I'm good with it, lad!
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.
My only question, do we stay in Puerto Rico, FALN terrorists motivated by the occupation being a fact. There's hope for the Aztlan movement as well.
We have been living under the modern equivalent of the Dred Scott Decision for 30+ years. Your assessment is conveniently ignoring that fact.
I'm not a candidate, but when he speaks, I'm usually smirking too.
Why not, imagine what can be accomplished with a few militia groups who take action based on letters of Marquis. We can be a country of Mercenaries and Pirates. The Jack Sparrow division.
Man50D: The Socialists say the same thing.
So does the NIE.
The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
I wonder why we keep focusing on the 'Shrimp' earmarks, when in that list of earmarks, there is one that is far more disturbing, the creation of a Federal Child Tracking Database. (ala Digital Angel.)
This hits against what people claim Paul stands for on several fronts.
I'm with you on this one, and I am interested in hearing RP's plans for transitioning from an aggressive FP to a non-interventionist one. My own position is that Iraq must be secure from al Qaeda before we leave, with OBL dead or in custody. I think that it's possible for Iraq to resolve its internal differences, secure its borders, and resist Iranian intervention with al Q gone as to do so would be in their own self-interest.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that the question has even been asked. Upholders of the party line seize on certain remarks by RP that are intended to provide a historical context for our troubles in the ME and blow them way out of proportion without waiting to hear and evaluate conclusions. That's OK, it's going to be a long election season.
That's exactly where the majority of the American public stands on the subject, and the other GOP candidates ignore this at their peril. Ron Paul isn't going to win the nomination based on this belief, but the eventual Republican nominee might well lose the general election over it.
hehehe...
Explain the unconstitutionality of the Republican Party position. Failing in that, explain why Paul should be considered a pro-life champion if he doesn't support it.
Human Life Amendment to the ConstitutionWe must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it.
We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion.
We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services, and we commend Congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption.
Someone help me out. When did Ron Paul become a Republican?
When I lived in Texas, he was a Libertarian.
I'm good with it, lad!
I say, throw the bum out!
The long term is debatable, I think.
What a coincidence! I want Ron Paul to go home too!! ;.)
Each with our own eye-patch. We'd better start practicing our "AAAaaaaarrrrghhhhh"'s.
He does? Well, I want RuPaul to go home.
Among the young, being “Republican” and “Conservative” are no longer things to be ashamed of.
Think of all of the young people in this country learning about personal and economic freedoms thanks to Dr. Paul. Millions of our youth are waking up to the lies propagated by the DNC and their leftist teachers.
Thank you, Dr. Paul!
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.