Posted on 07/31/2007 12:51:59 PM PDT by traviskicks
Bob Novak stopped by the Heritage Foundation today for a lunchtime discussion with conservative bloggers about his new professional autobiography, The Prince of Darkness. While he lamented the practice of reporters acting as opinion drivers and news analysts, Novak wasn't shy about offering a few opinions of his own. When asked to rate the current field of Republican presidential candidates, Novak didn't have any kind words for the current top-tier field of Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and John McCain.
(Excerpt) Read more at video1.washingtontimes.com ...
And merely mentioning that the US has troops in 130 foreign countries draws cries of “America hater.”
I’ve defended Paul for his small government conservatism, and will continue to do so. But not “getting” the need for robust offense against the islamo-scum is a non starter for me. Each candidate has a few achilles heels and as you know, I ain’t a Fred supporter.
Ron Paul would defend American interests that are directly threatened. Kucinich and McKinney advocate a form of pacifism designed to buy them a few more years in office regardless of what happens to America's interests long-term.
Paul simply represents George Washington's view - choose your battles with great care.
Please post specifcs on their foreign policies.
And, how is having US troops in 130 different countries “conservative?”
You don’t understand Novak very well. He is an ardent free trader, unlike Pat, and loves NAFTA.
How can someone be for “small government” and policing the world at the same time? That would be a trick fit for Houdini.
Maybe they are pointing out our Duncan friends too, since they are not supporting the only “true conservative” anti-socilaist candidate
Cool, we are like and team and stuff!...
Meanwhile, back on Earth...
The Executive does not have the unilateral authority to do this.
Removing the U.N. headquarters out of New York City and revoking all of its governmental privileges.
Neither the President nor the Senate can do the first: The UN's headquarters in NYC is private land owned by the UN.
Only the Senate can do the latter.
Ending U.S. financial support for U.N. operational and “peacekeeping” missions.
The President has more discretion here, but he could not unilaterally zero these activities out.
I’m sure, in his budget, there would be no room for funding the UN.
His budget would be heavily, heavily, heavily amended or it would never pass the House.
Your definition of conservative is probably not the same as mine. I view Paul’s stance on the war and foregin policy as arguably conservative in the classical sense— a hands-off sense— much the same as the conservative position on the business and the economy is “hands-off.”
I disagree with Paul to a certain extent on the war, (and I don’t think there is a perfect position to occupy here) mainly because I see that the great tide of history, and our interference, has dragged us into much of the conflict we find ourselves in, and it is somewhat naive to think that every president and every congress will have the ability to withstand the pressure to intervene in various enterprises throughout the years ahead.
But I DO understand where he is coming from and in fact believe there is some truth in it. Personally, I would prefer a United States that was much stricter about extending it’s affairs abroad. Do I think this is actually practical— No.
But, Paul is definitely the most classically conservative man in Congress, in my opinion.
You call it policing the world. I call it vital national security, the MOST important job of the federal gov’t.
Well....that doesn’t answer the question.
But I could be wrong...
Maybe the WTC just had a “defect”...
Primarily for the same reason that shrinking government is impractical - too much of the economy is tied to the continued growth of foreign policy adventures.
BTW, if the last six years have illustrated anything it has shown the impossibility of marrying “small government” to world policing.
Excuse me, I left off the DAMN and the end...
Well, if I reject your characterization of what we are doing, then I guess it wouldn’t. LOL
If the last 25 years have demonstrating ANYTHING, is that not killing off the terrorists and their enablers was a mistake of epic proportions.
And completely out of agreement on the big picture - i.e. America's role in relation to and interaction with the other nations of the world. Kucinich and Bush both favor ceding U.S. interests at times for the greater good of the "world community," believe that the United Nations serves a useful purpose, and believe in the role of international "peacekeeping" forces to keep order (though they sometimes disagree on the locations. Paul does not.
And the people say AMEN!
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.