Skip to comments.Republican Ron Paul livens up GOP debate (Concord Monitor Ed board)
Posted on 10/04/2007 8:43:18 AM PDT by traviskicks
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul seems to believe that both major parties are wrong on most things most of the time, most of all about fiscal prudence and foreign policy. That's why, though he has Powerball odds or worse of winning the presidency, it's refreshing and thought-provoking to have the 71-year-old surgeon in the race.
Paul, a five-term Texas congressman, ran as the Libertarian Party's candidate for president in 1988, but he's on the national stage this time because he's running as a Republican. He is passionate about his belief in small government, fidelity to the Constitution, faith in the free market and fear of foreign interventionism. He backs a return to the gold standard and the abolishment of the income tax. He is often marginalized as an extremist. But he is not an angry man, and that's part of his considerable charm.
Paul met with the Monitor's editorial board yesterday. He is charismatic in the way television doctors of the 1960s like Marcus Welby were. He seems incapable of not saying exactly what he believes, and he's the only Republican candidate to call for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The diversity of opinion he brings to his party is healthy and provides anti-war Republicans with a choice.
Paul smiles often and cuts to the quick of political folly. He was, he says, in the Air Force during the Cuban missile crisis, when nuclear warheads 90 miles offshore were pointed at America. That crisis was defused with diplomacy, he said. Now, politicians are talking about going to war with Iran and "hysterical over a weapon that doesn't exist."
Paul adamantly believes that it's both arrogant and counterproductive for the world's only superpower to meddle in the affairs of other nations and engage in nation-building. It makes Americans less safe, he says, because occupying another country turns some of its most desperate and troubled residents into suicidal terrorists. It's a point that few Republican candidates are willing to make.
Paul fears the loss of freedoms at home more than he does terrorist attacks. The prescriptions he dispenses are common sense and fidelity to the Constitution. The United States began going astray about a century ago and then rapidly under President Woodrow Wilson, he said. He believes in market solutions to most problems but says he is not running to undo the welfare state. The needy will receive care, he said.
Paul can simplify problems in a way that must give his Republican rivals fits. On Iraq and the use of military force as an instrument of foreign policy he said: "We're taxed to blow up their bridges, then we're taxed to rebuild their bridges. Meanwhile, our bridges are falling down."
There is nothing to be gained by staying in Iraq, Paul said. America left Vietnam and it became a friendly trading partner. No one knows what the outcome of leaving would be, but in time, the same thing could happen in Iraq.
At times, Paul seems to be campaigning on issues history discarded a century ago. But he does so with so much wit, concern for personal freedom and an absence of malice and ego that, rather than put people off who disagree, he makes them think. That's why his candidacy contributes so much to the race.
Can’t argue with the fact he ‘livens’ it up.
I whole heartedly agree with him on that.
The "diplomacy" was the threat of war with the US that caused the Russians to back down.
When JFK does it, it's "diplomacy", when Bush does it, it's "hysteria."
“Paul fears the loss of freedoms at home more than he does terrorist attacks.”
Libertarians are more doctrinaire than communists. Even Stalin lightened up a bit on the doctrines when Hitler came knocking.
What I find amazing is how Ron Paul supporters are given free reign and carte blanche to relentlessly post propoganda 24/7 while Giuliani supporters have been beaten down here to the point where some have been kicked off the FR website. Its sad.
The difference, of course, Sadaam didn't back down. If the Soviets hadn't, I presume Paul would advocate leaving the nukes in Cuba.
Someone once wrote, "if you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist.
Ron Paul = 21st Century Neville Chamberlain.
He would be dangerous if he weren’t completely insignificant.
‘Paul fears the loss of freedoms at home more than he does terrorist attacks. ‘
Yep, which is why many think he’s a kook. We didn’t lose 3,000 ‘freedoms’ we lost 3,000 Americans, men women and children.
The fact he basically misunderstands those that would kill us all, and are trying to figure out how to do so, renders him completely and totally unqualified to be Commander in Chief.
You cannot negotiate with religious fanatics. Somebody should tatoo that on Mr Paul’s forehead backwards, so he is required to read it each morning while shaving.
Gotta have a black sheep in the herd.
Gotta have a black sheep in the herd.
No pun intended
Well, I certainly do not agree with Rudy supporters being booted willy nilly. But more than a few of them committed freepercide.
It was resolved by a weak sister named John F. Kennedy caving in to the Soviets.
Kennedy got the Soviets to remove the missiles by removing our missiles from Turkey and agreeing not to invade Cuba in the future.
The US backed down and encouraged 30 more years of Soviet expansionism, exacerbated by Kennedy's equally cowardly successor's failure to assist the Czechs in 1968.
This is what Ron Paul thinks the US should do: whatever the enemy wants as long as he does not hurt us today.
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.