Breaking: Ron Paul Falls in Line with GOP, Declares Support for War with Iran and Never-Ending War on Islam
In a dramatic reversal of policy, Texas Congressman Ron Paul has announced he will support a preemptive strike on Iran, along with the return of U.S. troops to Iraq, a never-ending war on Islam, and a CIA-led Cuba Spring if elected president in 2012.
A source close to Paul said the previously anti-war candidate had suffered long enough at the polls for his refusal to endorse across-the-board war, and that he would be unveiling his new, more aggressive foreign policy at Thursday evening’s GOP debate, ahead of the Florida primary next week.
News of Paul’s abandonment of his dovish approach to foreign affairs comes as a major shock to his supporters, including military veterans, who have donated nearly twice as much to Paul’s campaign as all of the other GOP candidates combined. Paul’s antiwar stance had becomeparticularly appealing for young voters under age 30, who form a core part of his base.
Senior campaign adviser Doug Wead explained that Paul’s change of heart stems from his reluctant admission that sound judgment on foreign affairs has no place in today’s Republican party. “Previously, we believed that rational, cost-saving, and well-thought-out foreign policy positions would resonate well with Republican voters. But, through the course of the debates, and using public opinion polling as a guide, [Paul] has come to realize that incoherent, hawkish positions are not only more popular, but also make for better policy.”
Paul reportedly left the GOP debate in Tampa, Florida feeling disappointed because he had stubbornly overlooked the wisdom of supporting a CIA-led Cuban Spring. Foreign policy advisor Bruce Fein told reporters that the campaign was so impressed with Newt Gingrich’s Cuba strategy, that “we’re currently exploring the viability of endorsing a CIA-led Russian Spring, French Spring, and a Mexican Spring to finally end the decades-old drug war. Canada should be on alert too.”
In order to shamelessly pander to voters, Paul has drawn from the best foreign policy ideas of his GOP rivals. Like Mitt Romney, Paul now plans to denounce President Barack Obama’s efforts to cut the defense budget without explaining how that he would otherwise reduce the deficit. Similar to Rick Perry, Paul will endorse a plan to re-invade Iraq, even though the war has cost Americatrillions of dollars (even more than World War II). And just like Rick Santorum, Paul will declare a war on “radical Islam” without explaining why he believes all Muslims are violent and dangerous.
Hot On PolicyMic
Obama's State of the Union Written at an Eighth Grade Reading Level
Five Things From the State Of the Union That Just Don't Add Up
NYC vs. D.C.: What's the Better City For 20-Somethings?
When asked whether he was concerned that Paul would be accused of flip-flopping, Wead said the campaign was merely responding to the preferences of the Republican electorate. “Whether it was South Carolinians booing Romney’s Mexican heritage or the audience canning our Golden Rule strategy, we’ve seen a Republican base that is nativist and blindly in favor of military spending. [Thus, with our new policies] We’re responding to our base by ensuring that our foreign policy is just as nonsensical as our competitors.”
Whether Paul’s hard-line position will poll well remains to be seen. What’s clear, however, is that only the most extreme war-mongering can ignite the GOP base and get a Republican candidate elected in 2012.
Read More: http://www.policymic.com/articles/3616/breaking-ro...




















Do you really want to post stupid topics like this when you need every vote and you don't need to to hurt your candidate?
I clicked the link when I read it and the page wouldn't load so I had to accept what PL wrote here on face value since I didn't have time to research for more info. So reread the article without the link that tells you it's satire as sad but true, people do change their views and Ron has changed some of his as well in the past.
There are cases where he's come to see a new angle on an issue and realized that he was mistaken. These are pretty few and far-between.
Iraq and Afghanistan are not meaningful threats. The terrorists love having targets to shoot at. Sure, these targets shoot back, but they're in it for the martyrdom anyway.
China and the Reconquista? Meaningful, credible threats. TPTB seem determined to ignore them.
So I promised that, just for him, I might make an exception. If the republicans are insane enough to nominate Romney, I'm voting for Obama in November. Not because he's any better (I can't come up with any meaningful difference between the two), but just to avoid the moving costs.
If Ron Paul sells out, he's lost my support as the only reason i support him is my belief in the man and lack of belief in the rest. I only support candidates for what they believe and say which can be proven true. To date, Ron Paul has been the best of all the candidates sticking with what he believes and if he sells out now, what does he gain as the other Republicans still won't support him as his beliefs are too well stated and we all know he believes what he says... to start selling out now is political suicide for him as he'll lose his growing support base and gain nothing for doing it.
So I hope this insider is wrong because if he's not, then the one thing I dislike most about political leaders will be just as true of him and he's on his own as he's the only one I'll vote for and I won't vote for him if he sells out.
Satire right now for Ron is very poor timing except for those who take he's already lost as satire helps ease the disappointment of losing.That's why I didn't address the topic except the anonymous insider as unfortunately, satire mixes truth with lies and too often I address satire and learn what I thought was the joke was actually the bit of truth they added.
But if he does sell out, regardless of satire, I will stop supporting him as none of the candidates but Ron Paul remain consistent or truthful in their views.
Even if is tempted, he knows as well as you and I that it's his consistency that we support.
As for the information about him winning in a State, it may be due to poll skewing and voter fraud on the part of the establishment. If I show up to a Republican event and find it filled with those who support one candidate, while the others are represented by a handful of people, I'd probably guess the one with the most people is going to win. It could just be positive thinking too, who knows. We all like to hope there's enough sensibility left in the population to vote for the candidate that has consistently stood for lawful government, freedom,and liberty, despite what the propaganda media says to the contrary.
LOL.. I knew it was satire at first glance. I will never forget the SC debate where the red-neck neocons were cheering for death and killing, made me sad to be registered Republican.