Partial transcript:
That’s why I think the debate on the Republican side is so important. And why when I see, I have to be candid, a candidate like Ron Paul whose foreign policy is if anything is worse than the Obama administration apparently leading in Iowa according to some polls, it just gives me great concern. …
But I guess I’d say to people who look at Ron Paul and have some measure of support for his domestic policies on the libertarian side, I’d have to say look, I consider myself pretty libertarian but you cannot live in fantasy land. The rest of the world is not going to leave us alone and we need a Commander-in-Chief who understands that. A Ron Paul president would simply not address the challenges we face.
So if you’re thinking about Ron Paul because of his domestic issues, think again and look at virtually any of the other candidates and consider how they would be as Commander-in-Chief. That’s the president’s first duty, defending the country.
John Bolton is probably the person I trust most on foreign policy.
In other news, Ron Paul endorses the Occupy Movement. Some capitalist.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Ann Coulter on Paul’s foreign policy:
“Ron Paul is not electable as president for several reasons, including that he is only a congressman, is bad on illegal immigration, favors drug legalization and is off the charts on foreign policy.
(But it would serve the rest of the world right to have Paul running the show for a term or two. Then they’d find out what it’s like to be entirely on their own, protecting their own sea and air lanes, digging themselves out of their own earthquakes, getting invaded and nuked by hostile powers, having their computers hacked by terrorists and buying oil from the new Islamic caliphate. After eight years of President Paul, it would be generations before we’d hear a peep of anti-American sentiment again.)”
Gotta love Ann. :)
From her new article: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48571
LikeLike