Ron Paul Next Steps

With Santorum having dropped out, many are concluding that Romney has virtually won the nomination. Ron Paul, however, is not dropping out and will continue to try to push his delegate strategy. However, in my opinion, with the vacuum of good news about the primary, I'd like to see Paul do something bold to get the attention of people and let them know that not only is this thing not over, but he is a viable (and better) alternative to Romney.

Foreign Policy vs National Security - Being Clear on Both

National security is a high priority on most people's list. Not all agree on how best to provide it, but most agree it's important - especially Republicans.

When Republicans are faced with a candidate (example, Romney) that they think has decent economic policies, tolerable fiscal policies, adequate social policies, and good security policies vs a guy (RP) that has good economic policies, great fiscal policies, tolerable social policies but HORRIBLE SCARY BAD security policies, it makes the first guy seem preferable.

This is why I keep saying, Ron Paul's campaign and supporters HAVE GOT to figure out how to get both his foreign policy and more importantly his national security policies accurately described to Republicans.

To me, foreign policy and national security are two different policies. There is a lot of overlap, but they are distinct. Most people understand his foreign policy, even if they disagree and believe that it would put us more at risk. I believe that Ron Paul's campaign and supporters need to do a better job of making the case for non-interventionism.

However, even more urgently, most Republicans do NOT understand Ron Paul's national security policies - that is, what would Ron Paul do in the event of a credible threat against the US? What would he do if intelligence learns of an eminent attack against the US? He has not made these points clear to Republicans and he needs to do a better job of it if he wishes to win the nomination.

Pro-[Choice/Life] isn't Anti-Freedom

I frequently see people on both sides of the abortion debate that point to the other side and accuse the other position of being "anti-freedom" or "incompatible with freedom". Problem is, as I see it, neither side can make that claim.

It seems to me that at some point, the right of the child to live overrides the right of the mother to choose to kill it. Most reasonable people will concede that this point is some time before it's actually born. Thus we are really just debating what that point should be.

For people like Ron Paul, his view is that the freedom to live is more important than the freedom to choose what to do with your own body. That's his view, but he recognizes that not all share it. In addition to that, he has said that Constitutionally, he would not allow a federal level mandate one way or another.

Personally, I'm not sure there is a "correct" answer politically that will satisfy everyone.

This is because, more generically, the problem is that abortion creates a paradox for individualism because you have two people occupying the same space at the same time and the exercise of rights by one is an infringement on the rights of the other.

In either case, you are infringing on someone's rights. Either you protect the right of the baby to live and infringe on the right of the mother to choose what to do with her own body, or you choose to protect the right of the mother to choose what to do with her own body and infringe on the right of the child to live.
So, agree or disagree with him about the point at which he feels we should recognize and protect a life, but it's not anti-liberty or anti-freedom.

In fact, Paul's actual policy prescription is a good compromise. Instead of a federal, top-down mandate that states that abortions are either all legal or all illegal, he allows the people of each state to decide. This will create a diverse environment that allows different views to be respected.

For example, while some states ban abortions, and some states permit even late-term abortions, perhaps a few other states would pass a law that legalizes abortion up to the 8th month, but that all abortions after the first 10 weeks must be done painlessly such as with lethal injection or an anesthetic that puts the baby to sleep first. This should satisfy most all pro-choice individuals since their ability to get an abortion isn't infringed. This could satisfy many pro-life individuals since the baby itself would not suffer or feel any pain. Reasonable compromise? I don't know.

Through this method of allowing multiple, different approaches that Paul is advocating, I think a more acceptable common ground can be reached.

RP Supporters: How to handle a Talk Show Interview

Say that a Ron Paul supporter calls into and gets on a radio show. If the caller isn't already upset/angry, then often the host asks some loaded questions, interrupts when the caller tries to set the record straight, and at that point the caller starts to get flustered. Once a Ron Paul supporter, who is generally calling to try to set the media's misinformation straight, gets flustered by that very media, things go downhill and in the end, Dr Paul's supporters, (and by association, as is the intention, the good Dr himself), end up looking "crazy" and irrational.

So how can you carry yourself well and help the good Dr Paul instead of hurt him? Here's a few thoughts.

Challenging the assertion that only Romney can beat Obama and that Ron Paul is "unelectable"

See Update at bottom.

This one frustrates the hell out of me. I hate the label of "unelectable" or the consensus that "only Romney can beat Obama". Just ruffles my feathers.

However, recently, PPP released a poll that pitted Romney against Obama that intrigued me. What was interesting about it was that in this one, unlike other's I've seen, they included 3rd party candidates (which is a more realistic representation of what the general election will look like). The results were fascinating.

Initially, in a plain head-to-head, Romney (47%) actually beats Obama (45%) whereas Paul  (41%) loses to Obama (46%).

However, once you introduce the 3rd party candidates, everything blows up. Romney loses significant portions of voters to 3rd party candidates - and much more than Obama and Romney loses in virtually every scenario. Paul and Trump actually take nearly 20% of the vote and the lionshare of that comes out of  Romney's numbers. More analysis here with more numbers, but I encourage you to take a look at the poll itself.

Now, those of us that are supporting Ron Paul recognize why this is. Many of us would rather remain consistent to our principles and vote for the person that best represents us over Romney, even if that means that the dreaded Democrat [scary voice] were to win. However, if Ron Paul won the nomination, not only would most of the right/Republicans support him (especially if their primary desire is just to beat Obama), but so would his ardent base of libertarians, as well as many Independents and a large number of democrats. Plus, it is possible (or even very likely, depending on the source) that if Ron Paul were to get the nomination, that the likely Libertarian party candidate Gary Johnson would bow out and endorse Paul.

In my opinion, because of the realities of 3rd party candidates, Ron Paul has a better chance of beating Barack Obama than Mitt Romney.

So, what I would like to do is to commission another, similar poll to be done. This time, let's see the effect of 3rd party candidates when Ron Paul is the Republican candidate. If this poll were to come back and show that Ron Paul loses fewer voters to 3rd party candidates than Romney, it could go a long way to demonstrate Ron Paul's electability. And not just that, but showing that it would be better than Romney's.

Imagine what that could do to the race and how it might shift some voters over - especially when, according to exit polls, nearly half of Romney's supporters are voting for him because of his electability and ability to "beat Obama".

So either encourage the Ron Paul campaign to commission such a poll, or recommend it to the PPP (or other pollsters) themselves.


Update 1/25: On Jan 17th, Public Policy Polling released another poll that shows that even when including Gary Johnson as Libertarian candidate, Romney loses significantly to Obama (7pts).

How Ron Paul should respond to accusations about his record

In the debates over the weekend, Rick Santorum accused Ron Paul of being "on the margins". Santorum implies that Paul would be an ineffectual President stating (paraphrased) "Out of over 600 bills, you've only had 4 come up for a vote and only 1 that has passed."

I guess in Santorum's worldview, since the same Congress that has continually concentrated control in Washington over the decades doesn't want to hear measures that would relinquish that power, Paul isn't doing things right. Here's how I'd love to hear Ron Paul respond:

Wait a minute, are you saying that because we have a Congress that has passed such bills as the National Defense Authorization Act, the bailouts and stimulus, and Obamacare, a Congress that will stuff multiple unrelated measures into a single bill that gets both sides something they want and a plausible excuse to give their base as to why they voted for it, a Congress that will use trickery, loopholes, and bribes to pass unpopular bills (and then congratulates themselves on legislative creativity), a Congress that frequently does not read the bills they are voting on, a Congress that throws taxpayers money around at endeavors like a bridge to nowhere (that my opponent here voted for), ethanol subsidies, and Solyndra, a Congress that continues to raise the debt ceiling while it has not had a balanced budget in virtually my entire tenure and hasn't passed a budget at all in the last 3 years, a Congress that cozies up to special interests and lobbyists and who often outsources the writing of complex bills to corporate insiders, a Congress with an 8% approval rating, because *that* Congress refuses to even debate my bills, are you saying that reflects negatively on me?

[optional]

I'm more concerned with finding common areas of agreement and forming coalitions for freedom. I've been accused by my opponents of working with Democrats and leftists like Barney Frank, Bernie Sanders, and Dennis Kucinich - and this is true. But because I can agree with Frank on the need to get the federal govt out of trying to restrict medical marijuana doesn't mean I agree with him on his banking regulations. Because I can find common ground with Sanders regarding the Federal Reserve, doesn't mean I agree with him on his economic views. Because I can work with Kucinich to try to change our interventionist foreign policy doesn't mean I agree with his views on govt funded health care. Working with people with whom you disagree 95% of the time to get things in that 5% accomplished doesn't make you a sellout, it's how you build coalitions to fight a battle for liberty without losing your principles.

[/optional]

No, this accusation reveals the mentality of Washington insiders: that "getting things done" is more important than what is actually done. That has to stop. 

Another Look at this Ron Paul Racism thing

Ron Paul's rise in the polls brings with it increased scrutiny. One of the few "sideshow" issues (there aren't many) that the media is trying to raise is regarding supposedly racist newsletters that he supposedly wrote.


Let's look at those claims a little more in detail. If you are think this country is on the wrong track and that freedom is under assault, please ensure that you are making an informed decision instead of relying on "edited reality". Please read on as well as the links referenced to get a better understanding of this controversy.

Again, be clear Dr. Paul

I just got to watch last night's debate. I heard Baier's question.

Grrr.... I HATE how unclear Dr. Paul is on this.

Just say:

Firstly, non-interventionism isn't a leftist policy. Non-interventionism - that is, freely trading with countries and avoiding entangling alliances - is a policy consistent with our founders. Let's not fall into the trap of making this a left vs right issue.

Secondly, if you are asking if I would be worried about Iran getting a nuclear weapon if we maintain our current foreign policy of intervention, preemptive attack, nation building, and occupation, then yes, I would be very worried.

If you are asking if I would be worried about Iran getting a nuclear weapon if we followed my foreign policy, then no, I would not be worried. If we aren't threatening them, if we aren't setting a no fly zone, if we aren't flying drones over their airspace, if we don't have 50 military bases virtually surrounding their country, if we aren't interfering with their communications, if we aren't threatening them with attack ourselves, then no, I don't think a nuclear Iran would be a direct threat to the United States.

Because history doesn't happen in a vacuum. You have to see that there is a greater context for what we're dealing with than just since 9/11. And there's more to my foreign policy than just "if Iran gets a nuke, do we attack or not?". 

3 Simple Steps to talking to Conservatives about Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy

One of the biggest hindrances to conservatives supporting Ron Paul is his foreign policy. Some of the most vocal like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, etc say that he's right on almost everything, except foreign policy. Here's how I've started talking to conservative friends and family about his foreign policy and have convinced most to agree with Ron Paul.

1) The purpose of terrorism

Ask them why the terrorists attack us. If they say our freedom and prosperity, ask them why they aren't attacking Australia, or Japan, or Sweden? Why is the US the "Great Satan"? Then point out that if you  look at the 1998 fatwa, bin Laden's letter right after 9/11, his letter in 2002 or 2006, or the statements of various other terrorists and the core justification behind all of the attacks was our continued military presence, intervention and sanctions on countries in the middle east.

Then ask them, if we were to implement RP's foreign policy - a foreign policy NOT of isolationism, but of non-interventionism; if we were to end the active combat around the world; if we were to return our troops home from over 700 bases in over 135 countries; if we were to stop just giving money to foreign countries, countries that are often ran by authoritarian dictators; if we were to focus our defense spending on strengthening measures of ACTUAL defense; if we were to ensure a strong international intelligence network; if we are open, friendly and freely trade with all countries; if we were to do all of that, (besides saving hundreds of billions of dollars a year), why would they attack us? What would be the purpose? What would they be trying to get us to STOP doing by threatening attack?

If they reply that they believe that without provokation or justification, Muslims will simply attack us, minding our own business, for no other reason than to get their virgins or similar, then point out that they are confusing a rationalization for a justification. Ask them if they've ever asked an Islamic terrorist why they would attack us, and then state that their view is nothing but a ridiculous and ignorant caricature - even of Islamic extremists.

2) Support for Israel

"We cannot abandon Israel to be destroyed." is another common theme (usually among Christians). Yet, Israel has taken care of itself numerous times and dealt with various threats itself, often against US recommendations. Ask them exactly how taking a non-interventionist policy would hurt Israel.

Hurt Intelligence? It is generally admitted that Israel's intelligence network in the middle east is superior to the US.

Hurt Budget? On average, we give Israel $2.5 billion a year (Source), over 90% of which are military grants.

Hurt Military/Weapons? Israel is one of the most well trained military groups in the world. Our money doesn't make or break that. Nor is there any reason to believe that Israel would not be able to produce/purchase their weaponry or would be left "defenseless" if we left.

However, there may actually be an upside for Israel. One of the things that comes with that money to Israel is leverage. The US uses that money as a way to apply pressure on Israel to try to control/influence how it responds to threats. Thus the US, who does not face the same threats as Israel, tries to tell Israel how it must deal with certain situations and threats. This isn't right. Israel should be free to decide how to deal with its threats without US coercion. We remove that money, we remove the restriction on how Israel defends itself.

I would argue that a non-interventionist foreign policy would be better for both sides.

3) World's Police 

Another potential rebuttal is that the US is the only country that can keep the threats of the world at bay. If the US isn't the world's police, who would be?

Firstly, ask them why there needs to be one? Countries can join together voluntarily and address a threat the presents itself without trying to constantly have our boot on the neck of every country in the world.

Secondly, that job brings with it enormous animosity and a monumental expense. Our habit of trying to intervene and control all international events in our favor has helped cause the animosity and resentment that we're dealing with now. And with the current economic and govt spending, we simply cannot afford to be that police force anymore. In addition, we put our young men and women at risk and in harms way, to be injured or even killed, not necessarily to fight a clear and immediate danger to the US, but to squash potential resentment and backlash.

Thirdly, read and find articles to present them evidence on blowback. Here's a good example to start with.

Summary

Basically, our current foreign policy of preemptive military assault, regime change, and nation building does NOT make us safer. It creates an environment where MORE animosity grows and additional terrorists are cultivated.

What would make us safer would be to remove the very complaints that terrorists have against us, that cost us enormous amounts of money and lives anyway, to spend more effort on intelligence and actual "defense" instead of offense, and to be a free and open trading partner with all nations. Where trade flows free, there is peace. Where trade is blocked, war will follow."


TL;DR

Talking to conservatives about Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy:

1) Point out that the terrorists attack us because of our intervention and military presence.

2) Point out that US support for Israel doesn't make or break the country and removing the monetary aid may, in fact, give Israel more freedom and flexibility in how it deals with threats.

3) Being the world's police is enormously expensive in both money and, more importantly, in lives. But beyond that, it doesn't work. Trying to militarily control the world CREATES animosity and generates terrorism.

UPDATE:
Let me also say, Don't give up! With the people I talked to, it was always multiple conversations. I generally just said the same things in response to their same complaints. They seemed to wear a little with each one. And note that NONE of them changed their minds while talking to me. It was only weeks later after having heard these points and going back to their normal lives that they ended up changing their mind.

Proposed Ron Paul "Soundbites" for Debates

I'm a huge Ron Paul fan. I don't agree with 100% of his policies, but the vast majority. I love that he's not suave and speaks simply. However, he seems to have trouble making his points in short time frames. Perhaps it's due to the complexity of the issue, perhaps it's due to the large amount of information he could call on to answer the question, perhaps it's due to the divergence from "mainstream" political thought, thus requires more explanation, but he has trouble getting his message into "soundbites" - that is, one or two paragraphs.

After watching him in debates and feeling like his answers were correct, but just didn't pack the concise punch they could, I took a stab at writing what I would love for him to say in future debates based on what I know of his positions.

TL;DR: I'd love to see Ron Paul answer some of these questions like this:

With the rampant drug problem in this country, how can you say you want to legalize [some drug]?

Let me be clear, I am not "pro-marijuana" or even "pro-heroin" or "pro-cocaine". I think drug use can be a harmful and dangerous thing. However, I am for ending the FEDERAL prohibition on narcotics. I believe in the Constitution and in the 10th amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution about drugs and I believe that those things that are not specifically mandated to the federal govt, fall to the states. In 1919, those that believed that liquor should be banned recognized that they needed a Constitutional amendment to do so. And they needed another amendment to repeal it. Drug prohibition is no different in the need for an amendment to have a federal ban. However, there is none, so it must fall to the states. If all 50 states want to prohibit cocaine, heroin and marijuana, then fine, but not at the federal level, not without an amendment. And personally, I would not support such an amendment.

Being a strong Christian, how can you support same-sex marriage when Christianity states homosexuality as a sin?

Similar to drug prohibition, this once again is an issue of federal overreach. Marriage and its recognition is not mentioned in the Constitution as a power the federal govt has authority to oversee, regulate or restrict. Thus, that responsibility should, by the Constitution, fall to the states. I can be against an act, think it's sinful, and still not believe that it's the federal govt's job to prohibit it. Beyond that, marriage to the federal govt amounts to little more than legal declaration of shared rights (e.g. medical information sharing). Is there really a Christian reason to prohibit two people of the same sex from having the federal govt recognize them as having shared rights any more than one man being granted power of attorney for another man?

By removing national standards by eliminating the dept of education and advocating non-scientific positions like denying global warming and saying creationism is legitimate, as well as ending scientific funding, aren't you putting future generations at risk of falling behind the rest of the world educationally and competitively?

Firstly, the Constitution doesn't authorize the federal govt to dictate educational policies. The Dept of Education has only been a cabinet level agency since 1980. Are you honestly going to tell me that due to their involvement, education in this country has gotten significantly better since then? No, I believe that the US became the foremost scientific and educational country in the world BEFORE govt began funding research in every scientific field imaginable and BEFORE govt began managing education for the entire nation. Govt funding and control does expand these areas but it corrupts the systems, it doesn't really improve them. Plus,

Secondly, my positions on both global warming and creationism vs evolution is that we don't know. We have very good ideas and some evidence that supports a theory, but I believe that the science isn't definitive yet. Listen, I'm not anti-science - I'm a doctor of medicine for pete's sake. I've looked at the science for these theories and while we should continue to research and investigate these ideas, I am not convinced that they are definitive enough to be teaching in classrooms as fact and setting restrictive economy-wide policies by - doubly so when considering that the Constitution doesn't authorize the federal govt to dictate such policies.

With your focus on privacy, freedom and personal rights, why do you want to restrict a woman's privacy and freedom and ban abortion?

It's not about restricting her freedom or invading her privacy. However, as a doctor who has delivered thousands of babies, many of which were not full term, I recognize that what is inside a woman's womb is a life. In addition, the law recognizes it as a life since as a doctor, I was legally liable for that life and that life has inheritance rights. And as such I am a firm advocate for the protection of rights and the right to life is a critical one. Also note that my position is that I don't believe the federal govt has the Constitutional authority to be the "Abortion Police" - to either legalize or ban the practice. If a state wants to ban abortions or allow them, the Constitution doesn't grant the federal govt the authority to overrule that. At the core, I believe that protecting life is the first and most crucial step in protecting liberty.

Your policy calls for closing all military bases in foreign countries. Do you also want to shut down military bases in the US?

Well, I'm not sure that's necessary. How about we take it one step at a time and implement my foreign policy first and evaluate things at that point? I will emphasize is that what I want to do is cut the military, not defense. I think a strong defense and intelligence network is essential to a strong country. However, our military is overgrown and expansive. The military has become a tool of aggression instead of defense. I believe that our intervention in the affairs of other countries and the entangling alliances we get involved with cause us to be LESS safe. [If you agree that govt intervention in the economy causes problems, can't you see that govt intervention in the affairs of foreign countries causes problems? (this line can be added or removed based on who the audience is)] We are now in a position, we have SO many enemies, thanks to over 50 years of intervention around the world, where we feel we have to keep our boot on the necks of every country out there for fear they will try to get back at us. That's not only dangerous and not sustainable, it's not moral.

Are you suggesting that we invited 9/11?

Absolutely not. WE the people did not cause 9/11. But the actions of the US govt over the last 50-60 years did - and on our behalf. WE the people didn't overthrow a democratically elected leader and replace him with a puppet dictator that brutally oppressed his people, but the US govt did. WE the people didn't supply Saddam Hussein with weapons and encourage him to attack Iran in the 80s, but the US govt did. WE the people didn't give billions of dollars to dictators that oppressed their people, but the US govt did. [More detail about what the US govt has done and emphasize the difference between WE the people and the US govt] These aren't the acts of everyday Americans, as the question implies, but the acts of govt.

You have no problem with Iran getting a nuclear weapon? Aren't you basically advocating sticking your head in the sand and hoping terrorism goes away?

Our founders warned us to avoid entangling alliances and to avoid meddling in the affairs of foreign countries for fear of exactly the type of backlash we are seeing now. Look at the 1998 fatwa, bin Laden's letter right after 9/11, his letter in 2002 or 2006, or the statements of various other terrorists and the core justification behind all of the attacks was our continued military presence, intervention and sanctions on countries in the middle east. If we were to implement my foreign policy - a foreign policy NOT of isolationism, but of non-interventionism; if we were to end the active combat around the world; if we were to return our troops home from over 700 bases in over 135 countries; if we were to stop just giving money to foreign countries, countries that are often ran by authoritarian dictators; if we were to focus our defense spending on strengthening measures of ACTUAL defense; if we were to ensure a strong international intelligence network; if we are open, friendly and freely trade with all countries; if we were to do all of that, (besides saving hundreds of billions of dollars a year), why would they attack us? What would be the purpose? What would they be trying to get us to STOP doing by threatening attack?

And the idea that, without provocation or justification, Muslims will simply attack us, minding our own business, for no other reason than to get their virgins or similar is nothing but a ridiculous and ignorant caricature - even of Islamic extremists.