John Hostettler & "On The Issues: 2000"

[RileyE104]

I know Ron recently endorsed this guy and there's been lots of talk about him on the forums lately, but I don't really get this guy... His foreign policy votes confuse me as to which side he's on.


- YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent
- YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight
- NO on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant

At least he voted no for warrantless surveillance, but I don't get why, if he's against that, he's FOR the PATRIOT Act.


- NO on authorizing military force in Iraq
- YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date

So he was against using military force in Iraq, but he voted on making Iraq part of the War on Terror & with no exit date..?



I'm not saying there's anything bad about the guy, I just don't get why on Foreign Policy his votes seem to be all over the place.

[TCE]

I know Ron recently endorsed this guy and there's been lots of talk about him on the forums lately, but I don't really get this guy... His foreign policy votes confuse me as to which side he's on.



At least he voted no for warrantless surveillance, but I don't get why, if he's against that, he's FOR the PATRIOT Act.



So he was against using military force in Iraq, but he voted on making Iraq part of the War on Terror & with no exit date..?



I'm not saying there's anything bad about the guy, I just don't get why on Foreign Policy his votes seem to be all over the place.

He believes in the PATRIOT Act and all of its parts, but was against invading Iraq and wrote the anti-Iraq war book. However, now that we're in, he apparently believes that we need to finish the job. Given that we'll be out should he get elected, that doesn't matter, since he'll vote against all future wars anyway.

[erowe1]

I know Ron recently endorsed this guy and there's been lots of talk about him on the forums lately, but I don't really get this guy... His foreign policy votes confuse me as to which side he's on.



At least he voted no for warrantless surveillance, but I don't get why, if he's against that, he's FOR the PATRIOT Act.



So he was against using military force in Iraq, but he voted on making Iraq part of the War on Terror & with no exit date..?



I'm not saying there's anything bad about the guy, I just don't get why on Foreign Policy his votes seem to be all over the place.

We've discussed him here a lot. I think the votes in the first part you copied are the more serious ones. I wouldn't really call the PA foreign policy. But he's definitely not a libertarian on that issue. He also doesn't claim to be a libertarian. He's a constitutional conservative who has a great deal in common with Ron Paul in many, but not all, important areas. He's also an anti-establishment Republican who has demonstrated a great deal of independence from the party leadership. In the areas where he and RP differ, he's not just toeing the party line, but he has principled, well thought out reasons for them, which is something Ron Paul mentioned in his endorsement.

He discusses the Patriot Act in Parts 3-4 of his recent interview with the state coordinator of the Indiana CFL here:

Part 1:
YouTube - JOHN HOSTETTLER CANDIDATE FOR THE SENATE PT1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VC5bCeaCs8)
Part 2:
YouTube - JOHN HOSTETTLER CANDIDATE FOR THE SENATE PT2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbs4BvpXJyo)
Part 3:
YouTube - JOHN HOSTETTLER AND THE PATRIOT ACT PT3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhT0JUTX5lI)

Part 4:
YouTube - JOHN HOSTETTLER AND THE PATRIOT ACT PT4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wllot2wi6i0&feature=player_embedded)

[Edit: You might have to wait on the videos. I just got a "removed by user" error for #3. She's done that before on these videos, so she might not be done editing them or something. The interview was just a few days ago.]

On the second part of what you quoted, I think his foreign policy is a basically strong noninterventionist one. However, once the battle has started, he is much more reticent than Ron Paul to defund the operation. That's a genuine difference. But really, the much more important decision is the one of whether to intervene in the first place. And on that, Hostettler and Ron Paul agree. If you want someone in the Senate who will oppose fear mongering about Iran, Hostettler's your man. Here's Hostettler's speech from the House floor opposing the authorization of force against Iraq:
http://nothingforthenation.com/floorspeechtext.htm

FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 114, AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 -- (House of Representatives - October 08, 2002)

Hon. John N. Hostettler of Indiana
Floor Statement
Congressional Record

[Page: H7286]

(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for yielding me this time.

Today the question before this body, Mr. Speaker, is not ``How shall we respond to the unprovoked attack by a foreign nation upon the United States or its fielded military forces abroad?''

We are not debating ``How will we respond to the menace of a political and/or cultural movement that is enveloping nations across the globe and is knocking on the door 90 miles off the coast of Florida?''

Nor, Mr. Speaker, are we discussing a response to an act of aggression by a dictator who has invaded his neighbor and has his sights on 40 percent of the world's oil reserves, an act that could plunge the American economy, so dependent on energy, into a deep spiral.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, and this point must be made very clear, we are not discussing how America should respond to the acts of terrorism on September 11, 2001. That debate and vote was held over a year ago; and our men and women in uniform, led by our Commander-in-Chief and Secretary of Defense, are winning the war on terrorism. It is with their blood, sweat, and tears that they are winning, for

[Page: H7287]

every one of us who will lay our heads down in peace this night, the right to wake up tomorrow, free.

No, Mr. Speaker, the question before us today is ``Will the House of Representatives vote to initiate war on another sovereign nation?''

Article I, Section 8 of the governing document of this Republic, the United States Constitution, gives to Congress the power to provide for the common defense. It follows that Congress's [sic] power to declare war must be in keeping with the notion of providing for the common defense.

Today, a novel case is being made that the best defense is a good offense. But is this the power that the Framers of the Constitution meant to pass down to their posterity when they sought to secure for us the blessings of liberty? Did they suggest that mothers and fathers would be required by this august body to give up sons and daughters because of the possibility of future aggression? Mr. Speaker, I humbly submit that they did not.

As I was preparing these remarks, I was reminded of an entry on my desk calendar of April 19. It is an excerpt of the Boston Globe, Bicentennial Edition, March 9, 1975. It reads, ``At dawn on this morning, April 19, 1775, some 70 Minutemen were assembled on Lexington's green. All eyes kept returning to where the road from Boston opened onto the green; all ears strained to hear the drums and double-march of the approaching British Grenadiers. Waving to the drummer boy to cease his beat, the Minuteman Captain, John Parker, gave his fateful command: `Don't fire unless fired upon. But if they want to have a war, let it begin here.''

``Don't fire unless fired upon.'' It is a notion that is at least as old as St. Augustine's Just War thesis, and it finds agreement with the Minutemen and Framers of the Constitution.

We should not turn our back today on millennia of wisdom by proposing to send America's beautiful sons and daughters into harm's way for what might be.

We are told that Saddam Hussein might have a nuclear weapon; he might use a weapon of mass destruction against the United States or our interests overseas; or he might give such weapons to al Qaeda or another terrorist organization. But based on the best of our intelligence information, none of these things have happened. The evidence supporting what might be is tenuous, at best.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I must conclude that Iraq indeed poses a threat, but it does not pose an imminent threat that justifies a preemptive military strike at this time.

Voting for this resolution not only would set an ominous precedent for using the administration's parameters to justify war against the remaining partners in the ``Axis of Evil,'' but such a vote for preemption would also set a standard which the rest of the world would seek to hold America to and which the rest of the world could justifiably follow.

War should be waged by necessity, and I do not believe that such necessity is at hand at this time. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to please vote ``no'' on the resolution to approve force at this time.

Source citation: 107th Congress, 2nd Session, October 8, 2002, Congressional Record, pp. H7286-H7287.

[erowe1]

Aside from those issues, there are tons of important agreements Hostettler has with Ron Paul, and has set himself apart from the GOP establishment in them. We list a bunch of examples here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=222752

We're having a money bomb for him on April 22. Please consider donating.

He's neck-and-neck with Dan Coats, whom the party leaders are backing for the nomination. The winner will be heavily favored to win in November. So it's definitely no exaggeration to say that Hostettler is our best shot at getting another good guy in the Senate to be a great ally for Rand.

[RileyE104]

He's neck-and-neck with Dan Coats, whom the party leaders are backing for the nomination.

So it's definitely no exaggeration to say that Hostettler is our best shot at getting another good guy in the Senate to be a great ally for Rand.

Thanks, I see what you're saying and agree with this.

[itshappening]

John more good than bad IMHO and a heck lot better than Coats

[Cowlesy]

This is what changed my mind on Hostettler to being okay with him.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=233993&highlight=antle

[johnrocks]

Although not perfect;few are; he is heads above the others in Indiana and I pray he wins.