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 bow to your superior knowledge. Unicycle it is!
Many have already commented on this, but “Right now, nobody threatens our national security” is the single most stupid, naive, insane, delusional comment made by anyone running for POTUS, including the dems.
It never ceases to amaze me how Republicans claim to be the Party of the Constitution, the Party of States Rights, the Party of Small Government, the Party of Personal Liberty, the Party of Fiscal Responsibility, ... and how they continually bitch about the Democrats abusing the Constitution, and expanding the Constitution, ... but when a true constitutionalist emerges in their midst, someone who has throughout his political career voted in strict support of the Constitution, they can do nothing but bash him and his supporters. I guess it demonstrates just how two-faced some Republicans can be.
bray thinks that anyone who does not fall down and worship at the altar of GWB is somehow tied to HilLIARy... I would love to see names named, as well. I think it highly irresponsible to cast blanket accusations like that. It shows one has not a whit of legitimate argument to make on the topic. But then I never DID think bray had much in the way of reason and logic going on... only emotion and feelings.
What's to stop? I mean he's only at 1% in the polls, right?
I bow to your superior knowledge. Unicycle it is!
(chuckle)
Ya gotta have a sense of humor with this particular topic, to be sure.
..and there is the rub.. talking about something a lot doesn't make you a true Constitutionalist. His voting record is moderate libertarian. As I stated before, I believe that Ron Paul is the ultimate political Rorschach test . People really want to vote for themselves, and thus, they are projecting on Paul what they believe. That is why all of these Paul threads are generally excuses for 'what he really meant' when he said something or what was the uberConstitutional reason behind his vote.. all of these are reflections of the commenter's beliefs, not necessarily those of Paul.
And you have a problem with that?
In the words of the NIE the more we screw around in their countries the more recruits al-Qaeda gets.
Is that what you want?
We didn't pick this battle.
Paul supported our going to Afghanistan, not Iraq. This is key. In fact, he came up with 35 questions about Iraq in 2002 that I think are VERY perceptive and show subtle understanding of geopolitics. Check this out:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm
That's your interpretation of the Constitution - the favored position of the Constitution-opposing anti-Federalists.
But you would have to be one of those dreaded Constitutionalists to know that.
Yet another example of the lauaghable claim made by Constitution-opposing anti-Federalists that they are somehow the only true friends of the Constitution.
You do not dictate how the Constitution operates.
Your comment is trite, juvenile, and cowardly.
(chuckle)
Ya gotta have a sense of humor with this particular topic, to be sure.
What? Tricycles? Unicycles? Bicycles? I'm so confused. :)
I’ve tried your link twice and it keeps timing out. I’ll check it out, but don’t expect a timely reply.
Actually, I have to get back to work, too. If I keep going like this I'll be broke and divorced, even though I introduced my wife to RP and she thinks he's great.
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.