Congressman Ron Paul was on fire in last night's GOP debate in South Carolina, winning big applause every time FOX allowed him to speak. Here are some of his greatest hits:
Paul on the GOP losing its way:
PAUL: No, I would like to address the subject about whether or not we've lost our way and whether there's a coalition building or whether it's gone. I think it's gone. I don't think we're fiscal conservatives anymore. Look at what we've done over these 10 years. We finally got control of the government and we became big-government people.
Our deficit's out of control and we no longer are opposed to new entitlements. We are entitlement people. And then we turn around and we talk about liberty and we've undermined the Fourth Amendment and personal liberty and personal privacy. In the year 2000, we won the election by condemning the Democrats for nation-building and policing the world, and now, what are we doing?
We're policing the world, we're involved in all of these countries around the world and threatening going into Iran and Pakistan and on and on. At the same time, our economy is suffering to the point where we can't even finance what we have here today. We have to borrow from the Chinese and the dollar is crashing.
So no wonder our coalition is breaking up. We actually have lost our way. Now, over the years, I've never voted to spend one penny of the Social Security fund, because I'm a fiscal conservative. If you want the Social Security system to work, get people who will vote against robbing the Social Security fund.
Paul on alleged Iranian provocation:
PAUL: I would certainly urge a lot more caution than I'm hearing here tonight. It reminds me of what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin . We went to war there, then, later on, found out there was a lot of false information.
So here we have -- let's put it in perspective. We have five small speedboats attacking the U.S. Navy with a Destroyer? They could take care of those speedboats in about five seconds. And here we're ready to start World War III over this?
And now, guess what, today, the Navy commander of the Fifth Fleet was on ABC and announced that, you know, that voice might not have come from those vessels. So what does that mean? Was there a rush to judgment on this, ready to go to war?
And you know there are people in this administration and in Washington, D.C., that are looking for the chance. They were so disappointed with the national estimate on intelligence. And they were disappointed that there's no attempt to build weapons in Iran since 2003.
HUME: Congressman...
PAUL: So what -- I just don't see this rush to judgment.
HUME: Well, wait a minute. All of these people I've asked this question to so far have said they supported the decision to be passive. What are you responding to?
PAUL: I'm very sorry, I can't hear a word you said.
(APPLAUSE)
You'll have to speak up.
HUME: Every one of these -- of your fellow candidates have said they supported the commander's decision to respond passively. I just wonder what you're reacting to.
PAUL: Well, I didn't hear that. Of course we want caution. But I'm worrying about the policy of why we're looking for a justification. Now there are no weapons, actually people are looking around for an excuse to bomb Iran.
I mean, we're already, with our CIA, being involved in trying to overthrow that government, and we don't need another war. And this incident should not be thrown out of proportion to the point where we're getting ready to attack Iran over this.
Paul on U.S. interference in the Mideast:
GOLER: Congressman Paul, can we go back to the Middle East? You have said the United States should not be trying to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Should the president even be there today, sir?
PAUL: Well, if he followed my advice, yes, we wouldn't be there. We've been doing that for a good many years, and it hasn't seemed to come to success.
No, I think if we weren't there, there'd be more incentives to come to a peaceful agreement. But we support both sides. You know, not only with the Palestinians, but the Lebanese and all the Arab nations.
We support Israel, and we try to have this balance. But I think it would be much better to have a balance by being out of there. And I think it would be a greater incentive for Israel and the Palestinians and all the Arab nations to come together and talk because I think we get in the way too often of these. And besides, it's costing us a lot of money and it's costing us lives now.
And it's time that we come to the point where we believe the world can solve some of their problems without us. And also, we're out of money. We can't do it any longer.
We're going bankrupt. And the empires of the world have always ended badly through economic terms.
PAUL: So whether there are peace agreements over there, I mean, for instance, if we would stop all aid to over there, we would stop three times as much aid as Israel gets through the Arab nations.
Why do we arm the Arab nations and they're the enemies of Israel? But we continue to do that. So why don't we trade with everybody and talk with them, and there's a greater incentive to work these problems out.
I think if we'd have been out of there a lot sooner, there may well have been a much different settlement after the Kuwait invasion, because Israel was quite capable of working with moderate Arab nations. They tried to. None of the Arab nations wanted Saddam Hussein in Kuwait and I think they could have taken care of Saddam Hussein back then and saved all the mess that we have now, because I think there are so many unintended consequences and way too much blowback.
(APPLAUSE)
GOLER: I thank the gentleman.
MCCAIN: Could I just make a comment? I'm not interested in trading with Al Qaida. All they want to trade is burkas. I don't want to travel with them. They like one-way tickets.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
GOLER: Governor Huckabee, can you...
PAUL: May I answer that? May I answer that?
GOLER: Yes, Congressman.
PAUL: I'm talking actually about that, because that's what we have been doing. We used to support Saddam Hussein and we used to be allied with Osama Bin Laden, and what I want to do is stop that.
Who are our friends one day turn out to be our enemies. Right now, we finally got rid of Saddam Hussein. And what are we doing now? We're re-arming the Sunnis, the old henchmen of Saddam Hussein.
And what are they going to do with it? There's all those weapons we're giving the Sunnis in Baghdad. So look out, believe me, that war is not over and right now they're demanding more troops in Afghanistan and we're -- some people, like the Senator, he thinks we should be there for 100 years if necessary.
How can he commit the young people of this world, five more generations, to be in Iraq if it's necessary? I say it's time to come home.
(APPLAUSE)
Paul on U.S.-Israel relations:
PAUL: In many ways, we treat Israel as a stepchild. We do not give them responsibility that they deserve. We undermine their national sovereignty. We don't let them design their own peace treaties with their neighbors. And then we turn around and say that, when you want to do that or you want to defend your borders, they have to check it out with us.
I think Israel would be a lot safer. I made the point earlier. We give three times as much money to the Arabs. Why do we arm their enemies? So if you care about Israel, you should be against all the weapons that go to the Arab nations.
(APPLAUSE)
And I just don't see any purpose in not treating Israel in an adult fashion. I think they'd be a lot better off.
I think they, one time in the '80s, took care of a nuclear reactor in Iraq. I stood up and defended Israel for this. Nobody else did at that time.
But we need to recognize they deserve their sovereignty, just as we deserve our sovereignty.
PAUL: I believe that if they assumed more responsibility, there would be more peace there and that there would be a lot less threat to us. Besides, we don't have any money to do this.
(APPLAUSE)
Paul on his electability:
CAMERON: Congressman Paul, yet another question about electability.
Do you have any, sir? There's always the question as to whether or not...
(LAUGHTER)
... you are, in fact, viable. Your differences with the Republicans on the -- with the rest of the Republicans on this stage has raised questions about whether or not you can actually win the Republican nomination, sir.
PAUL: Well, we've only had two little primaries so far. So it's pretty premature to decide which one is going to be the candidate. But, you know, when you think about it, if you measured everything I've ever said, every vote I've ever taken against the Constitution, you know, I'm a strict constitutionalist.
Are you suggesting the Republicans should write me off because I'm a strict constitutionalist? I'm the most conservative member here. I have voted, you know, against more spending and waste in government than anybody else.
(APPLAUSE)
So you're suggesting that I'm not electable and the Republicans don't want me because I'm a strict fiscal conservative, because I believe in civil liberties? Why should we not be defending civil liberties and why should we not be talking about foreign policy that used to be the part of the Republican Party?
PAUL: Mr. Republican Robert Taft didn't even want us to be in NATO and you're saying now that we have to continue to borrow money from China to finance this empire that we can't afford?
Let me see if I get this right. We need to borrow $10 billion from China, and then we give it to Musharraf, who is a military dictator, who overthrew an elected government. And then we go to war, we lose all these lives promoting democracy in Iraq. I mean, what's going on here?
(APPLAUSE)
And you're saying that this isn't appealing to Republicans? Where did this come about? I think this is the Republican message. I defend the platform. It used to say we'd (inaudible) the Department of Education. It doesn't say that now.
We, as Republicans, went and doubled the size of the Department of Education, so where have we gone? I think we've lost our way. And then the insinuation that I am less Republican because of that?
Paul on illegal Mexican immigration:
GOLER: Congressman Paul, is denying a path to citizenship for people now in the country illegally important enough that Republicans are willing to concede the Hispanic vote to Democrats in November?
PAUL: Well, I don't know that, but I don't know if that's necessarily true, but I do think we should enforce the law. And the law says that illegals shouldn't be here and that we shouldn't have amnesty.
But I think this whole thing should be thought of more in economic terms. Maybe I think about economics too much. But there is something said in economics that, if you subsidize something, you get more of it.
And this is what we do. We encourage it by giving free medical care, and free education, and the promise of amnesty. And no wonder more will come.
PAUL: We have a weakening economy and now immigrants, especially the illegals, are seen as a threat because they come and they undermine our tax system. And some of our hospitals are being closed and some of our people won't work because of the welfare state.
You can't solve this problem if you don't deal with the terms of welfarism. And, besides, you know, some of our border guards are over in Iraq. I think they would be better off on our borders, you know, protecting our borders, not in Iraq.
(APPLAUSE)
PAUL: So, yes, I think we have to deal with it. And if we don't deal with it carefully, yes, we're going to lose some votes on it. But quite frankly, the law is the law and we should enforce the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment