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.
Thanks Petronski...
Sorry, there is no rule on stating a theory, especially if it makes sense. I will say whatever I please. This isn’t DU yet. Quit your whining.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Sorry, there is no rule on stating a theory, especially if it makes sense. I will say whatever I please. This isn’t DU yet. Quit your whining.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Well, you would be the second one I suspect. How is the DNC, anyway??
Pray for W and Our Troops
But since all other rights rely on the right to life, I believe it should be. I'm sure our framers never imagined that the right to life wouldn't be inherent and understood by all.
I never claimed that, I was always aware of those votes by Dr. Paul.
and yet are now admitting that he supported federal legislation on abortion.
More words in my mouth. Immerse yourself in federalism sometime. Paul's abortion stance is the same as all of the other candidates besides Rudy.
You are, indeed, your screenname.
Yes.
LOL Okay. I'll leave you to your delusions.
Citation for what specifically? That the constitution doesn't contain earmarks, or that Ronnie asked for earmarks?
Brush up on your history skills in addition to your English and grammar skills. Abortion was regulated by the states prior to Roe vs Wade. Overturning Roe vs Wade would send the decision back to the states so it can be duked out locally instead of federally.
Not that Paul has the slightest chance of nomination by any real political party, but he would nominate what to the SCOTUS??? Libertoonian moonbats??? People who spend their waking hours in pseudo-"constitutionalist" contortions???
Well, it's moot anyway since Paul ain't going to win, right? Hypothetically if he were elected, Paul would nominate constitutionalists to the bench.
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.
So would Dr. Paul. Good grief, have you even looked at Paul's positions outside of his foreign policy? He runs rings around the other GOP candidates.
When Roe is no more, then we go for federal personhood, hopefully in the same decision after about two more SCOTUS appointments.
You overturn Roe FIRST then you go for the Constitutional Amendment. Do you know how long it will take to pass a Constitutional Amendment? Do you think CA or NY or IL will ratify it? Send the decision back to the states and you'll save more babies in the interim than farting around trying to amend the Constitution as more babies die on the vine. Use your head.
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.
You are completely smoking crack if you believe Dr. Paul is pro-abortion. The man delivered over 4,000 babies. Well, I guess they were those toy babies that single first-time mothers use then.
Please copy and paste where I ever said "and that means Ronnie is pro-abortion".
Irrelevant what Kerry said.
If it is so irrelevant, then why are you wasting so much time going on about it?
You’re a coward.
Problem is there are many European and Asian countries who also view past U.S. foriegn policy negatively and they are not engaged in a global domination schemes or trying to destroy the United States as a result of our poor policies of the past. Your argument (or rather Paul’s) is a red herring at best; at worse it’s sedition. There is zero justification for the actions of these Islamo-facists who are bent on total world domination and Ru Paul’s approach on geopolitical issues would destroy democracy on Earth were he elected.
************
Exactly. Look at Japan. We nuked it and have kept bases there since the war. No more attacks, and a fairly good relationship now.
Agreed. See tagline.
Once again, you fail to grasp the obvious. They hate us already, and no matter what we do that fact ain’t gonna change. Best to clear out the riff-raff and other threats to our well-being, and convince the rest of the world it’s in their best interests to play ball—or they’ll get the bat shoved up their ***es.
Germany too.
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.