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.
If you were president, how fast and how far would you withdraw from Iraq?
As quickly as possible and as far away as possible. I think the military people have to tell you how fast you can do it safely, but it wouldn't be one of these things [where I would] wait six months to start. I would do it immediately; I would certainly move the Navy away from the shores of Iran — and from intimidating Iran and trying to provoke them and [to] spread the war….
Thanks for that link. I highlighted some phrases that are key for me. Safely, to me, doesn't just mean safely for our troops but safely for the Iraqi people and safely for our reputation in the ME.
That's fine - other candidates want to do the same.
‘Don’t you agree with these statements? Every conservative should. If you don’t, you just might be a liberal.’
You inadvertently touched on why nobody is flocking to the Ron Paul camp.
This nonsense ‘if you don’t agree with everything he says, your a LIBERAL!’ is absurd.
The fact is Congressman Paul’s position on the most important issue, the war, is more in line with Murtha and Pelosi.
Now, call me a liberal cause I disagreed with Obi Ron....(chuckle)
Murder is NOT a legitimate federal crime. It is a STATE matter. But Dr. Paul has introduced a bill which would define life as starting at conception and then removes jurisdiction from the Federal Courts to hear cases opposing STATE laws protecting that life. If I recall my facts correctly.
WHERE does the Constitution provide for keeping an army of occupation in over 130 countries around the world?
Yes, but I don't think it should be.
But Dr. Paul has introduced a bill which would define life as starting at conception and then removes jurisdiction from the Federal Courts to hear cases opposing STATE laws protecting that life.
In other words, yes, it is a child, but it's okay if your state wants to commit murder.
The same place where it says the money must be gold or silver. LOL!
“Right now, nobody threatens our national security.”
Except Ron Paul.
No, freerepublic isn't a conservative forum anymore. It is a neo-con globalist forum where dissent from war-mongering, nation building and policing the world is met with vitriolic attacks and invitations to leave, rather than reasoned discussion.
And Jim Robinson has the right to pronounce the tenets Free Republic embraces.
Never said JR didn't have that right, but pre-emptive, undeclared wars are unconstitutional and therefore, not conservative.
You have the right to disassociate yourself with FR should you disagree with those tenets.
Thanks, but I wasn't looking for your permission.
Perhaps you should re-read the quote again. He said no federal law. That means it goes back to the states. It's a federalist position, the same position as Fred Thompson's.
Please provide specific passages. Oh, and don't bother with the 'undeclared wars' gambit. That's a specious argument. I want you to specifically address the 'preemptive war' issue based on Constitutional text.
Dr. Paul is staunchly pro-life. I don't care if you criticize his foreign policy, but don't ever insinuate that he's pro-abortion. To do so reeks of dishonesty.
Why are you being fooled by these clinton Chinese Mafia seminar posters??
Pray for W and Our Troops
I underlined your reasoned discussion. LOL!
Not every conservative believes that the value of money should be tied to gold.
A conservative believes that the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate the value of money - not whatever private or public entities manage to hoard the largest amount of a specific precious metal.
Don't you agree with these statements? Every conservative should. If you don't, you just might be a liberal.
Yawn. I don't agree with your underlying premise: that you decide who or who isn't a liberal. Especially since you seem to think that a person is a liberal if they are not a goldbug.
I don't see much point in having Departments of Education or Energy.
There is a definite useful purpose to having a Department of Homeland Security.
As far as the land that the Federal government owns in the West - the Federal government either purchased or conquered that land and it belongs to the Federal government (i.e. US citizens as a people, not the several states). I'm all for a rational plan of divestment, but the Federal government is under no obligation to divest it.
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.