|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| ||||||
| ||||||
 | ||||||||||||||||
|
Ron Paul
Transcript of Ron Paul during the third Republican presidential primary debate in New Hampshire (2008 election) (June 05 2007) BLITZER: Congressman Ron Paul, how much longer should the United States stay in Iraq? REP. RON PAUL (R), TEXAS: The sooner we come home, the better. If they declare there's no progress in September, we should come home. It was a mistake to go, so it's a mistake to stay. If we made the wrong diagnosis, we should change the treatment. So we're not making progress there and we should come home. The weapons weren't there and we went in under U. N. resolutions. And our national security was not threatened. We're more threatened now by staying.
BLITZER: Congressman Paul, I want you to weigh in on this as well. I believe -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- you voted to support that 700-mile fence along the border between the United States and Mexico. Did you? PAUL: I did.
BLITZER: What about Canada? Is there a need for a similar fence along the border between. . .
PAUL: No.
BLITZER: . . . the United States and Canada? PAUL: No, because that bill -- probably the fence was my weakest reason for doing that, but for other reasons, to enforce the law was important. And border security is important. And we talked about amnesty, which I'm positively opposed to. But one thing that has not been mentioned here, which I think is very, very important: If you subsidize something, you get more of it. So we subsidize illegal immigration. We reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty. But we force our states and our local communities to pay for the health care, to pay for the education. Why wouldn't they bring their families? And because of our economic conditions, we do need workers. But if we had a truly free-market economy, the illegal immigrants would not be the scapegoat. We would probably need them, and they would be acceptable. But because of economic conditions, they have become the scapegoat.
BLITZER: Thank you, Congressman. (APPLAUSE) BLITZER: Congressman Paul, you ran for president once before as a libertarian. What do you say about this whole issue of church and state and these issues that are coming forward right now? PAUL: Well, I think we should read the First Amendment, where it says, 'Congress shall write no law,' and we should write a lot less laws regarding this matter. It shouldn't be a matter of the president or the Congress. It should be local people, local officials. The state should determine so many of these things that we just don't need more laws determining religious things or prayer in schools. We should allow people at the local level. That's what the Constitution tells us. We don't need somebody in Washington telling us what we can do, because we don't have perfect knowledge. And that's the magnificence of our Constitution and our republic. We sort out the difficult problems at local levels, and we don't have, you know, one-case-fit- all. Because you have a Supreme Court ruling, like on Roe v. Wade, it ruined it for the whole country. And that's why we shouldn't have it at a central level. (APPLAUSE) BLITZER: Let me bring Congressman Paul back into this conversation. In 2005, President Bush signed an energy bill that provided billions of dollars in tax break subsidies to the oil companies, with the goal of boosting domestic production. At a time of these record profits, do you believe these companies need a helping hand from the federal government? PAUL: I don't think the profits is the issue. The profits are OK if they're legitimately earned in a free market. What I object to are subsidies to big corporations when we subsidize them and give them R&D money. I don't think that should be that way. They should take it out of the funds that they earn. But also, you can't discuss energy without discussing our foreign policy. Why do we go to the Middle East? We know the oil is very important about the Middle East and why we're there. Why did we, our government, help overthrow Mosaddeq in 1953? It had to do with oil. So, our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests. The profits, that's not the problem. It's the problem that we succumb to the temptation to protect oil interests by literally going out and fighting wars over oil.
Congressman Paul, a question for you. Most of our closest allies, including Great Britain and Israel, allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military. Is it time to end don't ask/don't tell policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U. S. military? PAUL: I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem. (APPLAUSE) QUESTION: Yes. Michael served in Iraq. And we have a question regarding the government in Iraq. Everyone's talking about, 'Pull our troops out; pull our troops out. ' Well, considering they've lived under a dictatorship for the last 30 years or so, what are we going to do to make sure they have a government in place before we do pull our troops out and they're able to help themselves? Otherwise, we're just putting them in a position to accept another terrorist leader. (APPLAUSE) VAUGHN: Congressman Paul? PAUL: Well, we've had four years to do this and it hasn't worked. The biggest incentive for them to take upon themselves the responsibility is just for us to leave.
PAUL: We don't need to lose 100 men and women every month, more than a thousand per year. And so, if you want it done, you want them to take over, you've got to give them an incentive. So I think we should immediately stop patrolling the streets. That's a policeman's job. It's not the work of the Army. We're not fighting a military battle. We're in a different type of warfare right now. So the sooner we recognize that, the sooner we can make sure that no more Americans will die. We have a lot of goodness in this country. And we should promote it, but never through the barrel of a gun. We should do it by setting good standards, motivating people and have them want to emulate us. But you can't enforce our goodness, like the necons preach, with an armed force. It doesn't work. Woodrow Wilson was telling us about that, in promoting democracy a long time ago.
BLITZER: Thank you.
PAUL: It doesn't work and we have to admit it.
BLITZER: Thank you, Congressman. (APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Congressman Paul, what is the most pressing moral issue in the United States right now? PAUL: I think it is the acceptance just recently that we now promote preemptive war. I do not believe that's part of the American tradition. We, in the past, have always declared war in defense of our liberties or go to aid somebody. But now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war. We have rejected the just war theory of Christianity. And now, tonight, we hear that we're not even willing to remove from the table a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security. I mean, we have to come to our senses about this issue of war and preemption and go back to traditions and our Constitution and defend our liberties and defend our rights, but not to think that we can change the world by force of arms and to start wars. (APPLAUSE) BLITZER: Congressman Paul? PAUL: The president ran on a program of a humble foreign policy, no nation-building and no policing of the world, and he changed his tune. And now we are fighting a war. And our foreign operations around the world to maintain our empire is now approaching $1 trillion a year. That's where the money is going and that's where it has to be cut so we can take care of education and medical cares that are needed here in this country. (APPLAUSE)
Compiled by the U.S. News & World Report library staff 1. Ronald Ernest Paul was born on Aug. 20, 1935, in Pittsburgh. His father was a dairy farmer. 2. Paul graduated with a bachelor's degree from Gettysburg College in 1957 and with a medical degree from the Duke University School of Medicine in 1961. 3. He served as a flight surgeon in the Air Force from 1963 to 1965 and in the Air National Guard until 1968. That year he moved to Texas to take over another doctor's medical practice. 4. Paul greatly admires Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), an Austrian economist who advocated laissez-faire, free market policies. A photo of the economist decorates his office wall. Paul became interested in politics in 1971 when President Nixon removed the country from the gold standard and set wage price controls– disappointing actions to Paul (and presumably von Mises). 5. Paul was elected to the House of Representatives in a special election in April 1976 to replace resigning Rep. Robert R. Casey. He was not re-elected later that year but did win his bid in 1978. He held office until early 1985, when he returned to his medical practice. 6. Paul ran for president in 1988 as a candidate for the Libertarian party. He received over 400,000 votes (or 0.47 percent), finishing third behind George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis. 7. Returning to the GOP, Paul won office again in 1996 to represent his Texas district in the House. He has been re-elected five times. He reportedly would like to be listed as both a Republican and a Libertarian, if Texas law allowed. And maybe also as a member of the Constitutional Party. 8. Paul received the nickname 'Dr. No' in Congress for repeatedly casting 'nay' votes, even on legislation with almost unanimous support from his Republican colleagues. Explaining why he opposes legislation that expands government power, funds federal spending, or reduces privacy: 'I interpret through the eyes of the Constitution. If we don't have direct authorization, I don't vote for it, even if there are good intentions.' In 2006, the Washington Post wrote: 'He says, if his fellow Republicans are 'very desperate,' he may allow himself to be talked into changing a 'no' vote to 'present.' ' 9. During his medical career specializing in obstetrics/gynecology, he delivered more than 4,000 babies. He refused to accept payment by Medicare or Medicaid, preferring to not charge patients or to work out a cash payment. 10. Paul is married to Carol Wells. They have five children and 17 grandchildren. He supported his children during their undergraduate and medical school years–not letting them accept federal student loans. It is also said he plans to refuse his congressional pension.
Sam Brownback
|
| | |
|
| ||
 | | |
