I cannot believe I once supported this buffoon.
Posted on 09/12/2007 7:21:50 AM PDT by presidio9
Amid a lineup of what ought to be called "big government conservatives," Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul stands out like the Lonesome End on Army's 1950s football teams.
Asked his policy on U.S. troops fighting in Iraq, the Texas congressman, now serving his 10th term, replies: "I would get them home as soon as possible."
And U.S. troops in Europe?
"I would get them home," Paul said in an interview Tuesday. "Having them stationed abroad doesn't serve our national interest, and that goes for forces in Japan and Korea.
"We should only send U.S. forces abroad when our security is directly threatened. Right now, nobody threatens our national security."
Such sentiments make Paul the odd man out in GOP debates. Other candidates have been seen smirking as he speaks.
Although described as a libertarian, the physician-politician is a throwback on stands that used to define "conservative" in America -- defense of individual liberties, a minimalist federal government and freedom from foreign entanglements.
"I call it a non-interventionist, constitutional foreign policy," he said Tuesday. "We should have a strong national defense. But we should stay out of other countries' internal affairs. Our role is not nation building, and not to be world policeman."
In Paul's view, the U.S. invasion of Iraq worked to encourage al-Qaida. "The motivation by suicide terrorists is that we have invaded territory that is not ours," he argued.
Paul will spend a hectic Friday in Seattle this week.
The events on his schedule range from a public lecture on the U.S. Constitution, set for 1:30 p.m. Friday at Seattle University's Campion Tower Ballroom, to a $2,000 private briefing scheduled for 3:30 p.m. at the College Club. Then a $1,000-per-person reception at the Westin reception will be followed by a 7:30 p.m. rally in the Grand Ballroom.
If you missed the movie "Twister," the Republicans' 2008 field offers lots of blustery, changing winds. Mitt Romney has reversed past stands on abortion and gay rights. Fred Thompson is trying to explain how he gave legal advice to a pro-choice feminist group. The thrice-married Rudy Giuliani is seeking to court the religious right.
Paul is not a man for campaign conversions -- even on a week that takes him to three liberal West Coast cities.
"My message is exactly the same wherever I go," he said. "If it is a liberal city where I am speaking, I try to teach them the virtue of economic liberties. If it is a conservative religious town, I try to stress why individual liberties are important."
Paul was a lonely Republican vote against passage and reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act. He feels the landmark post-9/11 law violated the Fourth Amendment, which provides Americans with guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure of their property.
If elected, said Paul, "I would do everything I can to repeal it. ... We do not need to spy on the American people to provide for our national security."
Born in Pennsylvania, Paul served in the Air Force as a flight surgeon, and moved to Texas to practice obstetrics and gynecology near Houston. He was drawn to politics when President Nixon severed the connection between the dollar and gold in 1971.
He would radically downsize the federal government. "I don't think there is any need for the Department of Education, the Department of Energy or particularly the monstrous Department of Homeland Security," he said Tuesday.
Asked what role he sees for the federal government in education, Paul replied: "None. Nothing in the Constitution provides for a federal role."
Paul would seek to divest the federal government of its vast landholdings in the West. "I would always move in the direction of moving those lands to the states, except in special circumstances such as national parks."
The Paul campaign has taken in about $3 million as of midyear, a fraction of money raised by the Romney ($43.5 million) and Giuliani ($35.4 million) juggernauts. In the West, Paul registers among donation leaders only in Montana and Wyoming.
Yet, the physician-politician has become a hit on the Internet. He is the candidate of voters, left and right, who would otherwise fill in "None of the Above" on pollsters' questionnaires.
Paul relishes being apart from the field, especially in talking about two favorite subjects -- Iraq and individual liberties. Of Democrats, he said: "They were elected to do something last fall, and they've done nothing. They've identified themselves as the party of civil liberties, and done nothing."
Nor does Paul have any sympathy for Republican "conservatives" who stress economic liberty but see nothing wrong with a government that pushes around its citizens. "You cannot have a Supreme Court that protects economic liberties and not individual liberties," he said.
On assisted suicide, talking as a physician, Paul said: "Taking someone's life is not something I want to get involved in." Yet, he describes legalization as "a state issue."
"I don't support abortion, but I don't want to pass any federal law to regulate it," he added.
In Texas, it is possible to run simultaneously for Congress and president. Paul intends to file for re-election to his House seat.
Has he seen any other Republican candidate he could support for the White House? "So far, nobody," he replied.
Posted before I read yours. GMTA, my FRiend~!
This anti-war “pull our troops out now” cult like following Paul has smells allot like a Lyndon LaRouche campaign. I really doubt his supporters are Republicans or libertarians (little L). These are Tinfoil-hat Internet junkies.
I am embarrassed that this weenie is from Texas. The sooner he loses the better.
I think he’ll be in the Presidential primary until the bitter end much like Keyes was in 2000. Paul doesn’t need a lot of money to continue his run the way his campaign operates. And with fundraisers like the one mentioned in this article of $1,000 a person and the one where he collected over a $100,000 in Dallas a few weeks ago will provide more than ample money for him.
He’ll get some primary support and delegates as the alternate candidate to who ever comes out as the eventual winner but not near enough to have a major impact at the convention. My hope is he’s denied a spot on the rosturm at the convention.
If we don't do it, someone else will. And I don't think anyone is going to like the results.
We had the luxury of being isolationist in the early part of our history, but technological advances have made it so that isolationism is no longer feasible.
The liberal/socialist/pacifist tags are disinformation from the troll patrol that cannot tolerate discussion. As the only anti-war candidate, he's likely to pick up some very strange bedfellows, but a vote's a vote.
Well, if he wants to bring the troops home because they involve us in international affairs, it's only fair we should want him to go home and stop involving himself in our affairs.
I hadn't heard about that one. It is FAR more disturbing.
“And U.S. troops in Europe?
“I would get them home,” Paul said in an interview Tuesday. “Having them stationed abroad doesn’t serve our national interest, and that goes for forces in Japan and Korea. “
As if we needed further proof that this guy is an idiot when it comes to foreign policy.
When you become president, you cannot summarily deny decades of commitments made by those whom you may not have agreed with.
Page 10 here:
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0706/popup.congress.earmarks/pdfs/tx.14.paul.pdf
(note, this is 65 pages of earmark requests just from March 2007 alone for Ron Paul so it may take a while to load.)
When I lived in Texas, he was a Libertarian.
Welcome to Free Republic.
To say nothing of saying that Iran wasn’t a problem and we should just let them be. This guy is a loon of the highest order.
I agree on the stability issue and am holding for more information. RP is dumb like a fox, making people howl with outrage at his sound bites while others take a deeper look to see what the fuss is about.
He never said Iran wasn't a problem. He has said that historically the US should not have worked with England to depose Mossadeq. I agree with him on this point. In the present day, he feels that there's a good enough balance of power in the ME to contain Iran. I think this is credible, too, especially if we leave Iraq in good shape.
Uh, huh. Kinda like "The end justifies the means".
No, I believe his exact words were:
They (Iran) are acting logically and defensively and we have no reason to fear them.
IMO, condoning, nay, PROMOTING abortion at the federal level gives states a free pass on this issue. RP talks about actively seeking to overthrow R v. W, which would be a monumental advancement.
I cannot believe I once supported this buffoon.
Constitutional conservatives have so little in common with freerepublic. It took 15 posts before a freeper acknowledged Ron Paul actually follows the constitution. I remember when freerepublic was a conservative forum...of course, that was before Jim Robinson embraced undeclared pre-emptive wars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.