Ron Paul: Real Conservatives Don't Start Wars, They End Them

The following piece was produced by HuffPost's OffTheBus.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) recently gained fame for breaking one-day online donation records, but he's still considered an underdog by many because of his single-digit polling and arguably radical views on a variety of issues. For one thing, he supports an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, a position that seems more at home with the Democrats these days. So why is he up there, debate after debate, standing out from the likes of Huckabee and Romney and McCain? Why isn't he trying to fit in if he wants to win the primary? Is he even a Republican?

He told me he is--just not the same kind as the rest of them.

"I think their definitions are different," he said. "Today, the Party has been taken over by a group called neoconservatives, and I don't believe they're really conservative. I think they're really liberal in the modern sense of the word--they're big spenders, they believe in entitlements, they believe in military adventurism."

Paul certainly doesn't believe in "military adventurism." He articulated an anti-preemption stance, geared toward avoiding another inextricable, Iraq-like conflict in the future. And unlike some politicians, he usually acts in accordance with his stated philosophy. For example, he was one of only six Republicans in the House to vote against the Iraq War Resolution.

"The traditional conservative--which the Republicans used to be--did not advocate aggressive war, usually got our country out of the wars such as after Korea and Vietnam..." he said. "We've done exactly the opposite. And because I'm a strict constitutionalist, this has separated me from the other candidates."

Some have called Ron Paul an isolationist, in part because of his views on foreign aid and the use of military force. He strongly disagreed with the association.

"I'm the last thing from an isolationist," he said. "An isolationist is a protectionist--they want to build walls around their country. They may want to bring troops home, but they also want to close the door for trade and travel and the spreading of ideas, and that's quite different. The Founders, I think, had it right when they said, 'Trade with people, be friends with people, but don't get involved in their internal affairs and don't get involved in entangling alliances,' and you'd be a lot less likely to fight people that you're trading with than if you have protectionist measures and sanctions on countries [like] we do today."

He added: "The same individuals who claim I might be an isolationist are the ones who are putting sanctions on countries like Iran and Iraq and Sudan, and yet the trade might stop us from fighting. I, for instance, think we should be trading with Castro, rather than putting sanctions on Castro, because it didn't do any good--after 40 or 50 years, it hasn't helped us a bit."

Finally, Paul believes that the United States should not be entirely dependent on other nations for its energy.

"I think the most important thing is to let the market set the price of energy and get out of the way of alternative energy," he said. "We've been interfering with the development of nuclear energy for 30 or 40 years. We don't develop any new nuclear power plants, but then at the same time we take money and we subsidize alternative fuels such as ethanol, which nobody's ever proven is an economically feasible alternative. So the most important thing is to recognize that the government bureaucrats and politicians have no idea what is the best alternative fuel, but if the market pushes the price of oil up, then people are going to say, 'Hey, they're running out of oil! And oil is now $200 a barrel, we better do something,' and the market's going to come up with the best alternative."

These goals may seem ambitious, but Paul is conservative about what he could accomplish unilaterally, stressing that he would need to rely on congressional support that a mandate, in the form of his successful election to the presidency, would grant him.

"You could [unilaterally] change the foreign policy and bring troops home and save a lot of money. And you could start repealing executive orders that have been so onerous. And you could refuse to enforce laws that are put on the books through regulations and by court orders or executive orders. So you could be discreet in what you enforce, but to really, really have the big changes, yes, you have to work and develop a consensus on what you're trying to do."

Comments

[dmc4rp]

Only hope for America and the rest of the world:

www.aLoveLetterToAmerica.com

[newamericanrobot]

i like ron paul. it's a pity, that the best man for the job has the worst chance to get it.

[blackwell98]

http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/editors-note-the-ron-paul-vid-lash/

The New York Times posted a retraction in "The Medium" of a post made last monday that stated that Ron Paul received money from Stormfront and
"including the allegation that Paul meets regularly “with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others” at a restaurant in Arlington, Va. Paul never attended these dinners"

[Dangoodbar]

Repugs are looking for redemption in an honest man. That is after Bush some Repugs think supporting Ron Paul restores their integrity.

But Repug integrety cannot be restored until Repugs admit the real reason they are Repugs. And we all know it is not god, guns, gays, abortion, taxes, or terrorism.

One issue puts Paul on the map, HE OPPOSES THE IRAQ WAR. Paul would end the Iraq War faster then any Democrat. Which brings up another point about Paul, everyone supporting Paul cannot honestly support any other Repug candidate.

Repugs who supports Paul admits the Iraq war was a huge mistake. Admitting the Iraq war was a huge mistake means that terrorism and security are reasons to be Democrats and reasons to oppose other Repugs.

But we all knew that in 2004. To quote the conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan "every conservative with any integrity voted for John Kerry in 2004."

Rudy G. put Paul on the map by challenging Paul on Iraq. Paul's response proved Rudy to be almost as unfit to be president as George Bush.

Paul is an honest man with serious convictions which makes him unlike other Repugs seeking the nomination. However, well Paul may disagree with Repugs on all other issues there is still one he and Repugs are in lock step.

Rudy is very popular in the South in spite of the fact that he is pro abortion rights, gay rights,gun control and makes Bill Clinton look like the model husband.

But Rudy more so then any other Repug running for president has in his actions solid credentials. Rudy's actions have proven Rudy an unapologetic racist.

In words if not in actions there is one Repug that is even more a racist then Rudy. I mean even Rudy does not regret that the Civil War was fought.

All theory aside, you cannot regret the Civil War being fought without being a RACIST.

And you cannot be both a racist and a modern Democrat.

So Ron Paul is not redemption. Paul merely allows Repugs to be against the Iraq War and still be racists.

[thedirtman]

A Ron Paul supporter is a Bill Richardson supporter with blinders.

The UN successfully leads a dialog that has prevented all major wars in the past sixty years. Sickness still devastates entire families. Greenhouse gases are not simply overblown, but will have a serious negative impact on the planet.

Leadership is yet important, but seeing is still imperative.

[mamacat]

I think that at least some of what Rep. Paul is saying makes a lot of sense.
I can't help wondering, if Rep. Paul had been president the last 7 years instead of Doofus, would things be better or worse than they are now? I think they would probably be better. I sure respect him more than any of the other Republican candidates.
Having read his quotes on dailykos regarding his 1992 remarks concerning his opinion of black men, I am worried, but would like to read something a little more recent. I hope he has changed his views regarding race.

[Qbear]

Ron Paul marched with George Wallace...­figurative­ly speaking

then he held the firehoses in Selma...fi­guratively speaking

[LeoMarvin]

Before you consider supporting Ron Paul, ask yourself why he's so popular with groups like the white supremacists at Stormfront.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=446202&highlight=Ron+Paul

[Talcott]

The Audacity of Nope

However alluring many voters may find Uncle Sam's
embrace, those who have watched the federal government fail at everything from nation building to mail delivery have a different vision.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7551.html

[Talcott]

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12102

Ron Paul vs. the Dirty Tricksters

Paul-haters on the Right and the Left unite in a common cause
by Justin Raimondo

The Ron Paul campaign has generated a lot of excitement, especially among young people. It has made political history by raising more money in a single day than any other presidential campaign, ever. It has inspired thousands and given hope to those who had given up on politics altogether –

[LITU]

Now if only you, Rep. Paul, had more holistic social views, I'd get off the bandwagon against you. Unfortunat­ely...

[unclebucky]

Hm.

Yeah, end the war. We all want that, but that is like a telecom teaser rate.

Then, we would have to deal with the end to Education, Social Security, Universal Single Payer Health Care (for those who get it now as well as anyone else, like EVERYONE), Dept. of Labour, Dept of Vet. Affairs... Etc.

Um, Paul Ron seems to be a bit of a tease.

Whacko.

Ugh.

--UB.

[HTooley]

As I remember the conversation back when we last reformed Social Security, the idea was floated that we invest our social security funds it in the stock market. That idea was shot down by Wall Streeters' saying basically, that would give our government undue influence over the operations of a free market.

Now we face a real 'hat trick'. In order to keep the economy moving and the war raging, our country under this administration, is selling our war on terror debt to foreign nations. Taxing us for the war was unthinkable, since it would raise the political stakes at home in addition to taking money out of circulation. So manipulation of the market was and is actively being done.

When a dollar leaves this country, with it goes a future debt. When that money comes back we are obliged to honor it. It may be for a good, a service, or even to purchase a company, or large pieces of one. Once they do, they have a very direct say in the running of our government, especially one that is effectively run by corporate interests.­.. does this strike a chord? Now, can we honestly believe that these corporate interests are looking out for our welfare of our citizens? Why should they? (See J.P. Morgan and China)

Our economic policy needs to be viewed as a national security issue. If left as is, corporate influence within and outside our nation will destroy the concept of 'citizen' as we know it. The commonweal will be referred to as an asset in an accounting bucket under "good will", and our nations people reduced to a "cost center".

For those of you who believe this issue cuts across the Democrat/Republican divide, you win a bonus point. This is about "corporate control" vs. "people control". If you truly want to "Live Free", then vote accordingly.

[Talcott]

The Ron Paul campaign has generated a lot of excitement, especially among young people. It has made political history by raising more money in a single day than any other presidential campaign, ever. It has inspired thousands and given hope to those who had given up on politics altogether –

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12102

[BurgersandFries]

Who hates Ron Paul, and why?

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12102

Thanks for nothing dems, despite my many reservations, I'm registering Republican for vote for Ron Paul in the primary. You can too.

http://republicanforaday.com/