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.
See post #277.
GROAN!!
ROFL
And anybody who doesn't try to understand the reasoning of an opponent is a fool (and is probably really really bad at chess). Assuming that your opponent is just crazy is a grave mistake.
The individual members of Congress certainly have that right - but you are pulling a bait-and-switch from the people's powers (embodied in Congress) and the people's rights (retained by them individually).
I read it.
It doesn't change my observation any.
Why not argue that the President is representative of "the People" since he is their elected enforcer?
Maybe by the time we are done we can define individual American citizens right out of "the people."
I engaged in a detailed discussion of Paul's proposal to monetize federal lands, and you completely ignored it.
So if anyone on FR is guilty of not discussing Ron Paul's various policy views, you are.
They can have him back.
And anybody who just comes snotbagging out of nowhere onto a thread to sling an insult is a jerk who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Assuming that your opponent is just crazy is a grave mistake.
Ooooohhhh...grave?? What's going to happen? You gonna come cover my place in tinfoil? Recite Star Trek episodes in their entirety at me incessantly?
I'm s-s-skeered.
Just having some fun out of all this. Sorry for being silly.
Anyway, I've fond memories of Texas barbecues, but a shrimp boil? No way!
Gee I don’t know, maybe worry about securing this country, and worry about them when they have the ability to strike with more than an AK 47 and a scud missile. Then they can get back to doing what they do best, killing each other.
because your observation is based on clouding the distinction between powers and rights.
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.
You missed my point. I was proposing what I, personally, see as a reasonable way of extricating ourselves from Iraq. And I am not Ron Paul. I will not tolerate a miserable VN-style cut'n'run.
I'm not sure how that makes the counter-protest any less crazy, but, um, okaaaayyy...
Ok, lets talk about powers then.
Do "the people" have any powers that Congress doesn't have?
On another thread yesterday, some newb was compiling lists of “known RP supporters” as a Nixon-style enemies list. As far as I know, quite a number of them were not RP supporters. They were like Iwo, interested in a few RP positions, certainly not regulars on RP threads, etc. I don’t like seeing old time FReepers or just people who stray through a thread to get hit in the crossfire.
(chuckle)
Yesterday, some clown put up a post naming ME as a GUILIANI supporter based on ‘their research in the FR database’....OTFLMAO!
I’ve had posters at this site, and kook central (liberty post) claim repeatedly I’m a paid shill for the administration....that I’m a paid shill for Hillary Clinton....that I’m a paid shill for Jim Robinson and Free Republic (kook central, the old Clown Posse site)....on and on and on, for eight years now.
I guess my point to you is ‘take the long view’, and don’t spend much time worrying about what relatively anonymous screen names think, or say, about your relatively anonymous screen name.
“Its only the internet...its only the internet’ sometimes helps....(chuckle)
Anyway, just don’t want to see ya going away, despite the political differences. That doesn’t help this site.
btw, according to Clown Posse and Liberty Post, you owe me quite a bit of cash....(chuckle)
Nevah apologize for being silly! I live for and admire silliness!
Anyway, I've fond memories of Texas barbecues...
Oh, I do miss my Texas barbecues and my friends and I always have at least one whenever I go home. Nothing in the world like a good ol' Texas barbecue.
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.