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.
We didn't pick this battle. Al-Qaeda picked it for us on September 11, 2001. Ron Paul acknowledged as much when he declared in his Marque and Reprisal act of 2001, Section 2, Finding (6): "That under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, Congress has the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal to punish, deter, and prevent the piratical aggressions and depredations and other acts of war of the al Qaeda conspirators."
As you Paulettes are so quick to point out, Congress not only has the power to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, it also has the power to declare war. But there is no set, specific terminology set forth in the Constitution that qualifies as a declaration of war. That terminology is left to Congress. And most of us on this forum accept Congress's actions in 2001, authorizing President Bush to confront Al-Qaeda, as a declaration of war. You do not. That's fine. We can agree to disagree.
But since representative Paul has acknowledged that Al-Qaeda has already declared war on the United States, why does he feel the US has no right to defend itself WHEREVER, when we've been notified we're at war by a sworn enemy?
The most important issue is the saving of the Constitution and the Republic. NO TERRORIST or group of terrorists can take away our liberties, not now, not ever. Only we can allow it to be done by our own government, which way too many of the people here on this forum are content to see happen, if only we can have a little security.... Bah. You are disgusting. The whole pack of you. Trading freedom for the ILLUSION of security and deserving neither.
Wrong. In 2005, Dr. Paul sponsored the Sanctity of Life Act which would have determined that all human life is recognized from the moment of conception & removed all judicial rulings on abortion, which would allow lawmakers to freely pass laws banning abortions.
Thanks for playing.
Why you neo-con globalist, I oughtta . . .
So you lifted a John F'n Kerry quote and matched it with a quote from Paul, and concluded that Dr. Paul is pro-abortion?
So are you denying that John Kerry said anything like Ron's quote, or are you trying to say the quote is in error?
Irrelevant what Kerry said. Does Dr. Paul's ACTIONS on abortion match that of Kerry though?
ROFL
Paul is wrong.
His supporters amusing but whacked or stoned, perhaps both.
Good for a laugh, little else...
If I weren’t tied up with businesss I’d have more time to play.
A very good post.
Ron Paul's district ain't made up of a bunch of liberal metrosexuals. This will be his last term.
(chuckle)
Moderators with a sense of humor?
Wow.
Boy, this is really getting interesting :) Where's my popcorn?
I haven’t read through this thread yet and I probably won’t, because I know what’s going to happen and I don’t need to read the garbage some will post as “comments.”
Several years ago I stood on the local street as a counter-demonstrator to the first Million Mom March. There weren’t many of us but the police presence indicated they thought we all had machine guns ready to mow down those misguided moms. Instead, we stood quietly with our signs while enduring the occasional insult from the marchers. At one point though, some guy came running from the column, stopped in front of us and proceeded to swear at us as if we were the lowest form of life on the planet. Had the police not been so close by I’m sure one of us would have taken the time to “chastise” him for his insults. With the police just a few steps away though we just stood there while he litterally frothed at the mouth, spitting and screaming invectives at us. This was a man with whom no one could reason so we didn’t even try. His mind was so set on what he thought he was accomplishing there was no room for reasonable discussion.
Some of the anti-Paul posters here are much the same. Their minds are made up. To them, Ron Paul is nothing short of the Anti-Christ and they will repeat any bad publicity he has had, even attributing statements to him that he has never made. They are so certain of their positions they won’t even take the time to read the speeches he has made, preferring to read the “reports” of speeches he has made - reports by people who share their views on Dr. Paul. Fortunately, the web doesn’t transmit spittle or their posts would be as wet as the shirt of that idiot protestor who spent several minutes making a fool of himself.
Who knew Rowan and Martin were workin the boards here at FR?
;)
We'll keep the light on for ya!
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.