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.
**************
LOL!
Perhaps they would pop their heads out of the internet and tell us. No Conservative is this passionate about anybody. Sorry, doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Same people who crossed the lines to vote for InSane in 2000. Remember how well he did in the crossover states? Guess which candidate they are on now?? Guess which states Ron Pat Paulson will do well in? Why not use the internet and especially FR??
Pray for W and Our Troops
"Already there's a large number, it's not the majority of them, of the members serving in the Parliament, Sunni's and Shiites, that are talking to each other! And they're getting ready to vote to ask us to leave. The Arab League could fill the vacuum; and they offered some peace treaties with Israel that are very attractive; by recognizing Israel. All kinds of good things can happen."
I think this is a credible assessment that shows that he is thinking about post-withdrawal stability.
If Dr. Demento could rake in $100,000 in Dallas, imagine how much he would rake in at fundraisers in Berserkeley or Hollywood! Not that it would help hime one bit in this delusional attempt at the GOP POTUS nod.
My dad worked in a cardboard factory. He was in the Navy in WWII (briefly because he had a permanent skull fracture discovered at Newport, RI) having volunteered on 12/8/41. I know he would not want cardboard used for Paul. He often made me look dovish.
If Dr. Demento could rake in $100,000 in Dallas, imagine how much he would rake in at fundraisers in Berserkeley or Hollywood! Not that it would help hime one bit in this delusional attempt at the GOP POTUS nod.
We love BBQ, but the gas grill out back is so much closer!
Yes, it is out in the boonies. But since we were going there for business purposes we had transportation available.
This was MANY years ago. I've been out of the business since 1993 and it was a number of years before that.
One of my fondest memories of Lakeway was being the first on the first tee and whiffing the ball. The VP of Manufacturing (and my boss) was one of the group behind me and stated "Tough course, Jim"?. A funny moment.
And you can bet I've use that remark whenever I can! God bless him and all I worked with!!
Uh, look back at my post and see what I said about a Constitutional amendment banning abortion. I don't see how you can construe from that statement that I think the Republican Party position is unConstitutional. And if Ron Paul opposes such an amendment, then he should properly be excoriated.
If you will recall, the position BEFORE the Supreme Court decision allowing abortions under "privacy rights", regulation of abortion WAS considered a state matter. I'm ignoring nothing.
Just because one doesn't assign 'logic' to a fool like Ahmadinejad doesn't mean one misinterprets that fool's intent.
Your entire reply:
Achmedinejad has his goals and he has his reasoning for carrying out those goals just like Stalin had his goals and he had his reasoning for carrying out those goals. I wouldn't call Stalin a fool. He was just a very very evil man. His maneuvering more than anything else made the Soviet Union a temporary superpower. Dismissing him as a fool who doesn't follow logic was the mistake of many of his enemies that were crushed ruthlessly. For the same reason, I would not dismiss Achmedinejad as a fool. And I would not only focus on what we think is his intent. Before you know it he may perform a play-fake on us while we are unaware.
Wherein do I imply we don't take Achmedinejad or any of these 'fools' seriously? Wherein do I imply we dismiss them. In fact, I specifically stated "doesn't mean one misinterprets that fool's intent". We full well understand the implications stemming from Iran and elsewhere. Because we call him a fool doesn't mean we dismiss him. It's Ron Paul who doesn't either understand or accept them based on his statement that we don't face a current threat. It's Ron Paul who dismisses him. Look to Ron Paul for clarification; not me.
A hell of a thing to say about Paulsen...
I say again, name names or STFU about it and quit your cowardly whining. You impugn everyone when you make blanket observations. Very cowardly.
You won't find it in the Constitution, though. In that document, which delineates the powers that Fedgov might exercise, quite a few life-and-death powers were reserved the the states.
I want him in Iran where he belongs. Permanently.
Herod Blackmun is that you????
You: "Perhaps they would pop their heads out of the internet and tell us. No Conservative is this passionate about anybody. Sorry, doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Thought so. You don't know and neither do I.
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.