupies the White House — will benefit the Republican candidate in a general election. (This, of course, is controversial. Jimmy Carter’s handling of the economy was surely one cause of his 1980 defeat, but would he have been defeated had it not been for the Iranian hostages?)

If the economy starts heating up — which the CBO, among many others, predicts won’t happen — the election will have to hinge on larger, basic issues of limited power and Obama’s overreach.  If we shy away from challenging Obama on those positions now, we probably won’t have a candidate willing to do it in November.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

The good news is that when Mitt wins he won’t owe a darned thing to the loony religious fanatics. Unlike so many past GOP Presidents, when some holy roller yell, “F-CK” he won’t jump to and ask, “which position?”

MJBrutus on February 20, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Hear hear.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 12:58 PM

There is a reason the Libertarian mindset is growing so fast.

People are SICK of other people telling them how to run their lives.

jake-the-goose on February 20, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Now, when do we get a candidate that isn’t totally wrong on the national defense issue. Can’t a Libertarian back off on the foreign policy overhaul until he/she is elected?

csdeven on February 20, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Did you click the link?

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 12:51 PM

You’re going back to 2008 to find RP “attacking” Mitt? Read the NY Times and WaPO accounts of the RP-Mittens relationship. Their mutual admiration society didn’t begin till 2008.

wraithby on February 20, 2012 at 12:59 PM

……….and is it just me or has Paul not won ONE SINGLE PRIMARY or CAUCUS in the GOP?

……….if he’s so grand, and on target why CAN’T HE FREAKING WIN ONE SINGLE STATE?

jus sayin.

PappyD61 on February 20, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Lotta football to play Pappy. Lotta game left in the old man.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 12:59 PM

You’re going back to 2008 to find RP “attacking” Mitt? Read the NY Times and WaPO accounts of the RP-Mittens relationship. Their mutual admiration society didn’t begin till 2008.

wraithby on February 20, 2012 at 12:59 PM

I was told he never went after Mitt Romney the way he went after Gingrich, Frothy, Bachmann…

He did. Perhaps after that particular slapping around, Mitt Romney learned to avoid direct confrontation with Dr Paul.

Something Newt Gingrich might want to copy from here on out. Just a suggestion.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 1:01 PM

The only issue where the GOP needs to take a stand on governmental involvement on any moral issue is on late term abortions. No one with their right mind can defend such a practice within the realm of human rights..

Everything else needs to be determined by ones own theology and belief system,……that would be religious freedom. That philosophy would be the true conservative position.

Tater Salad on February 20, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Apologies if I offended any delicate sensibilities. But the man equated homosexuality with child rape.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 12:57 PM

No. Not at all. I understand the sentiment. I just never imagined a “frothy” situation. It just took me by surprise.

csdeven on February 20, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Sanctorum is completely unelectable.

csdeven on February 20, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Conjecture, opinion, not fact.

Bmore on February 20, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Sanctorum is completely unelectable.

csdeven on February 20, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Fact auto play is unelectable.

Bmore on February 20, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Now, when do we get a candidate that isn’t totally wrong on the national defense issue. Can’t a Libertarian back off on the foreign policy overhaul until he/she is elected?

csdeven on February 20, 2012 at 12:59 PM

The problem with your argument is that our defense budget is part, and in fact a big part, of the problem.

We’re borrowing 40% of everything we spend, including our spending on defense, which is somewhere near half of our discretionary budget. And that is before the entitlement bombs hit full force, and we’re actually having to pay out on bonds sitting in the SS fund.

Defense has to be cut. Ron Paul’s budget calls for it to be cut to $500 billion a year. No doubt, that’s a big, big cut. Not as big as Interior or Energy sees, but big. And it comes close to balancing the budget.

So you have a few choices. Cut defense, cut other stuff, and balance the budget. Cut no defense, cut other stuff even deeper than Ron Paul is proposing, and balance the budget. Cut no defense, cut other stuff, and still not balance the budget, thus driving our nation off of a cliff.

Am I missing a choice in there?

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 1:09 PM

This stupid line of thinking (dividing issues into “social”, “fiscal”, and pigeonholing policies and candidates as one or the other) is beneath us intellectually, and is part of what hurts our party nationally. What’s more, it ignores the obvious fact that the so-called social conservatives are the ONLY fiscal conservatives.

Name a few prominent “social conservatives”: Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum come to mind

Name a few prominent tax-cutters, budget-cutters, entitlement reformers: Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum (welfare reform) come to mind.

The people we are constantly told are “fiscal conservatives” like Bush Sr., McCain, Romney, etc are some of the biggest taxers, spenders and growers of government we know. The utter absurdity of calling Mitt Romney, the father of Obamacare and the bankrupter of Massachusetts, a “fiscal conservative” should shame all of you RINOs and libertarians. But it doesn’t, because you have no shame.

Face it: the only way you will ever see a balanced budget in this country again (before the inevitable collapse, I mean) is if you elect the most fire-breathing social conservative you can find. Palin would do the job. Santorum and Gingrich aren’t as good, but they’re better bets than Mitt Romney or Ron Paul would be.

joe_doufu on February 20, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Anyone else growing tired of Rush using the term “minks” to describe people who want birth control? Since Rush does not want kids, I can only assume his recent marriage is chaste. Not sure why he would marry in that case.

Also, being minks is not a bad thing. Quite healthy in fact. It may surprise Rush and some people here, but not everyone needs to take a pill in order to “express love”.

antisense on February 20, 2012 at 1:11 PM

No. Not at all. I understand the sentiment. I just never imagined a “frothy” situation. It just took me by surprise.

csdeven on February 20, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Going to the gutter, I guess it’s like going home…

right2bright on February 20, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Lotta football to play Pappy. Lotta game left in the old man.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 12:59 PM

So is that why he announced he wont seek re-election in Texas?

BTW, Paul’s position has always been limited government…how many years has he been a Representative?

Adding to that, how many bills has he authored and have passed during that time?

FINALLY, Rep. Paul position on domestic issues can be reasonably argued and more likely argued to be more States rights issues than concern of a Federal government.

But his Foreign policy issues…or lack thereof…combined with a Wilsonian “Fortress American” in the 21st Century? How the heck does he expect to accomplish that and still have America considered a Superpower?

More importantly, why should we retreat from the world stage? Not saying not change role slightly or define better, but a full blown retreat. Why?

please note: i have not forgotten about the whole “Newsletter” controversy…i just don’t think right now its as important to hear answers about that than what i prior wrote.

BlaxPac on February 20, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Allways get your political campaigning advice from a loser (regardless how good his economic utterings are)

Don L on February 20, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Those who fail to see the social conservatives (oh I’ll say it -God-clingers) as also fiscally conservatives really belive that a coin has but one side.

Other than the fact that they focus mostly upon 30 pieces of silver, thus….

Don L on February 20, 2012 at 1:27 PM

But his Foreign policy issues…or lack thereof…combined with a Wilsonian “Fortress American” in the 21st Century?

BlaxPac on February 20, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Wilsonian? Fortress America???

In the same phrase?

You are kidding me, right?

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 1:28 PM

In many respects social issues are inextricable from economic issue (the appalling rise in single mothers being the saddest and most dangerous example). It’s fair to talk about the threat to the nuclear family, the fate of fatherless children and so forth in both moral and economic terms.

But all these discussions have to be very carefully framed and scripted. When candidates go off script they wade into dangerous waters. One out of context soundbite (like Santorum’s “phony theology” statement) is used as propaganda (even though he was referring to Gaia worship and not Obama’s Christianity). And while it is undeniably correct to say that earth worship contradicts the Bible (Genesis is very clear to say man has dominion over all the earth) as soon as The Bible is mentioned prepare for the gates of liberal hell to open…

Buy Danish on February 20, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Those who fail to see the social conservatives (oh I’ll say it -God-clingers) as also fiscally conservatives really belive that a coin has but one side.

Don L on February 20, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Tell me, Don, what exactly is “fiscally conservative” about making industrial policy the centerpiece of your economic plan?

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Paul is on Team Mitt. Everything he’s been saying for months is pointed at Romney’s opponents. He never mentioned RomneyCare and barely mentions ObamaCare and NEVER goes after Mitt.

Maybe Rand was promised something.

BoxHead1 on February 20, 2012 at 1:32 PM

libertarians can’t even get elected as dogcatcher. they shouldn’t be lecturing anyone about what issues can win.

therightwinger on February 20, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Wilsonian? Fortress America???

In the same phrase?

You are kidding me, right?

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Okay, then how would you describe his FP? From little i heard, Defense would take a hit (not disagreeing entirely with that, just the timing).

Not looking for or being snarky. I’m curious to POV of a RP believer.

BlaxPac on February 20, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Okay, then how would you describe his FP? From little i heard, Defense would take a hit (not disagreeing entirely with that, just the timing).

Not looking for or being snarky. I’m curious to POV of a RP believer.

BlaxPac on February 20, 2012 at 1:34 PM

His foreign policy might be considered Fortress America, other than his belief in open travel and trade.

Wilsonian is how I would describe GWB’s call to democratize the Middle East and making US foreign policy responsible for ending tyranny across the globe. A foreign policy, by the bye, that other people on that stage are bending over backwards until they are frothy, defending.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Nice to know, that the Ronulans, and libertine mods are adopting all the DNC’s worst talking points now..

If this election is about purely social issues, it won’t be because Senator Santorum took it there, but because the democrats, their adoring fan club media.. and..

our sunshine patriot friends in the republican party took it there.

So flippin eager to ignore Santorum’s statements that he will not seek to enforce his personal views on contraception into law, utterly ignore that.. then take a speech where he’s discussing the way free and easy abortion, and contraceptives, have wrecked havoc on the family,.. his attempt to get people to friggin think.. past the PP propaganda,.. the liberals lies about abortion.

but no,.. the social libertines would rather see Obama elected than admit they’re demagoguing the Hell out of Santorum, desperate to get votes for a floundering Romney.

Romney fails, because he’s not a great candidate, and can’t win over the base..

it’s not Rick’s fault that Mitten’s sucks at this. It is however Mitten’s fanatical base which has partly energized the so/con base. Every flippant “frothy” remark, makes me at least, want to work just a bit harder to make you throw things on election day.

see you in the fall.

mark81150 on February 20, 2012 at 1:40 PM

If you don’t believe me look at the black community. They have succeeded in destroying the father figure, so the fathers (or breadwinners) leave. This leaves the mothers to raise the children alone (most will choose abortion). And with that you get a vast dependency culture, leading to the debt you see today. Do not ignore the social issues. They are more vital than you think.

nobar on February 20, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Actually, most black mothers don’t choose abortion. They choose to have the child and use that to get government handouts, as you note in the next line. Unfortunately, when the Republicans try to bring up valid social issues, such as the importance of having a two parent family in order to reach a higher socioeconomic status, the media jumps in and accuses them of opposing any use of birth control.

That is not the position of most Republicans and is not a viable position if you accept that 98% of Catholic women use birth control. It would probably be easier to minimize social issues than to get the media to cover them honestly.

talkingpoints on February 20, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Alrighty SocialCons, let’s play a game! It is called,”Where Do YOU Draw the Line?”

So you want to protect the unborn? YAY! Good for you!

That makes abortion bad! BAD! BAD! BAD abortion! It is horrific and harms the mother as well as killing the child. So no more abortions!

But you know what else harms the unborn? Mom taking drugs! Pregnant women shouldn’t take drugs! Drugs harm the baby! Drugs are bad! BAD! BAD! BAD! So let’s criminalize the taking of anything other than acetominophen during pregnancy to protect the unborn! In fact, let’s regularly test every woman who gets any government money at all to make sure she is drug free! Government must act to shield the unborn!

What else harms the unborn? Alcohol! Drinking while pregnant harms the unborn! Alcohol is bad! BAD! BAD! BAD! All pregnant women must get new ID’s that show they are not allowed to buy or serve alcohol. Surely government must act to shield the unborn!

You know else? Women should take their prenatal vitamins! Not taking their vitamins is bad! BAD! BAD! BAD! Therefore, pregnant women will be directed to their neighborhood clinic every morning to take their vitamins, and if they fail to show, they get arrested! To protect the unborn!

Now this is silly and sophomoric and way over the line. But when you start getting the government involved, where does it stop? What makes the “well-being of the unborn” stop at just abortion?

The larger problem that this country is becoming insolvent. While I agree morals are important, and this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, one can not ignore the idea that good stewardship of financials is needed at this point. Furthermore, morality is an individual choice, if it has to be imposed it is worthless.

(And as an aside, emmenagogues like tansy extract, pennyroyal and parsley seed oil are available in those tree-hugging, bunny-fluffing, dirt worshiper stores.)

MunDane68 on February 20, 2012 at 1:47 PM

libertarians can’t even get elected as dogcatcher. they shouldn’t be lecturing anyone about what issues can win.

therightwinger on February 20, 2012 at 1:33 PM

+10,000

and if they did get elected dogcatcher, they’d issue daily press releases on how unConstitutional dog licenses are, demand that they be ended. They’d probably too, demand easy and ready access to catnip..

They have a need to speed…

Gawd knows, if anyone ever blended beer catnip and Jack together in a toxic blend in pursuit of that perfect buzz, it’d be a libertarian.

The smallest faction of the party, but this year, the loudest by far.

mark81150 on February 20, 2012 at 1:48 PM

mark81150 on February 20, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Well said.

I would add that if the Romney proponents don’t think that Romney’s positions on morality, via (what will be characterized as)his religious fanaticism, will provide great fodder for the Democrats, they are truly delusional.

JannyMae on February 20, 2012 at 1:50 PM

His foreign policy might be considered Fortress America, other than his belief in open travel and trade.

I’m not sure on that, but FAS, i will concede for now.

Wilsonian is how I would describe GWB’s call to democratize the Middle East and making US foreign policy responsible for ending tyranny across the globe.

Which has been a policy of the US government for a heck of a lot longer than when GWB was in office.

But then you make it sound as if our troops were ranging the globe, spreading the gospel of America with fire and sword. Hardly.

If your talking about the annoying busybodies from State Dept. They represent more the “Ugly American” than anything else…why don’t we cut a few of those souls loose instead of Defense?…

A foreign policy, by the bye, that other people on that stage are bending over backwards until they are frothy, defending.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 1:38 PM

What stage? World stage? GOP candidates? The President?

BlaxPac on February 20, 2012 at 1:51 PM

MunDane68 on February 20, 2012 at 1:47 PM

zzzzz

JannyMae on February 20, 2012 at 1:52 PM

I’m curious. Libertarians, what do you think about an alliance between Paul and the creator of proto ObamaCare? Is it a good thing?

You seem to have a lot of passion about a theoretical and vague threat to your sex life. Do you work up the same level of passion about having to fund your neighbor’s creepy son’s condom stash? Isn’t it actual current and real big government that is going to make us all pay for someone else’s sexy time. Where is the passion libertarians? Why is Paul buddy buddy with the guy who helped create this real and actual, not distant and theoretical, situation.

BoxHead1 on February 20, 2012 at 1:58 PM

BlaxPac on February 20, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Wilsonian is how I would describe GWB’s call to democratize the Middle East and making US foreign policy responsible for ending tyranny across the globe.

Which has been a policy of the US government for a heck of a lot longer than when GWB was in office.

The hell it was.

This country propped up dictators around the globe for most the entirety of the Cold War. Bill Clinton cut deals with dictators around the Middle East in pursuit of regional stability. Realpolitik was the watchword, until GWB let the neoconservative brigade put the idea in his head that we can invade countries in the Middle East and they will democratize as a result.

And then things got bloody. And complicated. And expensive.

And at the end of the day? We’re left with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Bravo, neocons. Bravo.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Am I missing a choice in there?

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 1:09 PM

I don’t think so, but with the current threat of terrorism, closing bases is never going to work. His comments on Iran are problematic also.

I do think he could get away with talking about defense cuts if he would cease the isolationist talk.

csdeven on February 20, 2012 at 2:03 PM

I’m curious. Libertarians, what do you think about an alliance between Paul and the creator of proto ObamaCare? Is it a good thing?

BoxHead1 on February 20, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Why do presidents matter if they don’t write laws? Because they appoint SCOTUS judges. All things equal, I’d take someone who is being advised by Bork than someone who has voted to confirm the Wise Latina.

Heck, I just realized I’m defending Romney. Where’s a barf bag when I need one? In any case, Romney either promised Rand Paul a prominent cabinet appointment, perhaps even VP (though outside of getting the stoner vote I see no benefit to the latter), or just makes most economic sense out of the rest of the field (which by the way isn’t that hard).

Archivarix on February 20, 2012 at 2:04 PM

What stage? World stage? GOP candidates? The President?

BlaxPac on February 20, 2012 at 1:51 PM

GOP candidates.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Going to the gutter, I guess it’s like going home…

right2bright on February 20, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Just ask many of the Sanctorum supporters here who claim to be Christians, yet speak the most vile talk I have ever heard from a so-called Christians mouth.

csdeven on February 20, 2012 at 2:05 PM

or just makes most economic sense out of the rest of the field (which by the way isn’t that hard).

Archivarix on February 20, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Have a cookie, sir/ma’am. That’s the biggest part of it.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 2:07 PM

And at the end of the day? We’re left with the Muslim Brotherhood.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 2:03 PM

As a person with significant knowledge of, and directly vested interest in the Middle East, I’d like to point out that we would have Muslim Brotherhood installed a decade or two earlier if not for the American support of local dictators. That said, I’m not sure we got the money’s worth.

Archivarix on February 20, 2012 at 2:07 PM

If Republicans go ahead and elect this latest “non-Romney” to be their candidate, we will lose by a landslide. Ginsberg is set to retire in the next cycle and if you don’t think about that you are not really taking all things into consideration. This is going to be a HARD election for us and we better pick someone who can win ALL the voters, not just social conservatives. Santorum has a terrible record on being economically conservative and last time I looked that was the thing driving this next election!

AnnaS on February 20, 2012 at 2:10 PM

BoxHead1 on February 20, 2012 at 1:32 PM

What? Congressman Paul never attacks Governor Romney?

What channel do you watch?

A recent quote:

“And unlike Mitt Romney, whose Massachusetts health care plan contained a contraceptive mandate similar to the one contained in ObamaCare, I have never supported any government health care mandates,” Paul said. “When one compares my record with that of my opponents, it is clear that I am the only choice for Americans seeking a candidate they can trust to reverse the Obama administration’s assault on their religious and other liberties.”

He attacks his obvious rivals (the nonRomneys) since they are both legislators. He is familiar with that venue. Moreover, they have provided enough ammo for a slaughter on a brigade scale on Paul’s issues.

His ideology would be repulsed by Senator Santorum; my goodness just look at the Senator’s record. It is the one which reeks of moderate voting and the worst part is his consistent love of spending. Then we have the religion stuff.

In a similar manner, Newt looks a lot like an insider to Paul, who has said as much. He also seems to have less of a core than Governor Romney. Romney never did a crazy ad with Congresswoman Pelosi. That is probably because Newt has been wondering lost. That does not make him a poor choice for the rest of us but he is clearly a man Paul would not like in office.

I don’t think that Paul has been compromised by Mitt, but Paul is very bright. And, like me, he appreciates Mitt’s abilities and professionalism. Mitt is smart enough to understand the problems Paul is worried about. His book shows a lot of strategic thinking ability. Sometimes that transcends cowboy boots and ‘know nothing’ ideology to the rest of us.

Mitt will not appear and say that the debt does not matter like Bob on The Five did or many Dems mumble at times. And this is not due to any expediency or pandering. He is just too smart in some areas and has shown it. You can dislike Mitt for many things but he is like a Harvard MBA. He is very good at identifying problems and working programs. I have worked with his type. They can be golden.

IlikedAUH2O on February 20, 2012 at 2:12 PM

I don’t think so, but with the current threat of terrorism, closing bases is never going to work. His comments on Iran are problematic also.

I do think he could get away with talking about defense cuts if he would cease the isolationist talk.

csdeven on February 20, 2012 at 2:03 PM

I’m convinced that, whatever else happens, Iran is going to get a bomb, short of someone invading them to stop them. I think Ron Paul would, and has told you, it is time for some very hard realpolitik choices to be made. And that includes reaction from other parties if we choose invasion, including our Chinese bankers.

And I share your concern over threats of terrorism. But forward defense simply isn’t going to work, if for no other reason than they can wait us out, until we bankrupt ourselves. There is simply too much “there” out there to defend. We need to defend “here”, and do it in a manner befitting a free nation.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 2:13 PM

I find Paul’s neo-confederate white supremacy disgusting, and let’s be honest the libtard media is sitting on this until he gets a major role at the Republican convention. Then the story will be how the Republicans are the party of racists. So its time to dump Paul and all his Stormfront buddies while we can.

Iblis on February 20, 2012 at 2:13 PM

We need to defend “here”, and do it in a manner befitting a free nation.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 2:13 PM

How far out does “here” extend? Iran can create huge problems for us with a nuke that is not placed on American soil. And that presupposes they would stop at one nuke. I would expect they would detonate several at the same time and in a manner to misdirect us and expose a flank.

I understand the concept and constitutionally I agree. But realistically I am not convinced his policy will keep us safer.

csdeven on February 20, 2012 at 2:18 PM

In many respects social issues are inextricable from economic issue (the appalling rise in single mothers being the saddest and most dangerous example). It’s fair to talk about the threat to the nuclear family, the fate of fatherless children and so forth in both moral and economic terms.

Buy Danish on February 20, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Of course, the rise in single motherhood has much to do with policies that discourage abortion. If the family of teenage girl doesn’t want her to have an abortion, I think we should impose some rather stringent financial conditions on her parents so that they have to significantly contribute to raising the child.

thuja on February 20, 2012 at 2:18 PM

I find Paul’s neo-confederate white supremacy disgusting, and let’s be honest the libtard media is sitting on this until he gets a major role at the Republican convention. Then the story will be how the Republicans are the party of racists.

Iblis on February 20, 2012 at 2:13 PM

I have a newsflash for you, bro: the Republican candidate could be two octaves darker than Herman Cain and he (or she) would still be painted as racists by the media. This particular accusation is already priced into the GOP stock. The only people who make a fuss of it are those who fear that Ron Paul will take a chainsaw to the big-spending status quo.

Archivarix on February 20, 2012 at 2:19 PM

As a person with significant knowledge of, and directly vested interest in the Middle East, I’d like to point out that we would have Muslim Brotherhood installed a decade or two earlier if not for the American support of local dictators. That said, I’m not sure we got the money’s worth.

Archivarix on February 20, 2012 at 2:07 PM

You may well be right about that, although I’m far from conceding that you are. It may well be that the MB is simply a natural movement of Arab/ME/Islamic countries towards Islamic statism. Of course, Iran was certainly not that case. When we overthrew Mossadegh, it was a nation very much moving towards Westernism, if with an undesirable socialist bent. The ability to impose a theocracy was aided, in large part, by memories of an American led coup on behalf of the British.

I also suspect that without Western (primarily American) support of dictators, the MB would be of a less virulent nature. More concerned with tribal, national and regional domination, than with fanning anti-American, anti-Western sentiment for political gain.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Nice to know, that the Ronulans, and libertine mods are adopting all the DNC’s worst talking points now..

If this election is about purely social issues, it won’t be because Senator Santorum took it there, but because the democrats, their adoring fan club media.. and..

our sunshine patriot friends in the republican party took it there.

So flippin eager to ignore Santorum’s statements that he will not seek to enforce his personal views on contraception into law, utterly ignore that.. then take a speech where he’s discussing the way free and easy abortion, and contraceptives, have wrecked havoc on the family,.. his attempt to get people to friggin think.. past the PP propaganda,.. the liberals lies about abortion.

but no,.. the social libertines would rather see Obama elected than admit they’re demagoguing the Hell out of Santorum, desperate to get votes for a floundering Romney.

Romney fails, because he’s not a great candidate, and can’t win over the base..

it’s not Rick’s fault that Mitten’s sucks at this. It is however Mitten’s fanatical base which has partly energized the so/con base. Every flippant “frothy” remark, makes me at least, want to work just a bit harder to make you throw things on election day.

see you in the fall.

mark81150 on February 20, 2012 at 1:40 PM

This

neuquenguy on February 20, 2012 at 2:28 PM

How far out does “here” extend? Iran can create huge problems for us with a nuke that is not placed on American soil. And that presupposes they would stop at one nuke. I would expect they would detonate several at the same time and in a manner to misdirect us and expose a flank.

I understand the concept and constitutionally I agree. But realistically I am not convinced his policy will keep us safer.

csdeven on February 20, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Part of those very hard realpolitik choices I mentioned includes the various aspects of nuclear politics. They are different from normal foreign policy, but a lot of the same rules still apply.

But even under a Paul Administration, Congress would react to a nuclear strike that actually effected the security of the US (as opposed to Israel, Saudi Arabia, or some other regional strike) with a demand for total retaliation.

And then we have one less regime to worry about. Of course, the Iranians, knowing this, will adjust their policy and their actions accordingly.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 2:28 PM

What channel do you watch?
IlikedAUH2O on February 20, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Hey, thanks for the reasoned post.

You don’t seem like a libertarian, more a supporter of Mitt, so the post wasn’t directed at you (I could be wrong).

I had not seen your 1 quote. You should link it. Anyway, Bachman said NewtRomney but it was pretty obvious that she was running interference for Romney at tbe debates.

Why is it Santorum who has to be the ONLY ONE to take on Mitt over RomneyCare at the debates? It seems a natural fit for Paul to do it and it would have garnered votes.

BoxHead1 on February 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM

It’s no use crying over spilled milk. Unless it’s Mitt Romney’s milk because then you’re gonna die.

csdeven on February 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM

I also suspect that without Western (primarily American) support of dictators, the MB would be of a less virulent nature. More concerned with tribal, national and regional domination, than with fanning anti-American, anti-Western sentiment for political gain.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 2:23 PM

The idea of MB is virulent because it is religion and culture based. Tribal and sectoral disputes will occur, and blood will be spilled, but in the end they share an enemy as long as infidel countries exist. Unfortunately, you can no more make lasting peace with those people than teach mosquitoes to eat lettuce – and I worked and traded with them, side by side, for five years. There are only three ways to deal with them: accept their superiority, pummel them senseless every generation, or wipe them into Stone Age.

Archivarix on February 20, 2012 at 2:31 PM

The idea of MB is virulent because it is religion and culture based. Tribal and sectoral disputes will occur, and blood will be spilled, but in the end they share an enemy as long as infidel countries exist. Unfortunately, you can no more make lasting peace with those people than teach mosquitoes to eat lettuce – and I worked and traded with them, side by side, for five years. There are only three ways to deal with them: accept their superiority, pummel them senseless every generation, or wipe them into Stone Age.

Archivarix on February 20, 2012 at 2:31 PM

So how do you explain NATO’s decade-long alliance with Turkey? Indonesia’s rising star? For all its faults, how do you explain Pakistan remaining a (sort of) responsible nuclear state?

Whatever the problem is, it certainly is not spread out equally among Islam.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Why is it Santorum who has to be the ONLY ONE to take on Mitt over RomneyCare at the debates? It seems a natural fit for Paul to do it and it would have garnered votes.

BoxHead1 on February 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM

The reason, I believe, is that unlike many traditional conservatives Ron Paul sees ObamaCare as not a disease, but merely as a symptom. You don’t cure a snakebite by treating the skin, no matter how nasty it looks; you pump the poison out.

Archivarix on February 20, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Ron Paul helps the evil news media that supports Obama to ignore social issues in the battle between good and evil and right and wrong…

apocalypse on February 20, 2012 at 2:40 PM

So how do you explain NATO’s decade-long alliance with Turkey? Indonesia’s rising star? For all its faults, how do you explain Pakistan remaining a (sort of) responsible nuclear state?

Whatever the problem is, it certainly is not spread out equally among Islam.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 2:37 PM

NATO’s alliance with Turkey is as good as gone now, though Indonesia is outside my sphere of expertise. As for Pakistan, I don’t see selling nuclear tech to North Korea (google up Abdul Qadeer Khan) as a particularly responsible move. Also, there always is a considerable chance of any Islamic country using rogue agents to deliver the “message” by non-ballistic means.

Archivarix on February 20, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Nice to know, that the Ronulans, and libertine mods are adopting all the DNC’s worst talking points now..

If this election is about purely social issues, it won’t be because Senator Santorum took it there, but because the democrats, their adoring fan club media.. and..

our sunshine patriot friends in the republican party took it there.

So flippin eager to ignore Santorum’s statements that he will not seek to enforce his personal views on contraception into law, utterly ignore that.. then take a speech where he’s discussing the way free and easy abortion, and contraceptives, have wrecked havoc on the family,.. his attempt to get people to friggin think.. past the PP propaganda,.. the liberals lies about abortion.

but no,.. the social libertines would rather see Obama elected than admit they’re demagoguing the Hell out of Santorum, desperate to get votes for a floundering Romney.

mark81150 on February 20, 2012 at 1:40 PM

I’ll be voting for Obama if Santorum were to be the nominee. It’s too much to ask any gay person to vote for a hater of gay people like Santorum. It’s too much a Jews for Hitler kind of thing.
Also, in what does it even sense to believe that Santorum isn’t going to attempt to ram social conservativism down the throat of America? He can say whatever he wants about contraception now and perhaps be honest about it, but there is still the rest of his crazy sex agenda.

thuja on February 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Santorum has a terrible record on being economically conservative and last time I looked that was the thing driving this next election!

AnnaS on February 20, 2012 at 2:10 PM

And Romney has a record that includes something akin to Obamacare, offers a 59 point plan that he doesn’t run on and resorts to negative campaigning to squelch debate. Anybody but an Obama die-hard would pick Santorum’s economic approach over Obama’s in the general. If Romney is the better candidate he will beat Santorum. Let it work its way out.

DanMan on February 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM

The hell it was.

The Hell it wasn’t. LOL

Let’s go back from the end of WWII til 1989 (end of the USSR).

Now, from that point in time until now. How many of those Presidents still promoted a “Middle-East Peace”.

Now, how many of them were GWB?

Until we are willing to totally divest ourselves with direct trade with those countries, we do have an interest on what goes on there. Unless we are willing to turn our backs on established allies in the M.E, we have an interest there.

As of right now, I’m willing to curtail the former some, but I’ll be damned if those countries that helped us either overtly or covertly should be flushed down the memory hole in the name of “political convenience”.

This country propped up dictators around the globe for most the entirety of the Cold War.

Yes, that’s why they’re called, “wars.”

Remember, part of the problem is that your looking at it from the POV of already seeing the outcome. Not every “dictator” we’ve dealt with has turned out for the best agreed. But would you prefer if we’ve dealt with it al-la like the Russians or Roman Legions instead.

As long as your willing to deal with other people, you’re taking the chance that every once in awhile, even a country like the US will get rooked. The idea is to keep it as close to zero as possible.

Bill Clinton cut deals with dictators around the Middle East in pursuit of regional stability.

Yes, and as President Clinton’s policy was the same as you & Rep. Paul champions, it didn’t work out all that well either. It took another 10 years and MORE blood & treasure to get OBL because of that policy.

Realpolitik was the watchword, until GWB let the neoconservative brigade put the idea in his head that we can invade countries in the Middle East and they will democratize as a result.

Come on; now your drifting off in “Dr. Strangelove” territory. What next, Haliburton? Tri-Lateral Commision?

Do you really think that GWB came into office with the overall intent to cleanse the M.E in 4 years time? Because as far as he knew, he was only going to get 1 term.

Even giving you THAT much, why broaden focus outside of maybe Iraq? If he wanted revenge or was willing to go after Saddam because of the plot attempt on his dad (a former President, mind you) he could have invaded, etc. Why go into Afghanistan also?

And then things got bloody. And complicated. And expensive.

And at the end of the day? We’re left with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Bravo, neocons. Bravo.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 2:03 PM

At the end of the day we’re left with the Brotherhood still because of this President & State Dept. FP views aren’t not dissimilar of Rep. Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEZ5t01RF10

And that my friend you can’t blame the “NeoCons” for.

BlaxPac on February 20, 2012 at 2:55 PM

The problem with your argument is that our defense budget is part, and in fact a big part, of the problem.

We’re borrowing 40% of everything we spend, including our spending on defense, which is somewhere near half of our discretionary budget. And that is before the entitlement bombs hit full force, and we’re actually having to pay out on bonds sitting in the SS fund.

Defense has to be cut. Ron Paul’s budget calls for it to be cut to $500 billion a year. No doubt, that’s a big, big cut. Not as big as Interior or Energy sees, but big. And it comes close to balancing the budget.

So you have a few choices. Cut defense, cut other stuff, and balance the budget. Cut no defense, cut other stuff even deeper than Ron Paul is proposing, and balance the budget. Cut no defense, cut other stuff, and still not balance the budget, thus driving our nation off of a cliff.

Am I missing a choice in there?

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Cutting defense spending to $500 billion is a 40-percent cut! Defense spending is only about 3 percent of GDP, which is historically pretty low. Defense spending perhaps could stand to be trimmed a bit, but it isn’t the problem.

ghostwriter on February 20, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Once again, Mr. Bell is offering a hypothesis, and one that is incorrect. There hasn’t been a single presidential election or campaign since 1968 that was built upon social issues, no matter how much “emphasis mine” Ed puts on it. Mr. Bell may as well be arguing that Republicans have won a majority of presidential elections because men stopped wearing hats.

Not only that, but Ed thinks he’s catching Paul in a gotcha when Paul himself says that he, in fact, does talk about social issues, and even quotes Paul saying so.

Dante on February 20, 2012 at 3:14 PM

I’m convinced that, whatever else happens, Iran is going to get a bomb, short of someone invading them to stop them. I think Ron Paul would, and has told you, it is time for some very hard realpolitik choices to be made. And that includes reaction from other parties if we choose invasion, including our Chinese bankers.

And I share your concern over threats of terrorism. But forward defense simply isn’t going to work, if for no other reason than they can wait us out, until we bankrupt ourselves. There is simply too much “there” out there to defend. We need to defend “here”, and do it in a manner befitting a free nation.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 2:13 PM

I think that you’re correct in suggesting that Iran will likely get the bomb. However, I don’t think that invading them is our only recourse. We can apply enough economic pressure on them to effect a regime change, and get somebody in power that is more palatable. We don’t need the Iranians to be our best friends, we just need to marginalize the lunatics.

ghostwriter on February 20, 2012 at 3:14 PM

NATO’s alliance with Turkey is as good as gone now, though Indonesia is outside my sphere of expertise. As for Pakistan, I don’t see selling nuclear tech to North Korea (google up Abdul Qadeer Khan) as a particularly responsible move. Also, there always is a considerable chance of any Islamic country using rogue agents to deliver the “message” by non-ballistic means.

Archivarix on February 20, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Reports of the death of moderate Turkey are, like so many other times before, premature. And I said sort of responsible. AQ Khan was a black eye. But it’s not like they looked for the first opportunity to nuke Delhi, now did they?

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Ron Paul is uncomfortable with the talk about foreign policy issues.

Emperor Norton on February 20, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Lying to yourself, I see. Paul has never shied away from talking about foreign policy issues. It’s one of his strengths.

Dante on February 20, 2012 at 3:19 PM

I think that you’re correct in suggesting that Iran will likely get the bomb. However, I don’t think that invading them is our only recourse. We can apply enough economic pressure on them to effect a regime change, and get somebody in power that is more palatable. We don’t need the Iranians to be our best friends, we just need to marginalize the lunatics.

ghostwriter on February 20, 2012 at 3:14 PM

That is certainly a reasonable way to hope the game plays out. I think history tells us, though, that our thumb on the scales probably doesn’t help our cause for regime change. At least not to the regime we would like.

But you will have another major Islamic nation with nuclear weapons, and this one will actually have a history of a theocracy.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Obama did not run on social issues last time, he was all things to all people, pro heterosexual marriage, while his surrogates said, yah really this is what we are going to do. And he rarely talked about abortion because he stepped in it when he did. He never said how he was going to fundamentally transform the country. He never said anything so he could get elected.

This time he is going to have his surrogates stir up the base over the issues, women’s health care should be “covered,” but not what that means, and other things we will not hear in the media but they know what they are.

Then they are going to try to make the republicans look like extremists on social issues. You can take care of the social issues after you win the presidency, Obama knows it, but our voters think it is dishonorable not to wear their social issues out on their sleeve where the media can exploit them.

From that point of view, it would be better to take your social issues by stealth, the way the democrats do it. Win the skirmish, or win the war? If you don’t have the political power and people in place to actually legislate on social issues (where possible) all the talk is so much wind.

There is a lot a president needs to do to fix the federal government, cut taxes, cut spending, without ever getting caught saying something that can be exploited.

People don’t like it when Romney is parsed down to be heard saying in a fragment of a thought, my plan is not for the poor…they have a safety net, they don’t want him saying things that look bad, but when Santorum is taken out of context, I don’t here them chiding him for saying unique things about contraception or gay marriage.

That, they say, is so unfair.

But Romney is not doing it to him, like Santorum is repeating that Romney doesn’t LIKE poor people, doesn’t CARE about the poor. Romney “hates” the poor, blue collar union workers…that is why Santorum is against Right to work, but for it. Romney is the flip flopper.

So, the candidates are supposed to shut up when? i guess when the media decides one thought is good and the other thought should be pilloried.

Fleuries on February 20, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Cutting defense spending to $500 billion is a 40-percent cut! Defense spending is only about 3 percent of GDP, which is historically pretty low. Defense spending perhaps could stand to be trimmed a bit, but it isn’t the problem.

ghostwriter on February 20, 2012 at 3:09 PM

CIA World Factbook US Page.

As of 2005, we were spending 4.06% of GDP on defense. Considering defense has grown faster than GDP over that time, we’re still spending north of 4% of GDP on defense. And that doesn’t include other overseas expenditures.

And yeah, it’s a big cut, and will require a big rethink of US policy to meet diminished capabilities. But it still isn’t as big a cut as the five departments he eliminates. They get a 100% cut.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Reports of the death of moderate Turkey are, like so many other times before, premature. And I said sort of responsible. AQ Khan was a black eye. But it’s not like they looked for the first opportunity to nuke Delhi, now did they?

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Judging by the number of Israelis taking vacation in Turkey, the reports are not premature (yeah, I know it may be an anecdotal criterion at best but it sure worked for Egypt). Turkey is gone to the Dark Side; the military’s mitigating power will only decline from now on.

As for Pakistan, they’d bang India in a jiffy but India’s population, territory, and nuclear arsenal are bigger, and they have no Christian reservations against turning Pakistan into a huge lake of molten rock. Besides, they hosted Osama: do we need any other argument?

Archivarix on February 20, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Now, when do we get a candidate that isn’t totally wrong on the national defense issue.

csdeven on February 20, 2012 at 12:59 PM

We have one.

Dante on February 20, 2012 at 3:30 PM

But it still isn’t as big a cut as the five departments he eliminates. They get a 100% cut.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 3:25 PM

For that alone, the so-called conservatives should have carried Ron Paul to the White House on their shoulders. What would you expect from the party that polls 64% support for Medicare?

Archivarix on February 20, 2012 at 3:33 PM

There needs to be two conservative parties. One for people who believe they can telepathically communicate with deities, and a party for the rest who are trying simply to communicate with Americans to save the country from becoming even more socialist and less free.

keep the change on February 20, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Well,lookie here…another constitutionally based “conservative American” who demands his inalienable rights- but absolute contradiction, apparently loathes the very God(Nature’s) that gave them to you. Not too smart…

Don L on February 20, 2012 at 3:35 PM

This stupid line of thinking (dividing issues into “social”, “fiscal”, and pigeonholing policies and candidates as one or the other) is beneath us intellectually, and is part of what hurts our party nationally. What’s more, it ignores the obvious fact that the so-called social conservatives are the ONLY fiscal conservatives.

Name a few prominent “social conservatives”: Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum come to mind

Name a few prominent tax-cutters, budget-cutters, entitlement reformers: Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum (welfare reform) come to mind.

The people we are constantly told are “fiscal conservatives” like Bush Sr., McCain, Romney, etc are some of the biggest taxers, spenders and growers of government we know. The utter absurdity of calling Mitt Romney, the father of Obamacare and the bankrupter of Massachusetts, a “fiscal conservative” should shame all of you RINOs and libertarians. But it doesn’t, because you have no shame.

Face it: the only way you will ever see a balanced budget in this country again (before the inevitable collapse, I mean) is if you elect the most fire-breathing social conservative you can find. Palin would do the job. Santorum and Gingrich aren’t as good, but they’re better bets than Mitt Romney or Ron Paul would be.

joe_doufu on February 20, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Silliness. Social conservatives are not the only fiscal conservatives.

Government and spending grew under Reagan and Bush (my god, did they grow under Bush). They were no fiscal conservatives. And you can have a balanced budget all you want, but who cares if the budget’s balanced if spending is increased? It’s fool’s gold.

Dante on February 20, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Alrighty SocialCons, let’s play a game! It is called,”Where Do YOU Draw the Line?”

So you want to protect the unborn? YAY! Good for you!

That makes abortion bad! BAD! BAD! BAD abortion! It is horrific and harms the mother as well as killing the child. So no more abortions!

But you know what else harms the unborn? Mom taking drugs! Pregnant women shouldn’t take drugs! Drugs harm the baby! Drugs are bad! BAD! BAD! BAD!

MunDane68 on February 20, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Why not take that logic in the other direction?
We could only be talking about outlawing abortion if the state had previously outlawed murder. Murder is bad! BAD! BAD! BAD!

We coul only be outlawing murder if the state had previously arrogated to itself an un-enumerated power to criminalize beating libertarians with sticks. Beating libertarians with sticks is bad! BAD! BAD! BAD!

Surely, all of this represents an intrusion by statists onto private moral decisions that each individual should be left up to himself to decide. Surely it should be up to each of us to weigh the merits and downsides to beating libertarians with sticks (hmm… any real downside there?). Obviously it’s a slippery slope if we do things like outlaw murder. Let’s not get carried away. Next thing you know those social-cons will want to make rape illegal.

joe_doufu on February 20, 2012 at 3:36 PM

BlaxPac on February 20, 2012 at 2:55 PM

The Hell it wasn’t. LOL

Let’s go back from the end of WWII til 1989 (end of the USSR).

Now, from that point in time until now. How many of those Presidents still promoted a “Middle-East Peace”.

Who cares about Middle East Peace? Try “How many of them insisted on US foreign policy being forcibly democratizing the Middle East”?

Answer: GWB, and none other.

Until we are willing to totally divest ourselves with direct trade with those countries, we do have an interest on what goes on there. Unless we are willing to turn our backs on established allies in the M.E, we have an interest there.

Lots of countries trade with ME countries. I don’t see France, or Italy, or Russia marching troops around the ME trying to democratize them.

Realpolitik was the watchword, until GWB let the neoconservative brigade put the idea in his head that we can invade countries in the Middle East and they will democratize as a result.

Come on; now your drifting off in “Dr. Strangelove” territory. What next, Haliburton? Tri-Lateral Commision?

Do you not understand that “realpolitik” was the driving foreign policy school of thought for most of the post-war period in this country?

Because if you do not, then we might as well stop now, and allow you to wallow in your ignorance.

At the end of the day we’re left with the Brotherhood still because of this President & State Dept. FP views aren’t not dissimilar of Rep. Paul.

Stop. Just stop.

The Grand GWB project of Middle East democratization left this country deep in debt, unpopular in the region, and with friends like Britain feeling like they had been burned by a war built on a bunch of lies and incompetence. Whether the MB was destined to happen, or whether we hurried it along, our involvement sure didn’t help stop it.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 3:36 PM

I think that you’re correct in suggesting that Iran will likely get the bomb. However, I don’t think that invading them is our only recourse.

Yes, but to do anything proactive is going to be severely limited if you are willing to make larger cuts to the military and intelligence service at a rate 2 as fast as the growth.

Right now, we don’t have the size to fight 2 wars & a holding action (Cold War level) or even a “Win-Hold”…we’re about to a “Win or Go home” level now.

We don’t have the HUMIT assets for that area, barely. We have to rely on our allies (and a our debt holders) to garner that. And frankly, if we’re not willing to grease a few dirty palms to be able to operate in the area, don’t be surprised when we ARE surprised about will pop out of Iran next.

We can apply enough economic pressure on them to effect a regime change, and get somebody in power that is more palatable.

Hey if it worked on Cuba, it’s gotta work on the Persians!

We’ve tried this for years already to put economic pressure on Iran. Those kind of blockades never work if it’s not backed up with military power either direct or indirectly. Otherwise, we’re just driving up the price of the contraband (see, the Libertarian argument against the Ware on Drugs).

Even if you could do it without parking a aircraft carrier battle group offshore, if its not a serious effort, it won’t work (see, UN Iraqi Oil embargo scandal).

We don’t need the Iranians to be our best friends, we just need to marginalize the lunatics.

ghostwriter on February 20, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Don’t confuse marginalize with ignore. We had a chance, during the so-called “Arab Spring” when the President had a real chance to maybe exercise his geopolitical view and give support, even if it’s lip service (his specialty) in support of those in Tehran that were willing to change.

What happened? Nada. Syria wasn’t any better…he waggled his finger, and people are still dying in the streets and now a Iranian freighter (oh the irony!) has just sailed through the Suez, and is currently parked offshore of…Syria.

Hows that Libertarian Hope n Change working out?

BlaxPac on February 20, 2012 at 3:38 PM

CIA World Factbook US Page.

As of 2005, we were spending 4.06% of GDP on defense. Considering defense has grown faster than GDP over that time, we’re still spending north of 4% of GDP on defense. And that doesn’t include other overseas expenditures.

And yeah, it’s a big cut, and will require a big rethink of US policy to meet diminished capabilities. But it still isn’t as big a cut as the five departments he eliminates. They get a 100% cut.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 3:25

I’m not going to quibble over 1 percent. We spend about $700 billion, and GDP is about $15 trillion. In any event, defense spending of 3 to 5 percent of GDP a historically low for the US.

At any rate, you have the chain of reasoning going backwards: First, we need to determine what are our needs, and then we should spend accordingly. And frankly, I don’t see why cuts in those other departments provide a useful point of reference.

ghostwriter on February 20, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Silliness. Social conservatives are not the only fiscal conservatives.

Dante on February 20, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Well, it’s hard to find any “pure” social conservative anywhere over the past hundred years of American politics. But Reagan and Palin come pretty close.

Name one “fiscal conservative” that would do anything even half as bold as Santorum with welfare reform.

My point stands. There are no “fiscal conservatives” that aren’t also “social conservatives”. The absurdity of you lying RINOs holding up Mitt Romney as a “fiscal conservative” is plain to all. When you say “fiscal conservative” all you really mean is “NOT conservative”.

joe_doufu on February 20, 2012 at 3:40 PM

thuja on February 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Why wouldn’t you vote for the Libertarian candidate instead?

Dante on February 20, 2012 at 3:40 PM

As for Pakistan, they’d bang India in a jiffy but India’s population, territory, and nuclear arsenal are bigger, and they have no Christian reservations against turning Pakistan into a huge lake of molten rock. Besides, they hosted Osama: do we need any other argument?

Archivarix on February 20, 2012 at 3:29 PM

So, we can at least presume that, unlike the claims of some on here regarding Persian intentions, a nuclear Islamic state can be relied upon to respond to rational deterrence.

Good to know.

As far as Osama…? You would know better than I that the politics of the tribes, peoples, nations, and ideologies across that region are complicated, to say the least. Pakistan did, if you will recall, help us in the capture of KSM. I’m sure some ISI types were furious about that, but we managed the politics of it. I can’t believe we couldn’t have done so with OBL, rather than committing what I think everyone can agree would be construed as an act of war if someone did it to us.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 3:42 PM

My point stands. There are no “fiscal conservatives” that aren’t also “social conservatives”. The absurdity of you lying RINOs holding up Mitt Romney as a “fiscal conservative” is plain to all. When you say “fiscal conservative” all you really mean is “NOT conservative”.

joe_doufu on February 20, 2012 at 3:40 PM

You, sir, are a very confused person.

Dante on February 20, 2012 at 3:43 PM

There is simply too much “there” out there to defend. We need to defend “here”, and do it in a manner befitting a free nation.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 2:13 PM

That backward thinking failed in 1941 and in this day of nuclear weapons with near instaneous delivery systems owned by people who have already infiltrated our inept defense structures (those liberals hate defense)it isn’t rational.

Unless you know about a real cool umbrella…

Don L on February 20, 2012 at 3:44 PM

At any rate, you have the chain of reasoning going backwards: First, we need to determine what are our needs, and then we should spend accordingly. And frankly, I don’t see why cuts in those other departments provide a useful point of reference.

ghostwriter on February 20, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Fist of all, any cuts we are going engage in are going to have to be done politically, which is going to mean getting people on board who aren’t necessarily cut-happy. If you are going to go to Democrat Senators and expect them to sign off on the elimination of 220k federal workers from five federal departments, they’re going to expect the pain to be spread around.

Second, I think you have the reasoning backwards. You don’t start off your needs;you start off considering your capabilities. And right now, given the economic situation and the political realities, we can’t afford a $750 billion military, regardless of what we would like our foreign policy to look like.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 3:48 PM

My point stands. There are no “fiscal conservatives” that aren’t also “social conservatives”.

joe_doufu on February 20, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Nothing makes my day like being told by a stranger that I don’t exist.

Archivarix on February 20, 2012 at 3:49 PM

That backward thinking failed in 1941 and in this day of nuclear weapons with near instaneous delivery systems owned by people who have already infiltrated our inept defense structures (those liberals hate defense)it isn’t rational.

Unless you know about a real cool umbrella…

Don L on February 20, 2012 at 3:44 PM

The policy you are arguing for would have had us keeping a couple of million troops in Europe, just to make sure the Germans didn’t act up again, from 1918 until… well, until the Great Depression hit.

And considering how bad this nation’s finances were without engaging in such ludicrous defense spending, just how well do you think we would have fared against the Germans having incurred trillions of dollars of debt trying to keep Europe under our protection for two decades after WWI?

Try thinking past tomorrow…

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 3:52 PM

So, we can at least presume that, unlike the claims of some on here regarding Persian intentions, a nuclear Islamic state can be relied upon to respond to rational deterrence.

Good to know.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 3:42 PM

I never argued that point. Many, if not most, Islamic states can be relied upon to behave rationally. There still are two problems, however. First, we still need a lethal deterrent force at place, coupled with political will to use it without further ado. And second, it takes just one unstable regime – or even one motivated person, as AQ Khan has demonstrated – to ignite the powder keg. As I see the situation, neither can be achieved under Ron Paul; that, as I repeated many times, is a great waste of an otherwise perfect candidate.

Archivarix on February 20, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Who cares about Middle East Peace? Try “How many of them insisted on US foreign policy being forcibly democratizing the Middle East”?

Answer: GWB, and none other.

Ahem.

Jimmy Carter – Remember the “brokered” peace between Egypt & Israel?

Bill Clinton – Daytona Peace Accords?

And those were just two. I can go back further or add more if you like. So far, the only “hands off” style policy that i’ve seen in recent memory has been President Obama….the only one I’ve seen that isn’t dissimilar to Rep. Paul.

Lots of countries trade with ME countries. I don’t see France, or Italy, or Russia marching troops around the ME trying to democratize them.

You don’t see Russia, China, Cuba, Venzeula…etc? :o/

No, but you do see them there keeping their countries best interest under a careful eye. Rep. Paul position seems to mirror a more “hands off” style.

Do you not understand that “realpolitik” was the driving foreign policy school of thought for most of the post-war period in this country?

Actually I do. I am willing to keep an extended outpost where needed and where we should be able to defend our interest and those of our allies…in that order.

You can call it “Realpolitic”…where I’m from, it’s called “Watching out for the bad guys”.

Because if you do not, then we might as well stop now, and allow you to wallow in your ignorance.

Hey I can’t be too bad off. So far, I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Maybe that means I can run as a Libertarian!

Stop. Just stop.

The Grand GWB project of Middle East democratization left this country deep in debt, unpopular in the region,
and with friends like Britain feeling like they had been burned by a war built on a bunch of lies and incompetence.

Yes, because all that money GWB borrowed to enact MiddleEastCare is the real reason we’re in dutch to the Red Chinese.

Even though, as a failure of Great Britain intelligence services to predict reliably the WOT out (along with ours, btw)? If i remember, their services also confirmed that WMD were present in Iraqi hands.

Whether the MB was destined to happen, or whether we hurried it along, our involvement sure didn’t help stop it.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 3:36 PM

But to act as if it was all of our doing is kinda weak. Give your enemies some credit…they really don’t like you, and are willing to do something about. Why shouldn’t we do the same?

BlaxPac on February 20, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Why not take that logic in the other direction?
We could only be talking about outlawing abortion if the state had previously outlawed murder. Murder is bad! BAD! BAD! BAD!

We coul only be outlawing murder if the state had previously arrogated to itself an un-enumerated power to criminalize beating libertarians with sticks. Beating libertarians with sticks is bad! BAD! BAD! BAD!

Surely, all of this represents an intrusion by statists onto private moral decisions that each individual should be left up to himself to decide. Surely it should be up to each of us to weigh the merits and downsides to beating libertarians with sticks (hmm… any real downside there?). Obviously it’s a slippery slope if we do things like outlaw murder. Let’s not get carried away. Next thing you know those social-cons will want to make rape illegal.

Alrighty then. This could be a valid argument except for the idea that states get the right to make their own laws (9th and 10th Amendment) and the 8th Amendment deal with the ideas of punishments fitting the crime.

Since no crime (other than Treason and impeachable offenses “high crimes and misdemeanors”) is mentioned in the Constitution your argument is somewhat akin to child caught stealing a cookie before dinner and using the defense, “Well, you only told me not to ruin my appetite. not that I couldn’t have a cookie.” And one would hope withe the same effect.

MunDane68 on February 20, 2012 at 4:10 PM

BlaxPac on February 20, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Who cares about Middle East Peace? Try “How many of them insisted on US foreign policy being forcibly democratizing the Middle East”?

Answer: GWB, and none other.

Ahem.

Jimmy Carter – Remember the “brokered” peace between Egypt & Israel?

Bill Clinton – Daytona Peace Accords?

And those were just two. I can go back further or add more if you like. So far, the only “hands off” style policy that i’ve seen in recent memory has been President Obama….the only one I’ve seen that isn’t dissimilar to Rep. Paul.

Must have missed the part where Carter sent troops into Cairo to unseat Anwar Sadat. Or where Bill Clinton did the same with Hafez al-Assad.

There’s a difference between cutting a peace deal, and invading countries to democratize them. If you can’t tell the difference… well, don’t quit your day job to pursue your dreams of a career in Foreign Service.

Lots of countries trade with ME countries. I don’t see France, or Italy, or Russia marching troops around the ME trying to democratize them.

You don’t see Russia, China, Cuba, Venzeula…etc? :o/

Lot of Cuban and Chinese troops in the Middle East, are there?

Seriously?

No, but you do see them there keeping their countries best interest under a careful eye.

That’s what diplomats are for. But the knuckle-dragging Right seems to insist we do it with soldiers.

Actually I do. I am willing to keep an extended outpost where needed and where we should be able to defend our interest and those of our allies…in that order.

You can call it “Realpolitic”…where I’m from, it’s called “Watching out for the bad guys”.

Then you clearly have no idea of realism or Realpolitik, and I assume no knowledge of foreign affairs either.

Yes, because all that money GWB borrowed to enact MiddleEastCare is the real reason we’re in dutch to the Red Chinese.

Financial Cost of the Iraq War

According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.

$2 trillion. Represents most of the growth in our national debt on GWB’s watch.

Imagine that.

But to act as if it was all of our doing is kinda weak. Give your enemies some credit…they really don’t like you, and are willing to do something about. Why shouldn’t we do the same?

They don’t hate us because of who we are. They hate us because we interfere in their politics. Take us out of the region, and they’ll hate somebody else. And frankly, I don’t care who that somebody else is.

As long as it isn’t us.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 4:16 PM

The only issue where the GOP needs to take a stand on governmental involvement on any moral issue is on late term abortions. No one with their right mind can defend such a practice within the realm of human rights..

Tater Salad on February 20, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Define late term. And yes people will defend it…oh and if you can defend abortion you can defend it at any time in a child’s development. Incrementally viability is always changing.

CW on February 20, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Must have missed the part where Carter sent troops into Cairo to unseat Anwar Sadat. Or where Bill Clinton did the same with Hafez al-Assad.

No troops sent in either case. But, then again Sadat was assassinated, which led to Musharraf and now the Brotherhood. al-Assad senior is gone, now replaced with his son.

Don’t mistake my point. I’m not arguing for military action by default..I’m arguing against doing nothing, especially when nothing IS the worse of two evils. That has to be a flexible policy and especially when our interest abroad (more security than economic) is concerned.

There’s a difference between cutting a peace deal, and invading countries to democratize them. If you can’t tell the difference… well, don’t quit your day job to pursue your dreams of a career in Foreign Service.

I agree. So far we disagree on the when these two issues are mutually exclusive.

As for working for the Foreign Service…nah I’m more of a work for a living kinda person. I don’t always play well with others, and have been known to be less than diplomatic when the situation calls for it.

Lot of Cuban and Chinese troops in the Middle East, are there?

Seriously?

Seriously. Oh, I don’t mean that the 3rd Shock Army is
literally camped out in Damascus or Lebanon…but do you really, REALLY think that China or the Russians don’t have some feet on the ground in some fashion? They don’t necessarily worry about niceties like we do.

That’s what diplomats are for. But the knuckle-dragging Right seems to insist we do it with soldiers.

If wars (hot or cold) could be won with diplomats, then what a world it would be!

Again, sometimes wars are necessary. Sometimes they happen regardless if we want them to or not. Besides, who are the bad guys more worried about, the State Dept or the USMC? Who do you think has kept us safer?

Then you clearly have no idea of realism or Realpolitik, and I assume no knowledge of foreign affairs either.

In your opinion. I can read, and i can recall prior instances where the policies in which you espouse did not work to the benefit of all concerned. Even saying it that way, I’m being kind.

I don’t see foreign policy as the board game Risk…nor do i see it as that we have to turn the other cheek every time. There is a balance; you just choose to believe that the see-saw should tilt a wee more in one direction.

Financial Cost of the Iraq War

According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.

$2 trillion. Represents most of the growth in our national debt on GWB’s watch.

Imagine that.

Okay. Assuming your numbers are correct: What political price would have been paid if we did…nothing? I mean no war in Iraq or Afghan whatsoever. The last 10 years, never happened.

Are you going to say we still would have not ended up where we are today with a downgraded credit rated, etc?

$2Trillion is a pretty paltry sum, considering we’ve spent 4 times as much on domestic programs, curtailed expansion of energy and bailouts of businesses.

Throw in the Fannie/Freddie shell game that was rammed through by governmental fiat (a Democratic congress, btw). and then talk to me about debt and spending.

They don’t hate us because of who we are. They hate us because we interfere in their politics.
Take us out of the region, and they’ll hate somebody else. And frankly, I don’t care who that somebody else is.

As long as it isn’t us.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Ah, this is true…and a bit misleading. They hate us for BOTH those reasons.

We had a “hands off” policy in Afghanistan since the Russians pulled out in 1989 (around the Clinton Presidency). In that time, the Taliban was allowed to flourish. Do you really think they liked us then?

How about Yemen? We had no real troops there, we didn’t interfere out side of the UN with them (using your reasoning), yet the USS COLE was attacked by Yemeni…

I can try to relate to what you want John. You want us to be “hands off” as far as the ME is, other than through trade or a “Smiley Face” style of FP.

But can you really say, if we did, or the few times we have done so, that the problems won’t come to our shores? It’s happened before…and even if you don’t believe that can you really say that we can afford to now?

Appeasement works best on the playground. That’s Realpolitik.

BTW, if that’s a popular POV that Rep Paul and a “silent majority” of the country believes, then why doesn’t he run 3rd party and steal the election from underneath the established parties now, instead of trying to do it “in the current system”?

BlaxPac on February 20, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Ron Paul is completely unelectable.

b1jetmech on February 20, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Define late term. And yes people will defend it…oh and if you can defend abortion you can defend it at any time in a child’s development. Incrementally viability is always changing.

CW on February 20, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Murdering a full term baby.

b1jetmech on February 20, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Grandpa Paul, great man of libertarian principle, acts as a stalking horse for Big Gov Mitt.

vilebody on February 20, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Ron Paul is completely unelectable.

b1jetmech on February 20, 2012 at 5:27 PM

You won’t be able to convince him or his supporters of that.

At least he won’t be taking any retirement benefits packages from Congress as a part of eschewing wasteful
government spending, right?

BlaxPac on February 20, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Ron Paul on Social Conservatism: ‘I Think It’s a Losing Position’
By Terence P. Jeffrey
February 19, 2012

Predictably, Ed Morrissey prefers to stay stuck on stupid, taking a few words out of context and using bigotry to fabricate implications never stipulated.

EdMo, reading is fundamental. And true to form, you exercised your penchant for revisionism.

Ron Paul said that beyond establishing unalienable rights to all humans including embryos, making the federal government the enforcer of social conservative policies is a losing proposition because those matters belong at the local State level, for each State to determine how to implement law enforcement against those who harm life. It is a matter of constitutional integrity and consistency. (Arguing over who has to pay for birth control pills is the losing position that Ron Paul was responding to in Crowley’s question.)

maverick muse on February 20, 2012 at 5:50 PM

At least he won’t be taking any retirement benefits packages from Congress as a part of eschewing wasteful
government spending, right?

BlaxPac on February 20, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Big Gov Mitt has GranPaul covered on any and all retirement benies….

vilebody on February 20, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Apologies if I offended any delicate sensibilities. But the man equated homosexuality with child rape.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Do You give a damn if what you say is a lie? I showed you yesterday that he didn’t equate homosexuality to child rape. He said that the same principle that allowed states to intervene in one type of consensual sex did in the case of homosexuality. He didn’t say they they were “the same”, i.e., “equate them”. You didn’t respond to that yesterday other than to say he was using “dog-whistle” code words and that you know his “design” (telepathically I presume). You’re behaving just as dishonestly as the progressives you claim to oppose.

elfman on February 20, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Willard is lining up his stooges for a smear job on Santorum. Drudge is filling his website with anti-Santorum headlines. Ron Paul, as usual, is gearing up to attack the not-Mitt. As soon as Coulter gets the memo, all Three Stooges will be in play.

kingsmill on February 20, 2012 at 6:08 PM

“According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 4:16 PM”

Progressives don’t care about fair cost accounting on things they don’t like. Calculating the cost of something does not include the interest on the money borrowed to purchase it. Next to no other programs are coasted like that. Your car and your house (or your parent’s house) is not costed like that. To cost one only one thing that way for political reasons and not all others another is a distortion (aka: a lie).

elfman on February 20, 2012 at 6:09 PM

BlaxPac on February 20, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Seriously. Oh, I don’t mean that the 3rd Shock Army is
literally camped out in Damascus or Lebanon…but do you really, REALLY think that China or the Russians don’t have some feet on the ground in some fashion? They don’t necessarily worry about niceties like we do.

I can go onto Google Earth, and literally see our footprint in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Kuwait, (formerly) in Saudi Arabia. Lots of big Russian and Chinese bases I can look at?

If wars (hot or cold) could be won with diplomats, then what a world it would be!

Again, sometimes wars are necessary. Sometimes they happen regardless if we want them to or not. Besides, who are the bad guys more worried about, the State Dept or the USMC? Who do you think has kept us safer?

And most times, wars are, in fact, avoidable. We didn’t have to go to “war” with Russia during the “Cold War”, and yet managed a fairly complete victory.

And the bad guys are worried about each other far more than they are the US, save for the fact that the US has a history of interfering with their affairs. We bugger out, the Iranians, Saudis, Turks, Egyptians and Israelis will just have to sort things out. And their regional concerns will, eventually, allow our interference to be forgotten, if not forgiven.

In your opinion. I can read, and i can recall prior instances where the policies in which you espouse did not work to the benefit of all concerned. Even saying it that way, I’m being kind.

I don’t see foreign policy as the board game Risk…nor do i see it as that we have to turn the other cheek every time. There is a balance; you just choose to believe that the see-saw should tilt a wee more in one direction.

That’s a fine thought, when we can afford to tilt the see-saw.

Take a look at our fiscal deficit, and tell me we can afford to do anything.

Okay. Assuming your numbers are correct:

Not my numbers… CBO’s numbers.

What political price would have been paid if we did…nothing? I mean no war in Iraq or Afghan whatsoever. The last 10 years, never happened.

That $1.9T was just for Iraq.

If that had never happened? We’d be $2T richer. The Baathists would still be in control in Iraq. OBL would still be dead. And the rest of the world, when we tell them we have to invade Iran to stop them from developing WMD’s, won’t be saying “Isn’t that what you told us before you went into Iraq? Where are the WMD’s from there, BTW?”

Are you going to say we still would have not ended up where we are today with a downgraded credit rated, etc?

We’d be $2T richer. And the GOP wouldn’t have been wiped out in Congress as bad as we were. Quite possibly we could have avoided Barrack Obama.

The little things add up, you know.

$2Trillion is a pretty paltry sum

Alarm bells are going off, Willie!!

considering we’ve spent 4 times as much on domestic programs, curtailed expansion of energy and bailouts of businesses.

Thanks in no small part to Senator Frothy and his unquestioning support of GWB’s orgy of domestic spending.

But besides that, how much easier was the statists’ argument made by the fact that we had already deficit spent ourselves near oblivion?

Throw in the Fannie/Freddie shell game that was rammed through by governmental fiat (a Democratic congress, btw). and then talk to me about debt and spending.

And the Frothmeister’s position on Fannie/Freddie, when he actually was in a position to do something about them?

We had a “hands off” policy in Afghanistan since the Russians pulled out in 1989 (around the Clinton Presidency). In that time, the Taliban was allowed to flourish. Do you really think they liked us then?

I don’t think they gave a damn about us. I don’t think most of them could find the US on a map. OBL cared about the US, not the Taliban. And had they demonstrated the wisdom to hand him and the rest of the Arab thugs in their country over to us after 9/11, we wouldn’t have given a damn about them.

How about Yemen? We had no real troops there, we didn’t interfere out side of the UN with them (using your reasoning), yet the USS COLE was attacked by Yemeni…

While we had troops in the KSA, otherwise known as the Holy Land. You park a bunch of troops there, expect the locals to resent it.

Appeasement works best on the playground. That’s Realpolitik.

I suppose you would have said that to Kissinger about Paris, huh? Still prefer that we be in SE Asia?

BTW, if that’s a popular POV that Rep Paul and a “silent majority” of the country believes, then why doesn’t he run 3rd party and steal the election from underneath the established parties now, instead of trying to do it “in the current system”?

Dare us.

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4