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!
It took 15 posts before a freeper acknowledged Ron Paul actually follows the constitution.
Except, of course, that Ron paul is an enemy of the US Constitution.
ClearCase_guy, why is it that the people who bray the loudest about defending the Constitution always adopt the arguments of the radical Anti-Federalists - the original sworn enemies of the US Constitution? Or the arguments of the Confederates - who attempted to destroy the Constitution?
In the case of Ron Paul it goes beyond even these two anti-Constitutional factions and extends to the arguments of Lysander Spooner - the crackpot who argued that US Constitution has no legal standing or authority.
Uh, huh. Kinda like "The end justifies the means".
Just politics! A LOT of people will be voting for Fred just because they like him in the movies, knowing nothing else. I hope nobody votes for Rudy, btw.
You forgot your courtesy ping for whenever you mention a fellow freeper. (ping Jim)
Also, to say that Paul follows the Constitution is laughable.. he talks a lot about the Constitution and he has a pretty decent domestic voting record, but it isn't anything to shout about, and it sure isn't more 'constitutional' than many other members..
***************
If you're going to talk about someone, you should ping them.
No he's not, he's straightforward, his supporters attempt to muddy the waters. He's crystal clear on the timeframe. This article reiterates the point that troop withdrawls will be worldwide, not confined to the middle east. And the withdrawl from the mideast will be immediate.
If you were president, how fast and how far would you withdraw from Iraq?
As quickly as possible and as far away as possible. I think the military people have to tell you how fast you can do it safely, but it wouldn't be one of these things [where I would] wait six months to start. I would do it immediately; I would certainly move the Navy away from the shores of Iran and from intimidating Iran and trying to provoke them and [to] spread the war . Of course, in the overall foreign policy, I'd like to bring the troops home from most other places around the world, too.
Get the troops back on American soil? That's what you propose?
That is correct.
Withdraw the Navy from the Persian Gulf?
Yes, definitely, because that [having U.S. ships there] is very provoking and that sends a signal that we're there for the oil, and a lot of people do admit that. We don't care about some of the problems in Africa like we care about the problems in the Middle East, and oil is one of the big factors.
Sorry to say you are wrong on both counts. Neither Afganistan or Iraq were pre-emptive and how do you declare war on a group that is not a nation and never signed the Geneva Convention? Regardless of whether Ron Paul follows the Constitution or not, he's still a lunatic nut-jub.
He has said that historically the US should not have worked with England to depose Mossadeq. I agree with him on this point. In the present day, he feels that there's a good enough balance of power in the ME to contain Iran. I think this is credible, too, especially if we leave Iraq in good shape.
Free Republic is still a conservative forum; what it isn't is a libertarian forum.
And Jim Robinson has the right to pronounce the tenets Free Republic embraces. You have the right to disassociate yourself with FR should you disagree with those tenets.
Constitutional conservatives have so little in common with freerepublic.
Already answered.
Hey, you don’t like it here, leave. No one’s begging you to hang around.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296404,00.html
PAUL: Because — no, I do not fear them as you do, as many do, because they want another war. They want to spread this war. This has been the plan by the neo conservatives to have this major overall — this revamping of the whole Middle East, precisely the reason the al Qaeda is growing. The al Qaeda is growing because of our policy. Our national security is threatened because of our policy. And it makes it much worse.
So I see the Iranians is acting logically and defensively. We've been fighting the Iranians since 1953. We overthrew their government through the CIA in 1953. We were allies with Saddam Hussein in the 1980's. And we encouraged him to invade...
bump
Here we go again!
****************
I don't get this guy.
LOL! Definite proof that GMTA!! Have a great day! Figure it’s bound to be a better day since we don’t have to listen to the idiot congress critters lecuring the General!! But, sad day too, with Tony’s last presser coming up! ;>)
LOL! Definite proof that GMTA!! Have a great day! Figure it’s bound to be a better day since we don’t have to listen to the idiot congress critters lecuring the General!! But, sad day too, with Tony’s last presser coming up! ;>)
LOL! Good one! And so true!!
That’s offensive.
Why would the balance of power in the middle east be of any concern to Ron Paul. There's no threat to the US there.
Iran, they're clearly no threat to anyone, in fact they're acting logically and rationally. Per your canidate.
And as you know, Pauls position is an immediate withdrawl no matter how many times you misstate it, not leaving when Iraq is "in good shape".
"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." "
Sounds like Paul doesn't want the USA to follow England's descent from 'the Sun never sets on the British Empire' to 'God save the Queen'. An increasing number of Americans will agree.
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.