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 agree. But the way to get it there properly is via a Constitutional Amendment.
"I'm sure our framers never imagined that the right to life wouldn't be inherent and understood by all."
The Framers thought that MOST laws would be under the venue of the individual states, with a very few functions allowed to the FedGov, so they rightfully left it to be protected by the states. I doubt they could have imagined the degree to which the FedGov has usurped legitimate state functions.
Remember, before the Supreme Court "discovered" so-called "abortion rights" never seen before in the Constitution, MOST states prohibited abortion.
**************
Yes, quite right.
With fist raised, screaming, “Get out of Iraq now!”, Ron Paul should do very well in Washington State.........
And the Republican Party foreign policy bears no relation to the Constitution. FWIW, Ron Paul introduced a Declaration of War bill against IRAQ in Congress and his Republican cohorts wouldn't support it. According to the War Powers Act, the President can send troops into combat for up to 60 days without a declaration of war--how long have we been in Iraq?
“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.””
Good idea, for instance the feds own 90% of Nevada, all desert sitting there rotting. But I have to ask, why keep the parks ‘public’?
I absolutely agree with you. His record on earmarks for his district isn't perfect, and I don't agree with his voting for them, BUT:
1. His record on voting with Jeff Flake against earmarks in general is superb.
2. His record on voting to cut spending on non-Constitutional projects in general is superb.
3. Please point out a candidate running for President that has a better record on voting to cut spending, returning responsibilities to the states, and reducing the size and power of the federal bureaucracy. Until then, I'll support Paul.
Care to point out examples of where his voting record is non-Constitutionalist? By comparison, what candidate running has better record of voting a strict constructionist view?
So you would rather have a President whose positions are dictated by the polls or by what Congress will pass, rather than positions based on principles? For me, I respect a President with principles and who leads based on those principles. Obviously a growing number of Americans agree with his principles and his view on reducing the power and cost of government--now if we could just get the rest of the Republican Party to vote for the principles they claim to support rather than campaigning on promises and voting for the lobbyists.
Thanks for the info about Nevada. We see eye on this.
Do you intend to mention to you co-worker that Congressman Paul votes against all earmarks, and his don't get funded?
Thompson was fiercely protective when it came to his own earmarks. His congressional website boasts of the federal dollars he was able to "snag" for his Tennessee constituents, including $25 billion in highway funds; $70 million for the Tennessee Valley Authority; $2 million for the Tennessee River; and $23 million for the Spallation Neutron Source project. Thompson felt so strongly about preserving funding for the Tennessee Valley Authority, he fought to exempt funds for the TVA from the balanced budget constitutional amendment in 1995, carving out a new category of "constitutional pork." And though Thompson supported and voted for the presidential line-item veto, he fought vehemently to undo President Clinton's veto of two Tennessee projects.I patiently anticipate your forthcoming post declaring that you are withdrawing all support for Thompson based on his earmark hypocrisy.
What's yours?
It has long been the claim of the communists that we somehow interrupted "progress in a hurry" by deposing Mossadagh. It comes as no surprise that the paleopeacecreeps are weeping over Mossadagh nearly sixty years after we helped Reza Pahlevi to resist him. What else to expect from the Blame America First, Last and Always crowd including the George McGovern feather of the "GOP?"
The policy of "containment" prolonged the soviet union's miserable existence for about thirty years until Ronaldus Maximus broke them. Now you would prefer containment to extinguishing Islamofascist power??? Thanks, but no thanks.
Well, that's just not going to happen. The Republican party is convinced that this is still 2002, and that all they have to do is thump their chests to win. Three quarters of the country no longer agrees with them on Iraq, but the Republicans somehow just haven't figured that out yet. People are going to see them completely dismissing the only candidate in their midst who thinks even remotely like they do on the subject, and the result of that is entirely predictable. They're going to get absolutely destroyed in '08.
MNehrling, Allegra, Petronski: If any of you can provide the paleoPaulie letters demanding earmarks and/or the references or know who can, please do so. I don't even know how to print quotations from other posts, italicize, bold or do just about anything but type, revise and post. Your help is appreciated.
Shouldn’t you change your screen name to Extremely Marxist Marxist?? You are a bit too obvious.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Perhaps Ron Paul would be willing to change places with them to get them home...that might be a deal worth considering.
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.