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 LOVE the FR is run by ___________ conspiracies. Paul’s supporters seem to love them. After all, how could any rational person not support the Fearless Leader.
Why? Because we won’t convert to Islam.
Please forward that observation to the Administration because they aren't fighting this war on that level. They keep blathering on about them "hating our freedoms" or whatever.
Iwo, I appreciate your brave remarks but I know you’re not on our Ron Paul pinglist. Don’t be walking any planks for our sake or for Ron Paul’s. It’s very much a lost cause here, mostly a matter of whether they’ll stage a Saturday Night Massacre like with the Juliebots or whether they’ll wait for the first Saturday Night of the next fundraiser to pull the plug on the RP supporters. Seems to stimulate contributions when the sheriff hangs those rustlers. LOL.
Anyway, every RP thread here at FR is now an all-out attack thread. So I’ve been considering that there’s no useful purpose to continue posting threads here. The thread disruptors have made these threads so radioactive that no one will even read them except trolls or Paul supporters. A few exceptions, like you, are encouraging but won’t change things much.
I know! I know! {waving hand frantically in the air...}
A big ol' SHRIMP BOIL party!
‘Please forward that observation to the Administration because they aren’t fighting this war on that level. They keep blathering on about them “hating our freedoms” or whatever.’
Sigh....
I know...I know.
..and what is the Congress? A Representative voice of the people.. it loops right back on Article 1- All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States...
Aw, now come on GWB. Its no worse than any other campaign discussed and argued over in political forums over the past four election cycles.
In a few months, the primaries will be ‘for real’. After the first two, that will be the end of Ron Paul’s run for the GOP nomination, he’ll become the LP candidate, and that will be that. I think he’ll draw more votes from the left side of the political spectrum than the right, which works for me, as you know.
You know the old saying. The worst thing is being talked about. The second worst thing is NOT being talked about.
RP is getting the benefit of the second part, thats all. In the biggest political forum on the web. At least people are paying attention to what he mutters.....(chuckle)
Yes, Republicans are two faced, the worst are on FR.
It could have nothing to do with
1--His foreign policy proposals bear no relation to Republican Party positions, are much closer to the far, far left of the Democrat Party.
2--In this splendid Congressional career, he appears to have accomplished nothing. Other than polishing his reputation as a curmudgeon. If his district likes him, great, but an inability to accomplish one's objectives is not a recomendation for a position of leadership.
ROTFL! That was cold...but appropriate.
Aw, jeez! I attended one of those up in Door County, WI years ago (well, a fish boil, anyway). It was terrible.
If RP's intention is to replace a good ol' Texas Barbeque with a Shrimp Boil, forget it. It'll never fly. Anyway, why he gets the shrimp industry em'broiled' in 'pork'barrel spending is beyond me :)
This is the school of strict construction advocated by the original enemies of the US Constitution - the Anti-Federalists.
You may declare this personal opinion as if it were a fact all the livelong day, but the fact remains that the original interpreters of the US Constitution - the authors of The Federalist - argued that the Constitution is to be interpreted by the Framers' intent and not by some reductionist scheme.
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.”
The question is, of course, which powers are not delegated to the United States? The Constitution, of course, delegates to the United States the power to make and execute all laws necessary and proper for the carrying out of its Constitutional responsibilities to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.
But it appears that the clear wording of the Founders isn’t good enough for you, for some reason.
Oh it's quite sufficient. It's your falsified twisting of their words I object to, and your arbitrary insistence that the Constitution be interpreted according to the standards of its opponents rather than its advocates.
Pity. You and Ellen.
Apparently you are a reductionist when it comes to behaving like an adult as well.
‘2—In this splendid Congressional career, he appears to have accomplished nothing. Other than polishing his reputation as a curmudgeon. If his district likes him, great, but an inability to accomplish one’s objectives is not a recomendation for a position of leadership.’
About twice a week I read a post, or a part of a post, and think ‘Damn, wish I wrote that one.’
The above is a great example of this. Well done.
We aren’t arguing about the 75% we agree with Paul on, we are arguing about the 25% of things we disagree with him, that many of us think are the most vital issues of the next election.
An excellent observation, since the US Congress definitionally is the representative body of the people of the whole United States and not of the individual states.
I do believe this is the first time I've heard the argument made that when the Constitution says "the people" it really means the Congress.
Does that mean the proper reading of the Second Amendment should be that Congress has the right to keep and bear arms?
No can do. Gotta be a Third-Degree Mason to make the jump to Admin Mod.
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.