Gingrich 'Knows': Paul 'bad choice for America'

I agree. However, Ron Paul's stances is just one method of abiding by the Constitution (although I have pointed out a few of Paul's stances that were not Constitutional). There are plenty of ways to engage in Constitutional bipartisan politics.

 

Giving in to mediocre policies is not compromising. However, the Becerra Rule should be the norm in Washington.

 

If the Constitution was used a guidepost by all, we would have a built-in basis for bi-partisanship/compromise and a roadmap for shrinking the size of our Federal Government. I'm sure there are other people with good ideas, but these ideas get stifled in the rush to toe the party line, which often doesn't serve the People.

Yes, there are other legitimate ways of abiding by the Constitution. I'm sure RP knows this and I don't see him as intellectually dishonest enough to ignore that. He would be firm on eliminating our deficits and reining in our debt, though the details are open to discussion. The military spending HAS to be addressed, however, and this policy of perpetual war must stop. The hyperbolic attacks on RP's stance on this only muddy the water and make meaningful solutions impossible.

The bottom line as I see it is that our military policy is completely linked to our economic woes. All the other candidates are ignoring this in favor of expanding our role as the world's policeman. We cannot have economic recovery while maintaining this status quo, IMO.

Do we REALLY need to be doing this?

 

Of course not. Like Ron Paul I think we should reign in our military and our military interventionist foriegn policy. However, we should not decline from the world stage from a diplomatic perspective, nor should we avoid alliances. Furthermore, unlike Paul, I am a proponent of the ideals of the United Nations.

 

I don't think RP has said anything to advocate for isolationism. I'm with RP on the UN and that's a difference of opinion between us. Honest disagreement is fine, though, and thanks for the reasonable posts.

 

I was not implying that Paul has an isolationist stance. Actually the elements I outlined prior to the description of my stances were those of a non-interventionist stance, which Paul does support.

I lean towards non-interventionism, but I do not subscribe to the idea that we should decline from the world stage, meaning not forge alliances and engage in international organizations. This is the reason why I fundamentally disagree with Ron Paul.

If I were to delve even further into the differences, compared to his insistance on completely defunding the United Nations, I favor extensive reform, as well as defunding from redundant subsidiary bodies.

Instead of adopting a pure non-interventionist military doctrine, I consider the original Powell Doctrine, with a few diplomatic twists a legitimate option.

Granted, there are some areas of foreign policy where me and Dr. Paul agree. We both agree that Overseas Contingency Operations need to end. We both agree that the United States should not be the world's policemen. We both agree that that many of our foreign bases can be closed. We both agree that we should remove our nuclear weapons from foreign nations.