Paul’s Stance on Foreign Policy Divides Many Traditional G.O.P. Voters

◼ The emerging question is to what extent Mr. Paul’s more dovish stances — like ruling out pre-emptive strikes against Iran — are so far out of the Republican orthodoxy that they will limit his support in many places, or, as many in the party argue, make him unelectable in important early-nominating states like South Carolina and Florida. - NY TIMES

...One recent national poll by ABC News and The Washington Post found that 45 percent of Republicans and independents who lean Republican said Mr. Paul’s opposition to American military interventions overseas was a major reason to oppose his candidacy, compared with the 29 percent who saw it as a major reason to support him.

He has said he would bring troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and questioned the American military presence in South Korea.

But Mr. Paul’s national security positions draw raves from many veterans, students and others who believe his noninterventionism would curtail a dangerous trend toward military adventurism and strengthen America’s influence and prestige while diverting resources to pay down the national debt. In interviews at Paul campaign events this week, many said they embraced his national security proposals, rather than reluctantly accepting them.

“He would get us out of our difficulties overseas,” said Tony Snook, a retired Army sergeant first class wounded in a rocket attack in Basra, Iraq, in 2007 who came to a raucous Paul rally that drew 500 people on Wednesday night in Des Moines. “You should choose your fights wisely,” he said. “If it’s not there, don’t invent something, don’t shed blood needlessly....”