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.
Here's a citation for you to use. I would use these... (ea)remarks from RP to congress one on your co-worker.
RP: "The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even cutting a few thousand or even a million dollars from a multi-hundred billion dollar appropriation bill will not really 'shrimp' the size of government.
So there is a danger that small-government conservatives will look at this small victory for transparency and forget the much larger and more difficult battle of returning the United States government to spending levels more in line with its constitutional functions. Without taking a serious look at the actual total spending in these appropriations bills, we will miss the real threat to our economic security.
Failed government agencies like FEMA will still get tens of billions of dollars to mismanage when the next disaster strikes.
Corrupt foreign governments will still be lavishly funded with dollars taken from working Americans to prop up their regimes.
The United Nations will still receive its generous annual tribute taken from the American taxpayer.
Americans will still be forced to pay for elaborate military bases to protect borders overseas while our own borders remain porous and unguarded.
These are the real issues we must address when we look at reforming our yearly spending extravaganza called the appropriations (shrimping) season.
Hey, you'll need all the ammo you can muster. Just trying to help. :)
‘What? Tricycles? Unicycles? Bicycles? I’m so confused. :)’
How bout we just say ‘anything with wheels’ and be done with it?
That must be why my linking to www.house.gov/paul... keeps timing out. Darn red alerts!
So you favor interpreting the Constitution to suit YOUR wants... kinda like the Left Loonies, right? Just because the Constitution clearly states that fedgov doesn’t HAVE any authority that is not specified in the Constitution doesn’t mean anything unless it agrees with what YOU want... if that’s how you feel, come on out and say so. Join socialist democrat Ellen Tauscher when she talked about the Constitution being like her old blue dress (what IS it about you liberals and blue dresses, anyway???), which fit her once but no more and needs to be thrown away... or so radically altered as to be unrecognizable to anyone anymore.
LLS
Note, on that link, those are just the earmarks for March 2007- 65 pages worth.
Says the poster who stabs our troops in the back while hiding behind the name of one of their greatest victories in a proud, nation-building war.
By the way, Ron Paul? Substantive discussions? Hate to be the one breaking the sad news to you, but Ron Paul is making himself a joke. Pat Paulsen reincarnated.
This is certainly possible. But the implication is that Congress was amenable to a declaration. (Don't assert that your congressman being an individual doesn't imply that. At that point in time, it was a distinct possibility).
We are in a war-like state, but we are not in a declared war.Not necessarily. Recall I showed earlier that Ron Paul has acknowledged that Al-Qaeda has declared war on us. Our declarations are moot under such circumstances when an enemy that has declared war against us, with the potential means to obtain weapons of mass destruction, has declared war on us.
We are at war. That's all we need to know.
Er, he said he counter-protested the Million-Mom march.
Try to keep up.
The Constitution should be interpreted along the lines of its Framer's intentions and not along the reductionist lines favored by the cranks who opposed its adoption.
Just because the Constitution clearly states that fedgov doesn’t HAVE any authority that is not specified in the Constitution doesn’t mean anything unless it agrees with what YOU want...
The Constitution states nothing of the kind.
if that’s how you feel, come on out and say so. Join socialist democrat Ellen Tauscher when she talked about the Constitution being like her old blue dress (what IS it about you liberals and blue dresses, anyway???), which fit her once but no more and needs to be thrown away... or so radically altered as to be unrecognizable to anyone anymore.
I'm unsurprised by your unhinged puerility.
The Constitution is preserved not by the leftist solution of destroying it as advocated by the Tauschers of the world nor by the anarchist solution of paring its scope down to nothing as advocated by clowns like yourself and Ron Paul.
It is preserved by recognizing the Framers' intentions of building a representative government based on checks and balances that has the authority and the power to keep the American people strong and free.
Is your name Ron Paul?
If not, an immediate withdrawl, consulting the military on safety, means an immediate withdrawl.
And the fact that to you safety means safety for the Iraqi people and our reputation means absolutely nothing. That's not Paul's position, you made it up.
To suggest that Ron Paul supports the deployment of troops to provide a safe enviornment for the Iraqi people is absurd. It flies in the face of his many statements that troops be deployed only in the interest of a direct security threat to the homeland.
Thanks for another example of how the Ron Paul BS artists twist his positions.
;)
That explains it.. Ron Paul is a political Rorschach test .. people don't want to vote for Ron Paul, they want to vote for themselves.. that is why they all explain away what Paul says or does with their own views/belief...
I paraphrased, not inconsistently with the actual quote you provided. I believe I won my point at 122.
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.