Replies

I think it also means that if we are going to hold our collective noses, we have to decide if there is an advantage to electing a candidate whos domestic policies are sane, even if their foreign policies are less than desired. That’s the way I’m leaning anyway.

Think about it this way. All the issues people agree with Paul on, are Constitutionally Congress' role, not the Executive. The Executive's primary role is CIC of the Armed Forces and foreign policy. If you had to give a little (which we will have to do no matter what) do you give on something that is the primary duty or something that is a secondary duty? I frankly don't like any of the prospects, but because of the primary role of the President, I support Paul the least.

It's like choosing a doctor if you had to have heart surgery. Do you choose a doctor who you love his bedside manner and has great skill in cosmetic surgery, but not so much skill in heart medicine? Or would you rather have a doctor who can't do jack on cosmetic surgery and has crappy bedside manner, but is well versed in heart surgery?

Remember when weighing everyone to first take into account the Constitutional Role of the President.

I am really surprised all the people who support Paul for President, even though they disagree with him on foreign policy and the war. Those are the main duties of the President. If you like his attitude on spending, taxes, etc, then leave him in Congress- whose duty it is to originate all spending and tax bills.

The question is then: Can or should a president have an substantial reality-based direct effect on foreign policy, and if not, why not RP, then?

For me, domestic policy reigns king, as that is where me and my family live.

“the primary role of the President”

It’s all about leadership. Right now no one is “leading” conservatives, or expounding conservative principles.

I am really surprised all the people who support Paul for President, even though they disagree with him on foreign policy and the war. Those are the main duties of the President.>

It's about individual priorities. It seems that people who consider foreign affairs a bigger issue to them don't care for Paul. People who care moreso about domestic issues like him. Neither is right or wrong, per se.

You can only vote for 1 congressman and 2 senators. Unfortunately you need 61 senators and 300+ congressman that are all staunchly small government to get something done that are AGAINST what the big government president wants. That's why having a small government president will help as there would be enough votes to at least sustain not increasing the size and scope of the government and in some cases reduce it. I don't agree with Paul on foreign policy all that much but I don't agree with nation building either, especially not with the US military. Go in, kick ass, destroy their infrastructure, put their leaders on trial and execute them for crimes and bring the boys back home. 1 trillion dollars and some decade + later for a war that was suppose to cost $50 billion and last little time has been nothing but a diaster. Thank God Patreaus and the surge at least salvaged it.

Most people like me would have been happy having Hunter or Tancredo in office, or even Thompson. But all we have left are big government Republicans. That means I can't really vote for them with good conscious for President. I actually believe if Hillary were elected we'd have less liberal crap pass than if we had McCain elected as we'd have gridlock on capital hill.

All the issues people agree with Paul on, are Constitutionally Congress' role, not the Executive. The Executive's primary role is CIC of the Armed Forces and foreign policy.

Actually, the president's role is to "preside," and this includes all matters, foreign and domestic. It is the Executive branch, to execute the laws. Funny, isn't it, that the Bush Administration has chosen not to enforce the laws it has sworn to uphold (e.g., border fence construction).

Foreign policy resides in the Congress, too...and declaration of war is in the hands of the Congress. Note how President Jefferson notified (in his First Annual Message to Congress, on December 8, 1801*) the Legislative Branch of hostile action against our ships by the Barbary Pirates--pointing out that ships had defended themselves, but couldn't take offensive action without Congressional approval. Recall that the Enterprise released the disarmed pirate vessel and crew.*

Here's the snippet:

From p. 327 of A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents by James Daniel Richardson, ed., 1897

Of course, the big-government socialist types like to claim that the ~~Empero~~ President has unilateral power to attack, but even the SCOTUS decisions allowing limited Congressional declarations don't mean the POTUS is the instrument of foreign policy.

* Of course, there's the infamous sarcastic reply published in the New York Evening Post, mocking republican ideals.

"Our foreign policy should be 'defending this country.'" --Dr. Ron Paul

Think about it this way. All the issues people agree with Paul on, are Constitutionally Congress' role, not the Executive. The Executive's primary role is CIC of the Armed Forces and foreign policy. If you had to give a little (which we will have to do no matter what) do you give on something that is the primary duty or something that is a secondary duty? I frankly don't like any of the prospects, but because of the primary role of the President, I support Paul the least.

Then you should have no trouble pulling the lever for McCain because according to what you said above the things FReepers don't like about McCain aren't in what would be his main area of operation: foreign policy.

Hillary shouldn't be as repugnant to you either since she is also a hawk on Iraq and Iran.

Good luck with that.

Remember when weighing everyone to first take into account the Constitutional Role of the President.

You missed a few:

The veto, so that it would take more votes to continue the growth in government.

The appointment of judges, and Paul strikes me as the only candidate capable of correctly identifying something which is NOT interstate commerce. It's a rare and valuable skill, which I want to see in someone who is appointing judges.

There is also the somewhat extra-Constitutional matter of executive orders. "Stroke of a pen, law of the land..." and all that. It would be "pretty cool" to have someone weilding that pen who questions federal authority.

am really surprised all the people who support Paul for President, even though they disagree with him on foreign policy and the war. Those are the main duties of the President. If you like his attitude on spending, taxes, etc, then leave him in Congress- whose duty it is to originate all spending and tax bills.

Abstractly, you are correct. But remember, "Stroke of the pen, law of the land." The truth is that Executive Orders and administration of federal agencies whose beaurocratic regulations are also the law of the land are far more effective ways of inducing rapid change than Congress, as Clintoon realized. BATFE could be abolished or severely reduced via Executive Order, as could many other federal agencies. The president has tremendous authority over the administration of his staff, the intended purpose of the Executive Order, and this could effect many positive changes. Just rescinding all of Clinton's EO's would be a tremendous victory for conservatism.