I genuinely believe that Ron Paul is crazy, Save Jerseyans. He’s the only GOP candidate whom your esteemed Blogger-in-Chief probably couldn’t support in the general election. Close question. Wouldn’t pull the lever for Obama either; more likely, I’d write in “Don Rumsfeld” just to prove a point.
The biggest problem with Dr. Paul is his distressing foreign policy naivety; his entire worldview is predicated on the WILDLY incorrect assumption that America’s antagonists will simply begin to “back off” if we break camp and withdraw within our own borders. Forgive my cynicism, Dr. Paul, but I’m skeptical that an absence of U.S. military instillations in the Middle East will make the jihadists any less likely to stone women, straps bombs to children or turn commercial airliners into missiles. Or seek Israel’s destruction, assuming Dr. Paul even cares.
In fact, I’d bet you would see an emboldened movement to carry global jihad to new frontiers. Some more “traditional” enemies of democracy, like totalitarian Russia and Communist China, would interpret America’s strategic retreat as an open invitation to disregard their neighbors’ sovereignty and build less-benign empires. It’d be an abject disaster for the cause of individual freedom and economic liberty.
But Dr. Paul is right, in an indirect way, about the righteousness of one particular form of non-intervention: Chris Christie’s decision to abstain from a late entry in the GOP race is of no benefit to the Paul campaign…
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdcUInOItE8
As much as I respect the Governor’s abilities, getting into the presidential primary with (under?) three months until the Iowa caucuses might’ve unintentionally destroyed the Republican Party’s near-term chances to recapture the White House.
How?
It’s all speculation at this point; however, candidate Christie might’ve had just enough time to siphon votes away from Romney but not enough juice to build a national network capable of dethroning his adversaries. The end result could have been weird upsets in key states capable of unnecessarily prolonging the primary phase. An unsettled primary heading into the summer months would be bad for the GOP and very bad for the country, too, assuming you agree with me that defeating Barack Obama is the best outcome for America in 2012! Convention floor fights were a fine and fun thing when you didn’t need a cool billions dollars to prevail.
So congratulations, Dr. Paul; even a broken clock like you is right twice a day. Chris Christie’s decision not to intervene in the presidential race may’ve sealed Barack Obama’s fate as a one term president.
I think Christie has a good chance in a future election. But for this one, I'm switching parties to vote for Ron Paul.
Rooney = RINO
See? Sane people read Save Jersey, too!
REALLY? You could vote for Bachmann? OMG…you're crazier than she is.
Actually I'm with Ambrosia on this one. To say you couldn't vote for Ron Paul but that you could vote for Michele Bachmann is a bit nuts.
But I think everyone at Save Jersey has been pretty clear that we are not fans of Congresswoman Bachmann. So I am sure thats not what Matt meant to convey.
We're dealing with degrees of insanity.
I don't disagree with too much Michele Bachmann says… on paper. It's when she opens her mouth that the problems begin.
I don't agree with Ron Paul in real time OR on paper, at least in terms of foreign policy. He's an isolationist which is a non-starter in the global age. You'd also have to be mentally unbalanced or an eight year old child to believe a culture barely living in the Iron Age can be pacified by striking our tents and running away.
Matt,
Ron Paul's policies aren't isolationist theories, they're non-interventionist's theories. Occupying these countries only isolates us more from the people of that region through resentment(but then again you probably don't care about them when it comes to your 'safety'.) We're not making any progress in the war on terror. One leader dies, another replaces him just as quickly. It's not our responsibility to protect Israel, the stoning of women, and other barbaric acts in other countries. Ron Paul recognizes that we are broke and shouldn't be meddling in the affairs of border disputes half way across the world, especially when we can't assume control of our OWN border. Making comments such as "Ron Paul is crazy" because YOU don't agree with his logic, yes logic(ideas not based on raw emotion such as fear of terrorism)is unprofessional and misleads your readers. Let's look at the facts, our country is broke, our military is spread too thin, and we need a serious makeover both socially and economically. Look at the protests on both sides as proof. To vote for these status quo candidates will only keep this country heading in the same downward spiral we've been going down for the past century. Neo-cons want less government in the financial sector, yet they want big government when it comes to militarism. Well guess what, you can't have both.
Matt Roney you would vote for Donald Rumsfield, a man who decieved Americans on national news into believing that alqueda was an actual organization with a super fortress in Afghanistan? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGhGHxw0mSo
Quit your day job Matt, America doesn't need journalist like you with your yellow press.
It's Matt "Rooney."
And you "don't" want me to quit my day job?
Where do I have to go to find coherent opposition? The American education system can't produce anything but vapid liberals and mindless Paulbots. Sigh…
Matt,
I'm failing to see how my views are mindless. Perhaps you should elaborate, rather than make cop-out comments attacking my intelligence. "Paulbot?" Cute, Matt. I was really hoping for a detailed rebuttal to my post. Instead, you give me a shallow remark not worth the time it took to read it.
Where to begin, Paulbot?
(1) The U.S. is broke because of entitlement/spending increases, not the military. Less than 1/5 of federal revenue is spent on the military, arguably the federal government's most important (and constitutional) role. Ron Paul needs to open a history book and identify one country that is WORSE off for American/British intervention; can't say the same for France/Russia.
(2) It's our responsibility to protect other countries when it is key to our own national security! We put missiles in Europe during the Cold War because it was in our interest to keep the Soviets out of Western Europe. An Islamic world without Israel to act as a check would become an even bigger threat. And I guess you missed it in school, but bringing everyone home, building a wall and letting international affairs "sort themselves out" is the definition of isolationism. It also helped bring on WWII.
(3) Having a strong military is the federal government's most important constitutional duty. Providing cheap prescription drugs is not. All government isn't bad – a necessary evil is how Hamilton/Madison conceived of it; problems arise when government fails to stay within the bounds of its constitutional boundaries.
I never said that bringing the troops home will solve all of our financial problems, however I truly believe we put ourselves in more danger, and are spending more money than what is neccessary to secure our safety, occupying 130(give or take) countries across the world. I find 20% was spent on the Defense Dept., or your "1/5" that sounds insignificant, but in fact is 689 billion of the nations 2010 budget. Not exactly a drop in the bucket, Matt. Also, Ron Paul is for getting rid of/cutting entitlement/spending increases, respectively. I'm sure you do agree with some of Ron Paul's policies, you're just not informed on them because you can't get past his (and the constitution's) foreign policies.
Funny that you mention the Soviets in the Cold War era, perhaps you need to open that text book and understand that overexpansion was the main cause of the bankruptcy and end of the USSR, and not just them, look at other great civilizations throughout history. America's isolationism was hardly a cause of WW2, sanctions after WW1 placed on Germany, sanctions placed on Japan's fuel sources, nationalistic tension(resulting from countries wanting control over other countries), racism, and the rippling effects of the Great Depression did.
Ron Paul thinks the border fence is a bad one, and I agree. Having a strong military IS the federal gov. most important constitutional duty. However, how we use that military needs to be on a constitutional basis. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan(with the exception of killing Bin Laden) and Libyan operations were unconstitutional. Ron Paul had more donations from members of the US military than all the GOP candidates combined, also beating out Obama, the current commander in chief. So even the men and women overseas are beginning to see the fruitlessness of our occupations. I'll take the views of the people that are actually serving overseas, over someone sitting in their underwear, blogging in Jersey.
Bush ran on the idea of no nation building in 2000, Obama in 2008 said he would bring our troops home from Afghanistan within months of him being president. Both knew these were popular ideas among the nation(it's what the majority of the American people want), neither president stuck by their promises. I like the last quote you had. However, you're just confused as to where the constitutional boundaries lie.
Let's get one thing straight: I've never, ever blogged without pants.