 |
| No cardboard for you! |
[Man, that's cold.]
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.
Is there any way to have this idiot recalled?
How does the constitution stand on shrimp subsidies, trolley subsidies for Galveston, bus subsidies for Galveston and other paleoPaulie earmarks of note???
Shhhhhhhhh! Of course I do.
Signed,
Globalist Mod
;)
Where in the constitution does it tell us to waste money on shrimp?
Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong again.
Well aren't you slippery. Okay, so you never SAID you support him. But you certainly agree with him on his two most absurd positions: isolationism and goldbuggery. You also bear his ignorance of the Constitution.
Whether you have SAID you support him or not, it's pretty clear that you DO support him.
God's blessings on your dad for his service no matter how brief. He's a part of our country's heritage.
What we've forgotten here is the sacrifices of our ancestors who've made this Republic great and strong. When we begin arguing 'where' and 'when' our military seek to protect us, then we deserve to fail as a nation. God bless your father. God bless all those who served our country in whatever capacity. And God bless those who continue to believe in The USA as the strongest, and best hope this World has in democracy and freedom!
We all want our troops home. Just with honor and victory.
So, we should be like the liberals, and just pitch the Constitution??? Or worse yet, leave it to un-elected judges to "amend" it?? That's how we got INTO this mess in the first place. If you want such in the Constitution, pass an amendment adding it.
I happen to agree that the right to life SHOULD be protected--but the correct way to make that happen is to amend the Constitution to that affect.
McCrazy took Barry’s seat in 1986. Before that He took John Rhodes house seat. At that time I did not know he was crazy. I learned that after I got to know him.
Not me, that was a quote from the 2004 Republican Platform. All candidate Paul had to do was regurgitate it.
L.Ron Paul: We all want our troops home, NOW! [ELFEN FOOT STOMP]
Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo would not waste time looking for libertoonian crazies but would nominate SCOTUS justices in the mode of Scalia or Thomas or Roberts or Alito. When Roe is no more, then we go for federal personhood, hopefully in the same decision after about two more SCOTUS appointments.
On abortion as on war, paleoPaulie is a gutless two-faced do nothing wimp. He will never be acceptable as a GOP nominee for POTUS.
He is indeed right on this issue. He is right on the question of the appropriate federal role (none) in education, as well. On foreign policy he's whacked out.
I've never heard of an unalienable right to foreign policy. Regarding abortion, which right are we talking about, mom's or the baby's. There's a difference of opinion on that.
Two battles, the decision belongs to the states imo, and overturning Roe would be a plus, but there's a legitimate federal role to pursue under the Constitution.
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.