Skip to comments.Ron Paul Soars In GOP Race, But Foreign Policy Views Are An Albatross
Posted on 12/13/2011 2:24:45 PM PST by Slyscribe
Ron Paul is surging in Iowa according to the latest polls, but if the libertarian Texas Republican does become the flavor of the week, his foreign policy views will likely leave Republican voters with a sour taste.
The latest IBD/TIPP survey asked respondents which GOP presidential candidate they preferred on four issues: the economy, budget/taxes, health care and foreign policy. Paul is third behind Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, being the preferred choice by Republicans on the first three issues by margins of 9%, 10%, and 6%, respectively.
As todays IBD story touched on, Paul is weakest on foreign policy, where he is the choice of just 4%, tying him with Jon Huntsman.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.investors.com ...
Saddam or no Saddam, Iraq is still Iraq.
The US has bases in some places around the world where we are invited to have bases and there are many more conflicts that do not involve the us than do. You are a hysterical Paultard.
That's about as close to making Ron Paul look sane as you will ever get. By acting like a democrat, Ron Paul drones have to lie about the foreign policy views of Conservatives. Ron Paul drones are fed to believe that everyone else wants endless wars and "boots in every country". That's the only way they can look sane in comparison.
Ron Paul is a suicide monkey.
Excuse me, a Paultard telling me “the US is to blame for Iran” and calling a me jerk is a good thing. :)
Geez... one positive about Paul and this board goes apoplectic. I am not for Paul, I will vote the R nominee...
Ron Paul - The Candidate of Fools
I made one positive post about Paul. You are a reactionary nut, pal.
...is surging in Iowa according to the latest polls, but if the libertarian Texas Republican does become the flavor of the week, his foreign policy views will likely leave Republican voters with a sour taste.s/b, "...is surging in Iowa according to the latest astroturf polls, but if the self-styled libertarian from Texas does become the flavor of the week, it will definitely leave Republican voters with a sour taste."
When I hear a lunatic blame the US for the Iranian Terrorist State then I react, numbnuts.
Ever hear of Michael Scheuer? Is he a nut too?
FR is, for the most part, hostile to Paul. Support him and the shills come running.
Just a friendly warning, they've locked off the site.
If you persists and try to discuss the complexitites of Pauls economic arguments, the global effect of a strong American economy and a small federal government to reduce warfare and belligerency worldwide through economic dominance, these shills will not play - because they well know they'll get beat soundly.
If you want to talk about Paul's decades-long dedication to protecting constitutional freedoms, these "conservatives" will instantly sound like DU slanderers, foul-mouthing threads until they die.
And of course, the background chant of crazy, crazy, crazy will be kept up, to make sure no discussion takes place at all - especially concerning Paul's support for limited and appropriate use of our armed forces to save military lives, limit military spending, and accomplish discrete and verifiable goals to a country run by the people, and not the government or military.
My advice - don't fight it. Watch it. Contemplate it carefully.
These comments remind me of his association to Cindy Sheehan when they both appeared on the Alex Jones show. Birds of a feather
BTW...I pick D - All of the Above
The problem with Paultards like you is that you think you can nicely dissect something good about Ron Paul and people will ignore all the rest.
As if that is normal behavior.
It is not.
The fact that I have to tell you that means there is something fundamentally wrong with you.
So that explains the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979-81. The military adventurism of 2001-11 caused it. [/sarcasm]
Are we moving on from the 911 Commission report now?
Also, I don't trust him on border issues anymore than I do Gingrich, Perry, or Romney.
If elected, we would just have to make sure there is a congress in place that will insist on border enforcement, stopping Mohammedan immigration into our country, and responding with overwhelming force (but not endless occupation) to any attach against us.
“These comments remind me of his association to Cindy Sheehan when they both appeared on the Alex Jones show. Birds of a feather.”
I think you just dropped the names of his Secretary of Defense and Chief of Staff. Kuchinich would be his Secretary of State. The Illuminati and the people behind the chemtrails wouldn’t have a chance.
The 911 Report cited what the islamists said and what capitves said. you can agree or disagree, but that is what they reported.
Personally - I am sick of our foreign policy and idiotic wars that serve no purpose whatsoever. We certainly don’t fight to win anymore. We never took over the oil fields, so whats the damn point?
Why is it so surprising that there are Republicans who dont want to go broke borrowing money from China to fight wars with Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Libya, Egypt, Kosovo, Somalia, Argentina and places yet unknown?
There's no amount of spin over "earmarks" than can cover up the chasm of difference between him and the party establishment candidates like Romney and Gingrich on constitutional issues. This is not something that can be sidestepped with diversions about "earmarks".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.