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 are NOT at “war,” not truly, else we would have invoked ALL of the wartime measures, INCLUDING closing the borders, expelling any and all enemy aliens and not allowing travel to countries (like Saudi Arabia) which harbor our self-avowed enemies. We would have started to become energy- and strategic materials- independent and we would have gone in under rules of engagement which would insure that we WON. No, we are NOT at war. Bush is PLAYING at war. And failing miserably.
‘I strongly disagree. We are not safer if we try to become the world’s policeman. We are weaker, both internally and in the world.’
You support a candidate that acts as if the jihadist will just ‘stop’ if we only ‘make nice with them’.
Thats simply the dumbest position one can take with a religious fanatic. Its naive to the extreme.
They want you dead, IJ. They want me dead. They want RON PAUL dead as well. And Hillary Clinton, B Hussein Obama, Harry Reid, Trent Lott...everybody.
Why? Because we won’t convert to Islam.
Ron Paul doesn’t seem to understand this basic concept, even though the bin Laden’s of the world state it very clearly, in fact he’s done so three times just this month.
What more does it take?
Really, and where in the Constitution does it say that a war must contain these elements to be officially a war..
Paul is a head case.
Pray for W and Our Troops
I have voted 100% Republican since Jerry Ford.
I pray for our troops' RESOUNDING SUCCESS and W's eternal soul.
Y'all are getting paid by AIPAC? When did that start? Or do us lowly Sidebar Mods only get RNC stipends?!?
Your super secret application form is in the mail.
Ron Paul has stated we are. Here's the link: September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 (Introduced in House). Scroll down to Section 2: Finding #6. This is a bill Ron Paul entered in Congress.
Does a war not exist if we don't recognize it? No, if someone, anyone, whether a nation or a group of individuals committed to the overthrow of our nation, declares war on the United States, it would be folly to presume we are not in a state of war.
We can disagree about the methods with which we conduct ourselves in that war, but to state we are NOT at war is ridiculous. Ergo, any argument that what we have done thus far is unconstitutional is specious because a war was declared against us and we ignore the threat at our peril.
Since when is concision opposed to reason and articulation?
It's quite simple: Ron Paul has hopped on the moonbat-patented "the war in Iraq is an illegal, unconstitutional, preemptive war of hegemony" bandwagon.
If you hop on the moonbat bandwagon, you are a moonbat.
LOL
The Constitution needs to be read and interpreted AS WRITTEN... the language is pretty simple. Particularly the Tenth Amendment. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” See how the words flow so freely... and so easy to understand... I do believe that THIS is exactly what the founders meant when they wrote it... But it appears that the clear wording of the Founders isn’t good enough for you, for some reason. Pity. You and Ellen.
US at Risk (newbie extraordinaire): Yes, the Iranians are acting logically and defensively from their standpoint (and this is key to understanding what Paul is saying.
From their standpoint? Then why does Paulie say "I see the Iranians acting logically and defensively..."
And anyone who can assign "logic" to someone like Ahmadinejad has got to be of the moonbat persuasion.
Free Jose Padilla!
Now that that's settled, explain to me how the Republican Party's platform supporting a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution is not a proper focus of the federal government.
Poor Iwo is a goldbug, he's been a moonbat from way back.
You support a candidate that acts as if the jihadist will just ‘stop’ if we only ‘make nice with them’.
Two points:
‘1. I never said that I supported Ron Paul’s presidency.’
You didn’t have to.
“2. Ron Paul never said to my knowledge that the jihadits would “stop” if we only “make nice with them.””
He says this is a direct result of our policies over the past decade in the Middle East. Ergo, we do as they desire (make nice) and they’ll stop.
bin Laden declared this week we need to rid ourselves of ‘democracy’ to end this war he has declared on us three or more times since the mid 1990’s.
You can’t have it both ways, nor can Ron Paul. And again, you cannot negotiate with religious fanatics, be they Islamic Fundementalists or snake handlers in eastern Kentucky.
Ron Paul wants to ‘withdraw’. Okay, then what? The terrorists are not going to stop. Whats next in Ron Paul’s grand strategy here?
I am embarrassed that you are still supporting cut and run Ron Paul.
Yea, I notice that Rep. Paul is the only one talking about how much land the federal gov’t controls or “owns.” Nothing infuriates me more than seeing outfits like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, or the Nature Conservancy, buy up a ranch that has been productive for generations and give it to the idiots, morons, mouth-breathers and congenital liars who staff the BLM, USFS, Park Service, etc. These bureaucrats don’t know a thing about managing land, as evidenced by how much of it burns to a crisp under their watchful eyes.
The reason why these ranches are sold is because no one in the ranching family had any idea how much the ranch was worth — until the old man died and then some real estate type comes in and makes an offer that is over the moon. Then suddenly, the IRS is there in a flash, demanding estate taxes, which the next generation simply cannot afford to pay.
I’ll give you an example: The rule of thumb here in Nevada is that it takes about a 300-cow outfit (minimum) to support a family. That’ll clear about $30K most years as a cow-calf operation.
I’ve seen 300-cow ranches that had no real estate speculator attention go for between $1 to $2 million. That’s about that they’re worth if you’re actually ranching.
As soon as the city slicker real estate types come in, a ranch like that which might have some history, or be in a particularly nice location for hunting, etc — it is worth $20 million in the blink of an eye. No one in ranching can afford to buy a $20 mil outfit to run 300 head. No one.
So to prevent it from being broken up, they sell it to one of these “conservation outfits” (who are always there with a check and a smile) and these communists turn around and hand the land over to the Feds, who then run it into the ground.
A conspiracy of thugs and morons, that what this is. I don’t agree with many of Rep. Paul’s other statements, but our vaunted “private enterprise is better than government” GOP doesn’t say a single word about this travesty happening all over the west.
What Ron Paul said was "Right now, nobody threatens our national security." This is a distinction without a difference.
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.