Dick Lugar: ...we're a -- a party and a -- a president of leadership, leadership in the world," he said. "We have a fleet that covers all the seas, that, as a matter of fact, makes foreign trade possible, trade of all sorts. We're the only country that can go everywhere all over the world, and, therefore, indispensable to our allies as well as to our own interests."
Huckabee: Though Paul's organization in Iowa is first-rate and his support base is extremely dedicated, Hucakbee said Paul's foreign policy views are "anathema to the Republicans, much less to Democrats and what I call middle-of-the-road people."
"He has a core of fanatical believers, but they do not represent the mainstream of America," Huckabee said, contending that Paul's remarks that he would not try to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon go "beyond off the edge."
Dick Morris: “Ron Paul remains terrifying. He is really the ultimate liberal in the race. He wants to legalize drugs, repeal the Patriot Act, slash our military spending, pull out of Afghanistan, and remove all limits on abortion. On these issues, he’s way, way to the left of Obama.
What does it tell you, Patriots, that the candidate who takes George Washington's foreign policy positions is considered heretical to the Establishment?
Ron Paul is the only candidate who looks at the Constitution with respect, rather than disgust and derision.
The Establishment will stop at nothing to keep him from the nomination. There have been serious discussions inside the Beltway about forcing delegates to defy the primary races if Ron Paul wins, and to cast their votes for Mitt at the convention.
2012 will be filled with potential triggers for turning the divisions in this republic hot.
Kerodin
III
Even if Paul wing the R primary, they won't allow Paul to make it to the general election.
ReplyDeleteAccident, medical problem, scandal, etc. They'll make something up.
I hate the fact that Paul appears to be an anti-Semite, with more concern for Palestinians than Jews, but he is still the best choice of what we are faced with for choices.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, just as I am not certain Obama won't pull an Amadinejad ands declare himself the winner next November, I am pretty certain the establishment will never allow Ron Paul to actually run against Obama. I wish I was wrong.
Night of the Long Knives.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't have said it better.
RegT-
ReplyDeleteJust looking for clarification- "with more concern for Palestinians than Jews"-is that the reason you call Paul an "anti-Semite"?
I'd be curious to hear more.
Israel is not America.
In my opinion, America owes Israel no more blood or money than it does any other nation on earth. Unfortunately, as soon as one dares to speak these things, the ultimate ad hominem in today's society is unholstered and used.
I don't know that it is fair to label a man in that way, based only on that.
It may or may not be in our national interests to take Israel's side, but it's hardly a matter of anti-Semitism, IMO.
AP
"Anti Semite" is anyone who dare speak out against the unqualified, never ending, one sided support of Israel. Screw all of them. Commerce with all, allied to NONE.
ReplyDeleteAP and Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThe "Palestinians", Arabs who actually were supposed to settle in Jordan and Syria, only their brother Arabs didn't want them there, desire the death of all Jews and the destruction of Israel. So does Iran, for that matter, and truth be told, probably any country controlled by muslims and following true islam.
If you speak in favor of those who wish the death of all Jews and the destruction of Israel, and claim they have as much right to exist, to statehood as Israel, then yes, you are indeed demonstrating anti-Semite behavior. Ron Paul has done this.
Anonymous, WTF is "one-sided" support of Israel? Did you come up with that on your own? I'm willing to have folks disagree with me, but let's stick to reality, OK?
With the billions of dollars we have given the Palestinians, which they then use to purchase weapons to kill Israelis with, to fire rockets into Israel; when our country pressures Israel into giving up land to muslim scum who will never accept anything less than the death of all Jews and the death of Israel as a country, and keep insisting on more land no matter how much they are given, how in the name of G-d can you claim we have been "one-sided" in support of Israel? Unqualified? One-sided? Never ending? Holy sh*t, Batman.
As someone smarter than me said, take the weapons away from the Palestinians, and there would be no more war. Take the weapons away from the Israelis, and there will be no more Israel.
Israel doesn't need our foreign aid, which is one of the reasons why I will vote for Ron Paul if he makes it that far. He is the only possible candidate that could possibly save America, in spite of his anti-Semitism. He would be the safest President of all the possibilities that exist right now as far as Israel is concerned. If America goes under, as BO and the rest of the Marxists would love to see happen, Israel will die.
What Israel DOES need is an American President that will make it plain that an attack on Israel will be considered an attack on America. I don't know if Paul will support that, but I do think he would support them if they are attacked. At the very least, I feel certain he would not make the statement that this administration made about the possibility of shooting down Israeli planes if they attacked Iran to stop her nuclear weapon production.
AP, I hope that makes it more clear why I feel the way I do.