Ron Paul: I Can Beat “Warmongering” Obama - on MSNBC Ron Paul dropped perhaps the biggest hint preparing for presidency -
Congressman underscores how neo-liberal interventionist foreign policy of bombing goat herders in broken-backed third world countries has nothing to do with “defense” and is not conservative
During an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Congressman Ron Paul dropped perhaps the biggest hint yet that he is preparing to announce his campaign for the presidency, affirming he has the ability to unite Republicans, independents and progressive to defeat the “warmongering” Barack Obama.
Asked if he could beat Obama, Paul responded, “The reality is it would be very, very difficult, but if you look at the polls, and there aren’t that many, my appeal is to a lot of independents and a lot of progressive Democrats who are sick and tired of Obama for opting out of cutting back on some of this militarism,” adding that his numbers would be even bigger when stacked up against Obama than they would be in a Republican primary.
“He’s a war monger,” Rep. Paul added. “He’s expanding the war. My numbers would be much bigger running against Obama than they will be running against some conservative in the Republican primary.”
Indeed,
an April 2010 Rasmussen poll showed that Paul was almost level with Obama if the two were to go head to head for the presidency. Following a
15 point bounce in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings, Obama has pulled away from all potential Republican candidates, but given the momentum Paul could build with his energetic grass roots base, beating Obama would be a distinct possibility.
Exemplifying again how the establishment consistently tries to derail Paul’s momentum by ignoring his very existence, obscure names like John Thune and Jon Huntsman were included in the Fox poll and yet Paul was omitted entirely.
During the MSNBC segment, the Congressman pointed out that the debate over military spending was a matter of semantics, arguing that the issue had little to do with “defense” and more to do with propping up the US military-industrial complex and occupying foreign countries.
“I think the problem we have is with the semantics,” said Paul. “They have conditioned us all to use the word defense spending. Who wants to cut defense? I don’t want to cut defense. I want a stronger defense.”
“I want to cut the militarism, the interventionism, the stuff that hurts us, that makes us more vulnerable,” he added. “If we separate defense from militarism, maybe more people would be willing to accept it. Who wants to be on record who says I just voted against the defense budget.”
“I think it’s a perception and a semantics problem that we have to try to reeducate the people to understand what we’re talking about.”
“It is a sad day in American history when a one-time conservative-libertarian stalwart has fallen more out of touch with America’s needs for national security than the current feeble and appeasing administration,” YAF’s Senior National Director Jordan Marks said in a statement.
By lumping Ron Paul in with the “feeble and appeasing” Obama administration, Marks attempts to make a distinction between Obama and his predecessor George W. Bush, by portraying Obama as weak on “defense,” when in reality, the Obama war chest has been bigger than anything ever passed under Bush year upon year.
Obama’s 2011 war chest swelled to more than 700 billion dollars – that’s more than Bush ever got.
Indeed, as soon as Obama took office his first action was to send 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan and to expand the Bush-era bombings in Pakistan, as well as opening up a new front in Yemen. There are
more US troops deployed globally under Obama than there ever were under Bush.
Bush and Obama have both followed identical interventionist foreign policies that mainly revolve around carpet bombing goat herders in broken-backed third world countries, something that Paul rightly points out has nothing to do with the “defense” of the United States.
The fact that Obama has a bigger military budget than Bush ever did gives a pretty clear indication that occupying and invading foreign countries has nothing to do with true conservatism – it comes from the foundational beliefs of those whom the Young Americans for Freedom organization would undoubtedly champion –
neo-cons who are nothing more than Trotskyites – they believe wholeheartedly in the welfare-warfare state.
Ron Paul should be honored to be kicked out of this pitiful little group – because it only crystallizes his character as a real conservative, while the Young Americans for Freedom are nothing more than a mouthpiece for neo-cons who have more in common with historical Marxists than they do the founding fathers of America.
*********************
