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.
I guess I won’t bother trying to explain to you how nutty taking the time out to “counter-protest” the Million Man March sounds to a normal person...
Oh come on! You mean you don't support the idea of China filling that void if we were to get out of the way!?!? (obvious sarc)
Good point. I may need to use that with one of my co-workers. Do you have a citation?
-ccm
OOOO Tough guy!
We are not talking about individual murders here. We are talking about a institutionalized system of legalized murder. Your point doesn't make any sense.
If you’re going to make accusations, have the courage of your own convictions: name names.
Give them one more vote, with continued commonwealth status not an option. Statehood or independence. And with statehood, an explicit sanctioning of English as an official language.
And let's try to bring Alberta into the Union as a counterbalance!
-ccm
I constantly blast Paul on his candyass stance of Islamic terrorism because I actually disagree with his candyass stance of Islamic terrorism.
There are not ulterior motives on that point at all.
If he wants to try and sell federal land in the west, let him lobby for it to his heart's content.
That stance will not only mobilize Congressional Democrats to defeat any such proposal, but it is a complete NIMBY issue that will engender enormous grassroots opposition: many citizens' home values are predicated largely on the fact that there is very little developable land in their vicinity.
Injecting more land into the housing market would also cause even worse dislocations in the housing market than we are currently experiencing and would cause much electoral anger.
It is the only conceivable way out of the social security mess.
Or we could simply gradually shift to a system of private accounts.
And the numbers are off in this proposal.
Social Security is running close to $1T per year.
The total value of all US residential real estate is roughly 12-15T, or 12-15 years worth of payments if the Federal land equalled the value of existing real estate - which it would not.
Of course, putting tons of land on the market would further decrease the total value of that federal land plus all other real estate.
And that would not help matters as the meat of the baby boom enters the SSI world in 2015-2025.
The more we look at the numbers and the negative externalities, the less it looks like any kind of a solution.
I should be thanking you for playing - since you are the one claiming that Paul opposes all federal legislation on abortion and yet are now admitting that he supported federal legislation on abortion.
You know there is no way to identify them, but you can spot their cliche responses. There are at least 5 that I have accused and never denied it. Can I prove it? You know I can’t but it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Looks like the Paul folks are down to stems and seeds...
Oh yeah I forgot the “Dude”
Except when he doesn't.
The Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution because it didn't have a Bill of Rights.
The radical Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution for much more than that. The Bill Of Rights was drafted in order to appease enough Anti-Federalists to get the Constitution ratified.
If you think we would have been better off sticking with the original un-amended Constitution, feel free to say so explicitly, but don't expect to find much support here or anywhere else in the political spectrum.
There were plenty of Federalists who supported the Bill Of Rights as well and applauded its inclusion.
I am unaware of any Federalist who opposed ratification because the BOR was somehow a dealbreaker, but there were plenty of Anti-Federalists who voted against ratification because the BOR was not a dealmaker from their radical point of view.
Historically, Republicans have been the sound-money party while Dems have been the fiat-money, false prosperity, we-don't-care-about-the-consequences crowd. RP caught my attention because of his stand on fiscal, trade, and monetary policies.
The dollar is in bad shape, to the point that avoiding inflation depends on keeping dollars in willing foreigners' hands. In fact, that's why I think our leaders are eager for illegal immigration, to send dollars to Mexico where they will be absorbed into the Mexican economy.
‘Arte Johnson played by Ron Paul. Wonder if he still has that tricycle?’
Hmmmmm, veeeery interesting...but shtupid. Libertarians don’t ride tricycles, they are not ‘conservative enough’ for them....
Please Ron, go home to Tx. and win your House seat and drop into the irrelevancy that you deserve. Of course, you need to keep putting out some of the bills that do define our Constitution. You are not so wrong in that procedure. But, you are not in the class of running this nation. Please go home and let others try to defeat Obama or Her Highness.
HOW is our playing world cop the “right thing?” And at what cost to our Constitution, our Republic, our kids’ lives, our liberties and our treasure? Are YOU going to go to the front lines, wherever they are? Or is it going to be my kids and grandkids? Have YOU given of your life and treasure to serve? If not, best you get your sorry butt down to the recruiter right NOW and sign up. Otherwise, AFAIC, you are nothing but a posturing jackal. Nor, in fact, IS the world one bit safer for us being its cop... else 9/11 would never have happened. The moose-limbs would not have DARED to cross us. Your claim is absurd on the face of it.
Because we wrote Japan’s constitution, and they aren’t allowed to have a offensive military. And strategically they are of high importance.
That’s the problem with Paul, either he is ignorant of the ‘why’ we have troops in certain places, or he doesn’t care. Either why he has proven to be very foolish.
The ability of the Federal government to prosecute for murder - in pursuance of the Federal government's authority to make all laws necessary and proper to its governance - does not in any way hinder the power of the individual states to try any individual for murder.
The individual states retain the right to prosecute any perpetrator of any crime within their borders.
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.