Here we go again, not ignoring Ron Paul

Don't worry about the Ron Paul people -- they'll find something to complain about in these last glorious days before the reality of the actual primary/caucus voting starts, even though it can't be about being ignored by the big media anymore.

The 72-year-old, 10-term Republican representative from Texas with the libertarian ideas has been on just about every conceivable broadcast outlet in recent times. He's getting so much attention he's now starting to be criticized for some things, including accepting funds from and not returning them to some white supremacists.

That's what raising $18 million in the still unfinished fourth quarter ($6+ million of it in one day) will do to your political obscurity. That and the online and local meet-up group work by thousands of fervent fans who profess to be newcomers to the political process, so inspired are they by the ob-gyn who represents the Galveston area and his strict constitutionalist ideals and the simple clarity of his goal to return government to its strict constitutional boundaries. No more Department of Education, for instance, or many other federal departments.

Paul is on a roll, up in some polls, down significantly in others, which Paul people don't care anything about because they say they don't believe in polls because nobody's going to tell them how to vote, even though polls aren't orders for anybody, they only reveal how a few hundred people say they're going to vote at that moment in time.

Because everybody Ron Paul supporters say they talk to either already are or immediately become Ron Paul supporters, they believe the Ron Paul Revolution will sweep the country sometime shortly into the New Year, starting perhaps in New Hampshire where they have so many yard signs and the license plates say "Live Free or Die." Also, the new Ron Paul blimp is flying around there.

Anyway, today was Ron Paul's turn to be waterboarded by Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press." As one sign of how the Iraq war surge's recent success has made it a non-issue, Russert didn't even ask him about his stand (Paul's the lone GOP candidate who opposes the war, saying it creates much more trouble than it's worth and that maintaining an empire always bankrupts the colonial power).

Paul wants to bring home all American troops abroad to save money and avoid making ....

enemies. Russert asked him how many U.S. troops there are abroad. Paul didn't know. Russert told him 572,000. "And you'd bring them all home?"

"As quickly as possible. We -- they will not serve our interests to be overseas. They get us into trouble. And we can defend ourselves without troops in Germany, troops in Japan. How do they help our national defense? Doesn't make any sense to me. Troops in Korea since I've been in high school?"

Russert asked, "So if Iran invaded Israel, what do we do?"

Paul replied, "They're not going to. That's like saying, 'Iran is going to invade Mars.' "

Russert asked if Paul would cut off aid to Israel. "Absolutely," he said. "But remember the Arabs would get cut off too and the Arabs get three times as much aid altogether as Israel. But why, why make Israel so dependent?"

Russert asked if Paul wanted to abolish the IRS and income tax. "That's a good idea," he said. "I like that idea." He said the U.S. got along fine without an income tax until 1913.

Russert asked if he knew how much lost government revenue that would be. "A lot," said Paul. "Over a trillion dollars," said Russert. "That's good," said Paul. He suggested cutting spending would save a lot of money, reducing federal departments, not being involved overseas as we are.

Russert asked him about the apparent inconsistency of being against federal involvement, yet regularly inserting dozens of earmarks into legislation representing billions of federal dollars going to his district. Paul said there was no inconsistency because he always voted against the earmarks he'd inserted, although they usually passed.

"If you were true to your philosophy," Russert said, "you would say, 'No pork spending for my district.' "

"No, no, that's not it," replied Paul. "They steal our money. That's like saying people shouldn't take Social Security money."

Russert asked about term limits. Paul said he'd voted for them many times. Russert noted he'd been in Congress more than 18 years. Paul said he hadn't agreed to any voluntary term limits, but he supported them.

Russert asked about many other things including whether defeat in the GOP primaries might cause Paul to launch a third-party effort. "I have no intention to do that," Paul responded. But he would not guarantee it, just said he was 99.9% sure but didn't like absolutist statements.

Paul supporters will say anything that sounds critical or dumb about their candidate was taken out of context. So you can read the entire interview transcript here and view the entire video here.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[B]

Torturing people is wrong, not something to be made light of in a tasteless satire piece.

(Get over yourself!)

[observe]

poor, poor Andrew, save your venom for later.

(You're hilarious! THIS is venom to you? If this was venom, I'd have said Dr. Paul looked like a nice tired old man who was in way over his head and didn't even know how many troops he as president would have overseas to want to bring home, that he counts on Iran to not make trouble because it has no navy. that he would give up the Korean peninsula that more than 50,000 Americans died to keep democratic and that he was completely unable to explain his way out of a hypocritical paper bag in which he's all for less government but inserts earmarks in legislation to spend millions in govt money in his district and then votes against his own proposals, knowing they'll pass anyway, so he can fraudulently claim to be against spending. That would have been venomous to write. But I didn't write that.)

[Jay Moffett]

Here is AOLs Spamproof Strawpoll results

lhttp://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/12/21/straw-poll-dec-21-jan-4/

[xtrabiggg]

Tim Russet REALLY had to struggle to find some quasi-dirt to confront Dr. Paul with. I mean, 20-year-old quotes from a disgruntled campaign worker used to assert his positions? I thought the Dr. Paul handled the attempted Mudslinging with aplomb and character, as when he was refuting the ridiculous points that Mr. Russert attempted to make, Tim would quickly try to move on to the next bucket of mud.

One real cheap shot was the attempt to use misquotes, out-of-context quotes and blatant lies to disassociate Ron Paul from Ronald Reagan. This was a blatant attempt to hurt the Dr.'s image, as he is probably the CLOSEST of all the Republican candidates to Reagan's philosophies and positions. Trying to make it look like Dr. Paul was disingenuous in his support (and criticism) of Ronald Reagan was a stretch, which I'm sure strained even a casual viewer's credulity with the line of questioning. Using ONE-WORD quotes from his statements surrounded by a paragraph of ''interpretations' by a columnist of what was said is far from substantive or even accurate, Mr. Russert.

One of the best lines Dr. Paul got off was when he was asked (for the 1001st time) about a 'third party run'. You could audibly hear Dr. Paul sigh, then answer the question at least three times! He then asked Tim if he has asked that of ANY other candidate he has interviewed! Tim lamely muttered something like 'I'll ask it to anyone who has run on a third party'. Tim missed the point- it seemed Dr. Paul wanted to know if he had asked any OTHER candidate a question as IRRELEVANT to the campaign- not if he was GOING TO!. I'll be waiting with baited breath to hear if Mr. Russert follows through on his promise next week WIth Obama and Huckabee.

Overall, I think Dr. Paul handled the "gotcha' format of the show quite well. He was able to make his points after steering away from the obvious and ridiculous logic-trap boxes that Mr. Russert was trying to back him into. One notable omission from the show (among many)- there was NO question or even mention of Monetary Policy, except for a mention by Dr. Paul of the deliberately weakened dollar, when Mr. Russert cut him off and hurriedly went on to talk about another topic.

The question about 'Calling Mike Huckabee a fascist' was WAY out of bounds and misleading, especially with the edited and incomplete from FOX News, but I thought Dr. Paul handled it expertly, turning it around into a discussion of the definition of fascism, and how corporate or, as the Dr. put it 'Soft' fascism has taken over this country. I'm sure the folks at GE (who sponsor the show and OWN the network) were none too pleased at this subject being broached on NATIONAL TELEVISION! Ironically, the advertisement for Boeing that followed the interview segment took on (at least for me) an almost Leni Riefenstahl quality, as it softly pushed the Military-Industrialist Corporate Fascist line as creepily 'warm and fuzzy' and 'good for America'. Goebbels-esque, if you ask me!

Overall, good exposure for Dr. Paul. He stayed forcefully on message about ending the war, shrinking government, abolishing the income tax and the IRS and going back to what REAL Republicans believe in. This should go a long way to giving him credibility with the millions of disaffected Republicans who weren't sure or hadn't heard much about Dr. Paul.

The last impression I was left with was how openly HOSTILE Tim Russert seemed to be with Dr. Paul. I've seen interviews for years by Mr. Russert, and he is a tough interviewer. But in other interviews with candidates, I have NEVER seen him to be so totally hell-bent on finding something, ANYTHING to trip up a Presidential Candidate he was interviewing. Going back into the past to find ANYTHING negative on Ron Paul is difficult, but did the show's staffers have to go ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE CIVIL WAR to find something? THAT'S digging DEEP!

It also seemed that TIm Russert was almost resentful that he was FORCED to do this interview by public demand for it, or for the APPEARANCE of fairness in interviewing all the candidates. Let's see if he is as tough on new media darling Mike Huckabee next week. I doubt they will have to go back to the Civil War to find something troubling in HIS past. Probably only backas far as his last campaign appearance!

Another tough win for Dr. No, with many Americans for the first time being exposed to the man without the filter of the punditocracy between them and the man's own words.

xtrabiggg
++++++++++++++++++

[oneporter]

Your delivery was pretty hilarious, thanks for the coverage!

[Jonsey Jones]

Ron Paul is the MAN!

Great interview on MTP.

Remember to view "Freedom to Fascism", thats todays assignment from the good doctor.

[DenisL]

Thanks for not ignoring Ron Paul.
Thanks for fairly stating his positions on the questions asked by Russert.

[Paul]

I'll agree that Ron Paul supporters were being a bit too reactionary about MTP.

But, what I find amusing is that since Ron Paul's son didn't strangle a dog, since Ron Paul didn't pardon a rapist/murderer, since Ron Paul doesn't have the FDNY pissed at him, since Ron didn't squander his district's funds to escort certain people, and since Ron Paul doesn't try to be all things to all people (Romney), Russert really didn't have much material, so most of his questions basically boiled down to: "You might have said this in 1988, is this still true?" "No."

[Jeff]

Andrew,

Compared to most, your story was accurate but I wish you would add some serious points you missed.

In regards to assisting S. Korea or Israel if attacked.
Dr. Paul stated as president he would not assist and that it would take the Congress based on what the American population wanted to declare War to get involved in a foreign affair.

This is the main difference in Paul and all the other candidates, I am tired of hearing all the candidates talk and state I would do this or that because I feel this is what needs to be done.

Here is the key, our representatives are elected by the people for the people.
It does not matter what they think or feel, they are supposed to act based on what the majority of the people they represent feel.

This is where our current president has failed.

When the president or any elected official does what they feel needs to be done regardless if the majority of the population agrees with them, then they are a dictator.

Proof, Bush's disapproval rating in HIGH 60's, still he is doing what he wants, not what the people want.

Wake up people.

[Li]

Aye, it's getting time to count the votes soon. I'll be dropping my vote for Paul Jan. 15th. As for the interview: terribly job of pandering for votes, great job of getting out his message. It was quite a watch.

[Mike Parker]

From a Ron Paul supporter, THANK YOU, Don and Andrew, for the coverage.

I know some Paulites like to bite the MSM hand even when it feeds them, but please know your coverage is appreciated by the rest of us.

(And GO RON!)

[AJ]

Don't care about polls, attacks, gotta questions or even minor atudd that I disagree with Ron on. He is the best solution to our current problems. He will scale back our out of control government and police state. He will stabilize our currency, he will BRING THE TROOPS HOME, you know the rest. But here is the kicker! I know that Ron will do what he says, he doesn't blow with the wind. He stands by what our founding fathers wrote... period...I don't care what anyone says, I am voting for Ron Paul in 2008 and there is nothing you or Diebold can do about it. P.S. you might want to drop your Military Industrial stocks by early 2009 :0)

[lenloc]

So where are the comments?

[Shii]

Nothing out of context here, Ron Paul had a great performance against one of the best grillers in the news media.

[John C. Randolph]

You know Andrew, you're just as smug as the editor who saw the first copies of his paper roll off the presses with the banner headline: "Dewey Defeats Truman!"

-jcr

[Brent]

About earmarks:
The money is already going to spent. If nothing was ever earmarked, the money would go to the Department of X, Y, and Z and unelected beaurcrats will do what they do best - waste money. Paul doesn't like the system, which is why he votes for it, but knows his district won't get the money back. So he allows his district to request earmarks, he puts them in, and votes against it. Money was already going to be spent, no more spending, no less spending.

IRS/Income Tax:
The current Income Tax is not paying for any of these services. It pays for the interest on the debt, if I am not mistaken. Also, you could easily get rid of a trillion dollars in spending - we need another Grace Commission!

And, I hate when people say "that's 1trillion dollars of lost revenues". No, thats 1trillion dollars of gained revenue for the American people.

Israel:
Is better off without our aide, so long as we don't aide the other Arab countries. They are too dependent on us, and they are very armed and have the biggest and best military in the Middle East. Iran won't touch them, he's right.

Transcript:
It misquotes him - War is the Health of the State, not War is a Helpless State. I'm sure there are other misquotes, but oh well!

Overall, it was a good/decent performance considering it's a grilling interview. I like how Paul got Russert on a few things ("You say you are a Constitutionalist, but you want to amend it!" type comment made me laugh - silly Tim) Could have went better, but not bad, won't ruin his run. In fact, he had a spike in new donors today, about 450 on Sunday. So, obviously some people liked him who didn't know about him before.

[Michael Cathcart]

Excellent interview on Meet the Press this morning. Finally some tough questions for Paul, and he handled them quite well. He was quite articulate, funny, and really ready for everything Russert had.
I think Tim Russert thought he was going to take down Paul, with all of his quotes from the Houston Chronicle (an ardent critic of Congressman Paul) and Eric Dondero (the guy Paul fired, and now stumps for Guliani.) Paul showed that not only has he been consistent his entire career, but he can quick to the punch if needed.

[Dennis]

Don't get all defensive Mr. Malcom. I'm a 'rabid RP supporter' and thought your column was fair and responsible journalism.

Tim Russert did have to dig pretty deep and stretch pretty far to get to most of his allegations. That's probably a good sign that we're in good shape.

[Mark]

Andrew Malcolm is a jerk!

[Scott Harmon]

Just what is your beef with Ron Paul? I really want to know. Is it the Statism angle--that the Big Government will rescue us from all our ills, or is it the fear that Paul's positions will lead to a corporate hegemony? I'm smelling a Noam Chomsky angle here--one who doesn't like the State (he proclaims he's an anarchist), but believes the State is a necessary evil to rescue the sick and the poor. Like healthcare? Like Social Security? This country is insolvent, or didn't you know that? The Big Government is spending our money on Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Empire. We're indebted to the Chinese. Did you know that?

Chomsky has a "thing" about "ultra-nationalism." He thinks it is bad. But Putin and most of the world like their national independence. Is that bad? I would argue that it is not--because it is better to spend our money at home than around the world. Yet, the elitists (American politicians), are so deeply tied to the multinational corporations that they think we have to spend our money abroad in order to "own the world" (that's a Chomsky quote).

Really, you have to think in bigger terms. We aren't going to own the world--the world is going to own us if we don't start thinking independently. And Ron Paul, whether you like him or not, is the only credible candidate who is trying to bring this message home. Please, try to think deeper on the issues.

[tony]

I think its great that when your ratings suck as they tend to do now adays that you run a Ron Paul story knowing that every RP supporter will read and post. The LA times is a STRUGGLING rag of a paper hoping to translate into a web entity but you still amplify your socialist agenda hoping the writers strike will end soon so that you can continue covering lindsay lohan and britney spears... LA TIMES IS IRRELevant... your "opinion" means naught!

(Then why are you here wasting time leaving a comment like hundreds of other people and thousands of other readers each day? Thanks for reading.)

[Joseph]

I generally support Ron Paul, but in his criticism of Abe Lincoln, I think he delivered a cheap shot.

Lincoln admitted, "I don't control events, events control me." Remarkably similar to Paul's own statement that he doesn't control the internet message, the internet controls his message.

Lincoln was known for highly imaginative resolutions to the civil lawsuits he settled. His resolutions were intended to protect social harmony as well as deliver justice.

Unfortunately, South Carolina struck the first violent blow by shelling Fort Sumnter just over a month after Lincoln was sworn into office.

As the Chinese proverb goes, "One who strikes the first blow is he whose ideas have failed him." The idea of slavery failed the South, so they began the maelstrom that engulfed the US including its president. The South imitated Cain kiilling Abel, who struck his own brother down because his idea for a sacrifice was second rate compared to Abel's. This time however Abel was able to defend himself. Indeed, the Civil War saw brothers from the same family fighting each other.

The war wasn't Lincoln's initiative. He was just another victim of it. Given a chance, his negotiating skills exemplified in his case histories could have saved the social fabric of the Union without a shot being fired.

The war began April 12, 1861, and ended four years to the day, April 12, 1865. Lincoln died from a gunshot wound just 3 days later and barely a month after his second inauguration. Two acts of violence prevented Lincoln from using his negotiation skills. Lincoln never had a chance to serve the country under ideal circumstances. At least he kept Cain from killing Abel for the second time, and delivered the victory to Abel. I like to think that had he lived, Lincoln would have sped the country's recovery from its war wounds.

Paul better hope he serves under better circumstances than Lincoln faced.

[dallastexan]

That was good to hear your point of view. It sounds like you don't think he has a chance to win, but you would vote for him, if only he had a chance of winning. At this point its really all about turnout, and who do you think is going to have the highest turnout? So go ahead and support him, you'll be on the winning team.

(Oh, I never said that was my point of view. I said that's what someone might write if they wanted to be venomous, which the commenter was claiming this mild account is.)

[Eric]

Meh, I didn't get a sense of anything in this article... all you did was talk down on the reader at Paul's expense. It's kind of silly really. The whole article... you just kept an "air" about yourself as if you knew everything, you provide all the answers - mostly, you just say "Paul is an IDIOT" without really explaining why you think that's the case.

If anything you seem to be annoyed with Ron Paul supporters to the point that you're condescending towards them. You talk about the supporters themselves as if THEY are the story... as if they are just "crazy" people that we should all ignore.

Why not just stick with the issues and be civil? Why not cover Ron Paul's ideas and not like this white supremacist "story"? Are you accusing Ron Paul of being a Nazi? Well, then make that accusation! Seriously, and provide EVIDENCE... As far as I can tell, Paul talks about individual liberty and not considering people as if they are in different "groups." I don't see a connection, and I don't see why anyone would want to give money back to such scum?

The more I Think about it, the more I find this to be slanderous ... and so the more I find the media to be repulsive. They know the man is not a Nazi, he's not a White Supremacist - he's no where near that - yet they continue to pretend there's some kind of issue here? As if $500 means anything when you have millions in donations from individual contributors? He could have easily just given the money back and been politically correct about it. But he didn't, he said ... "no, I won't give it back" because he didn't think he should give money back to a white supremacist that will use it to promote a negative message... that's it, end of story. Nope, Authors like you have to bring it up... again and again... And you do nothing to add to the political discourse. I want to read a true discussion of policy.

(Interesting rationalization. Thanks for the insight.)

[Tom Brown]

Hey there, just a quick note to let ya know I've only responded to one article from another source, but this prompted another response. In my opinion, kudos for getting the facts about the discussion right. Don't worry so much about us. So we're an excitable bunch. Can't ya tell we have a lot to be excited about?

You probably give Paul as much chance of winning as the rest of 'em. But just imagine, for a moment if you will, this enthusiasm and determination growing in size and intensity throughout his campeign. If he doesn't get elected and the campaign draws to a close, do you really think all of these people will just fade away? What surprises me more is not the treatment of Paul by the MSM, but rather the non-existant mention by same of the movement and awakening that is happeing in this country. I would've thought that would be an even bigger story.

I don't believe Dr. Paul has started anything here, I just think he's galvanized what's been floating around for a while. He's obviously the best leader to date for this awakening and his candidacy has given it the opportunity to realize that it can be done with or without him. We're just doing our level best to try and see that it's WITH him. So try not to take anything personally, we're just lookin' out for da man. Good job though on this one, it's the first I've read. And keep up the objectivity. Obviously you're one of the ones that attended journalism school the day they taught journalism. Take care

[Gary A]

Thanks nice job of reporting! I will vote for Ron Paul, Tim did not change anything for me. I have found that the LA Times Reporting is one of the best and they are always Fair even if they dont agree with the person they are reporting on. Thank you for a job well done!!!!!

[Tony L]

How come so many articles I see on here try to preempt the comments of the Paul supporters? The ironic thing is, it's this site that got me wondering if Ron Paul was crazy or if he really is just the target of numerous hit jobs. Needless to say, I'm now voting for Ron Paul. Thank you for your coverage!

(Don't know what you mean by pre-empt, but the only comments that go unpublished here on Dr. Paul or any other item are the ones that use curse words, obscene suggestions or threaten people. Since this is supposed to be a place for discussion and dialogue, even if some RP people consider "You are a jerk" discussion.)

[Tom Brown]

BTW-a little something I noticed at the end of the interview. How many other candidates (honest question here) does Tim Russurt tell to "be safe on the campaign trail" ? Just curious.

(You'd have to check the transcripts, but don't think it's that unusual in modern American public life.)

[Phillip Smith]

I think its so funny these articles that try and put down Dr. Paul. They know we're going to come and comment, because we actually care about being told the truth. Unfortunately here is not the place. I guess we know where the journalists that get caught cheating go. If he would have actually payed attention to what was going on behind the scenes (instead of copying the closed captions) he would see that Ron was able to school Tim about History then sold him that troop bit hook line and sinker. What a great salesman. Tim didn't even see it coming. It made Tim feel smart and helped people realize that there are over half a million of our men and women protecting other countries, with our hard earned money, while the borders go un-protected. Oh, and that comes directly from Tim Russert.

(Oh, I see Dr. P was feigning ignorance about how many troops there are overseas because he knew Russert knew and would then put the number out for all to hear instead of Dr. P. having to say the number? That is a real double-bank shot.)

[smartherthanawriter]

(You're hilarious! THIS is venom to you? If this was venom, I'd have said Dr. Paul looked like a nice tired old man who was in way over his head and didn't even know how many troops he as president would have overseas to want to bring home, that he counts on Iran to not make trouble because it has no navy. that he would give up the Korean peninsula that more than 50,000 Americans died to keep democratic and that he was completely unable to explain his way out of a hypocritical paper bag in which he's all for less government but inserts earmarks in legislation to spend millions in govt money in his district and then votes against his own proposals, knowing they'll pass anyway, so he can fraudulently claim to be against spending. That would have been venomous to write. But I didn't write that.)

But the reason you didn't say that is because you know you would be ripped apart for typing an uneducated rant that would further prove how meaningless your writing is, and what little grip on reality you have.

Looks like you couldn't help it though.

(I was simply showing you what I could have said if I'd wanted to be venomous, which I didn't. You asked for it. You're so tender and naive. That's obviously why you hide behind a false name and email. And if you think this item was venomous, you've got a real awakening coming in a few weeks from all over if Dr. P. wins something. That's the weird price of success in this free land.)

[Joaquim Salazar]

The charge of flip-flopping against Paul is ludicrous, especially in light of the incomparable flip-flopping from Giuliani, Romney, and Clinton. The guy put a few benign earmarks in for his district (serving his constituents), and then voted against them (serving his conscience). Yet you'd rather hate the player than the game.
Does anyone understand the constitution anymore? How about Paul making a fool out of the ever-stupid Russert? "What's unconstitutional about amending the constitution, amending an amendment?" Russert: Duh... (looks for help from the producers that obviously write the show for him.

Nation of idiots, and Paul is too smart for most of them.

[Agent Smith]

"Paul supporters will say anything that sounds critical or dumb about their candidate was taken out of context."

How amazingly generalizing. Don't you have better things to do than rile up Paul supporters? Surely there is more to your career than grabbing their attention? I mean recent.

[Elizabeth]

I think Ron Paul did a great job on MTP today and did some research on the Internet. I think he's just become my new hero! I'm re-registering as a Republican so that I can vote for him in the primaries. We need Ron Paul. We need to take our country back. Go Ron Paul!!!

[Dave]

Let's see, I'm lifelong GOP and I've never been called or asked to participate for a poll! I vote every year. No one calls me. I donate to the pary and various causes and no one seems to give a crap. I'm voting for Ron Paul. I'll tell you this from life long GOP friends of mine. They have been called and when they press Ron Paul they are disconnected. Go figure? I've had enough! two words! RON PAUL!

[K]

Some of the other commenters are correct. This piece basically assumes that Paul is wrong without actually giving any reasons why. The standard "Paul is low in the polls and he's gonna have to face reality come primaries" spiel dragged out. The problem is, Andrew, that some people vote on principles, not polls. Be sure to tell us if you ever get to that point.

(Go complain where you can find something real. There's nothing in here about polls. Vote on principles. Vote on a whim. What's that got to do with this item? If RP wins anything, it'll be a great story. If he doesn't, you'll be disappointed. Happy holidays.)

[Josh S.]

"How amazingly generalizing. Don't you have better things to do than rile up Paul supporters? Surely there is more to your career than grabbing their attention?"

Yeah. On the whole I thought it was a fair enough piece coming from someone who doesn't seem to care much for Ron Paul. Though I don't care for the generalizations. Doesn't it kind of perpetuatue the whole quarrel?

Anyway, it will be interesting to see if Paul comes in the top three in Iowa. Or if those who say Paul really blew it here are correct. I'm kind of hoping for the former.

[lewis johnson]

Andrew Malcolm- congratulations, people are now reading what you have to say, too bad it's only Ron Paul supporters. Hey Malcom, you know who you remind me of? My television, which is about as worthless as a white house briefing. Was it neccessary to write this article given your certainty of
Dr. Paul' s demise? How's the fair weather up there at fox news, er, I mean Los Angeles Times? Hey, next week you mind mowing my lawn? I figure you might be needing some work after ten thousand hate comments come your way. Tommorow I'm telling people to jump off a bridge I thought you might be interested.

[David]

Well you just did write it venomously. Why point at Dr. Paul that voted against the earmarks, why not point at the other congressmen that voted for them. You stating that Ron Paul is being fraudulent about wanting to cut spending is outright slander and libel. Iran won't invade Israel because Israel will rain nuclear warheads on them, just like we're likely to get from Russia when we start invading Iran.

[James]

If the media has to go back 20 years to find dirt, then that is evidence enough that he is our man!! Go Ron Paul!!

[Jonathan Stillman]

You are a joke of a journalist Andrew,

You would be wise to wash out your mouth from the filth you so often spew, and try some good ol' honest writing for a (gargantuan) change...

[Tess]

Andrew:

Thank you once again for the write up on Ron Paul. He and his supporters are getting the word out to the right sources because he sure has been on MSM quite a bit lately. Anyway, I will say I was once again pleasantly surprized with all the Ron Paul signs I saw this last weekend as I was driving from Utah to California. I saw Ron Paul signs in front yards, at businesses and billboards driving down the freeway. It was awesome, the message of Liberty and Freedom is thriving in America and I love the fact that Ron Paul is the messenger. I am liking you more and more Andrew.
Keep up the good work, oh and look at the poll on AOL, this is a nationwide poll and cannot be taken more than once by the same IP address. Guess who is leading on the Republican side, none other than RON PAUL.

http://RonPaul2008.com

[NH]

Ron is right about getting rid of the CIA. They are the terrible operatives of the shadow government which must come to an end and soon.

This is a Revolution much needed.

[Dr. Kibble]

Do not go after the article's author...he is doing his job and has done at least one article that praised Ron Paul (I don't have the exact reference). I am an ardent Ron Paul supporter and thought that he did quite well in this interview.

Mr. Malcom has to do his best to provide information and insight, while not coming across as a shill for one candidate or the other. If he doesn't do this, his reputation is finished. Tim Russert has the same responsibility. Bring on the tough questions for Ron Paul! The more they probe, the more they'll find out how true his message is and how much better it is than the other candidates' messages!

The messages of liberty, small government, and peace are popular and deserve to be covered more!!!

[Margie]

Well, that's real big of you -- not ignoring Ron Paul. I guess this sarcastic piece makes you feel real good about yourself. You've really sunk to new levels, though nothing different from the usual boring, meaningless drivel one can expect in a bought and paid for newspaper. How does it feel to be mediocre?

[Abhishek]

Ron Paul came out clean and on top as usual in this "dirt-splashing" interview.

[Andrew]

I disagree completely about Ron Paul getting attention in the media (in the past week he's gotten relatively better coverage but he certainly is not treated like the candidate with the most cash on hand which he is).

On the day after Ron Paul raised more money in one day than any candidate ever the media chose to talk about some worthless newspaper endorsing McCain and questioned whether Hillary's strategy for presenting a softer side would work (they ultimately didn't anwer that one).

And when they mentioned Ron Paul's 6 million (with only like two or three exceptions) they treated it like it's something that happens all the time.

In previous elections straw polls were important. Now that Ron Paul wins most of them, they're not. In previous elections money was important. Now that Ron Paul is getting more than anyone on the Republican side, all of a sudden it is not.

The only thing left that the MSM can point to and say, aha!!!, Ron Paul can't win are these telephone polls. And yet this is the one thing that MSM has direct control over and the polls can be easily manipulated. Anyone who knows anything about how polls are conducted knows that who you call and how you phrase the questions have a huge impact on the results of the polls. And there already are signs (on youtube look up a few videos) that these polls have been tampered with. Seeing as the MSM is already in the pockets of the military contractors, they have both the incentive and power to keep Ron Paul in the single digits.

I have to say that if I was in the MSM, I would get down on my knees and pray to God (Even though I don't believe in God, I would want to take no chances) that Ron Paul supporters don't show up in mass because if they do they will DESTROY the MSM's credibility. But seeing how the MSM is no longer there to inform but rather to distract us as this country goes to hell, they deserve no better than to be utterly and completely humiliated.

(Why don't you complain about the lack of coverage of the big fundraising day somewhere that ignored it? This place covered it and has mentioned it several times since.)

[Cameron]

Andrew,

Kudos to you. Although I am a Ron Paul supporter, I recognize that you are using your valuable time to cover this story, and I respect that. A lot of fellow supporters who comment in these sections may attack you for your so-called negative bias, but I don't see it that way. Our vote this February may differ, but at least you are giving an analysis on his story, and I appreciate it... good or bad.

To my fellow Ron Paul supporters out there, I say that the only bad coverage is no coverage, so don't kill the messenger! I've seen far worse written/said about Ron Paul, and it would suit his chances of being elected much better if we *respectfully* agree/disagree in these kinds of forums. The media has chosen to highlight negative about with Ron Paul's supporters, rather than focusing on the important issues, which is his platform. Ron Paul's conduct is very respectful and statesman-like, even when he is dealing with rabid interviewers. Shouldn't we be the same? Lets be the bigger people :-)

[Kyle]

hilarious article, always gives me a nice warming belly laugh to read your stuff. anyway, Ron Paul 2008 woo hoo!

[Sam Marsh]

The blimp is in North Carolina, not New Hampshire. Thanks for the article, and the gratuitous blanket statements about Ron Paul supporters. Quite revealing.

[Grizzle]

I like you and your work Andrew, but I think you could be more charitable. I am sorry that not all Ron Paul supporters are as corteous as they should be. They aren't always to me in my comment sections. But when you're combing through hundreds of online posts, it's not always easy to see who is malicious to Paul (American Thinker) and who is not. And people's first foray into politics is usually the most pationate one, so that could account for a lot of it. Most of all, I think that Paul supporters feel like there's no outlet. They get it from the liberals because he's so extremely conservative and they get it from the neoconservatives because he represents an end to their monopoly on the GOP market.

There's plenty of people who support Paul for thought-out, respectable reasons. And there's plenty of reasons to think that the polls are inaccurate. I'm sure you've heard them all before, so I wish you'd just run another article that discusses more of the positive sides.

(Thanks for your interest and thoughtful comment. And for reading. You're probably right. I'm sure we'll be revisiting the Paul Revolution in the coming days. It would be good to get some more balance from Dr. Paul's crowd, but if they don't want to comment, I guess we can't stop them. Happy Holidays.)

[John]

When I studied journalism, and was a journalist, not teacher nor editor would have allowed this headline or lead.

When did the writer become the story? "We're not ignoring...." "We" shouldn't be in the story, nor should "our" opinions of who will win. Especially, the slights against democratically voting citizens of the United States of America should not be in the story. Just because you don't think they're backing a winner doesn't mean they're not correct in asking and demanding coverage.

Your opinion of his chances aren't news. You report, we decide. Keep it simple.

(Just a reminder, John. This is a blog, not a newspaper. It's written by two particular people who are not reporters. Been there, done that. You're going to stumble upon some opinion here. That's why it's a blog. And that's why there's a comments section right underneath for you to leave your very own opinion. I re-checked the item and can't find any predictions in it. Perhaps you're carrying over some anger or disappointment from somewhere else. Thanks for reading.)

[Pablo Escobar]

"that he would give up the Korean peninsula that more than 50,000 Americans died to keep democratic"

You could start by reading a book by Ted Carpenter of the Cato Institute that sets out the case for withdrawal in more detail. Or you could try reading Paul's book "A Foreign Policy of Freedom". Would that be too strenous for you?

Sorry Andrew, Ron Paul is a lot smarter than you. It's one reason he's where he is -- someone who has actually made a difference -- and you are still a small-time journalist.

If you ask him to defend why he wants to withdraw from Korea, he will be happy to oblige. He is an intellectual/academic as much as he is a politician. He states the complexities that other politicians like Obama gloss over with vague politically appealing statements. Go ahead, send the campaign HQ an email and open up a public debate on the issues instead of resorting to smear pieces. Tackle the issues -- there is a right and wrong answer.

Why people instinctively attack ideas they don't understand is beyond me.

(Well, he certainly had his chance and a national audience to make his case today.)

[colecrowe]

Thanks for the fair and balanced article. It was written very well. I enjoyed it, and I think it would be very informative for anyone.

[kyle]

I am sorry so many Ron Paul supporters are using harsh tones in their comments; me thinks they are looking like clones for Bush and Cheney. Real Ron Paul supporters inspire, uplift and show respect for varying opinions. These negative comments only turn people off to Ron Paul and our message of the Constitution. While Paul is not perfect (who is), and needs to talk about bread and butter issues; he still, at least for me, is the only candidate out there defending the Constitution. I hope he runs as a fourth party; Lou Dobbs or Mike Bloomberg will be third party. Have a blessed Christmas.

(Same to you, Kyle. Thanks for reading--and the thoughtful comments.)

[justin]

Ive been waiting to say this. and now is the perfect time.

I wonder if either the GOP or us [the revolution] realize... We have the entire GOP by the good and plenties. I Guarantee you, If ron paul doesnt get the nom. he will run 3rd party. and he will not win. BUT neither will the GOP hopefull. So to the nay-sayers I say this. IF WE DONT WIN, YOU SURELY WONT WIN. Welcome to what I call a HOSTILE TAKEOVER, so grab a seat and watch the revolution work to take down hilary in 08.

PS: the peace canidate ALWAYS wins

[A Kantor]

SIR: re "even though it can't be about being ignored by the big media anymore."

I tried a little test today, on news.google.com. I've tried to search for Dr Paul and other candidates, in quotes, both in 'Search News' and on 'Search on the Web' (in that order), and I was looking just for the number of hits:

Ron: ------- 8,258 ----- 2,460,000
Mitt: ------- 32,120 ---- 1,380,000
Rudy ----- 23,300 ---- 1,120,000
Mike ------ 28,708 ------ 753,000
John ----- 20,879 ---- 3,230,000
-------------------------------------------
Barack --- 36,326 ---- 1,730,000
Hillary ---- 26,816 ---- 5,940,000
John ------ 24,598 ---- 3,600,000
Dennis ----- 3,791 ------ 935,000

[hard to format the numbers]
I think those numbers are interesting, especially with both John's having a fairly common names.

Anyway, thanks for reporting.

-AK

[Eric N.]

Russert seemed exceptionally rabid this Sunday and he did take Paul to task on the number of troops abroad as well as the amount of annual federal income tax.

Paul should have had these answers cold. Eventually we'll be getting into tributaries of policy and Paul is better in the open water - at least that's my perception at this point.

Still, I think you're missing the Paul X factor here which is that he isn't a plasticized candidate with well rehearsed, focus group-approved answers to likely questions. There's also a philosophical depth to his answers absent in the others. He speaks the truth of foreign policy blowback, even though he knows it makes us all squirm uncomfortably, because it's what needs to be said and there is never any doubt in the listeners mind that Ron Paul loves America more than himself.

Try saying that about any other candidate without laughing.

It wasn't his best interview but he certainly did better than Romney when prodded as to whether or not he still looked forward to the day gays and lesbians could serve openly in the military and at least as well as Giuliani when questioned about the breaking story of his mistress's mayoral attache.

The reason is simple: Paul has nothing to hide and nothing to apologize for.

And it showed.

Russert's a bulldog and even though he went pretty deep in the well, his bark was much worse than his bite with Paul.

I score it a draw for the contenders and a win for Americans.

[Bobby]

I think it's pretty pathetic when "bloggers" for the LA Times have to resort to writing blogs aimed almost solely at the supporters of a particular candidate. This whole blog is couched in a way so as to instigate Ron Paul supporters, probably to satiate Andrews’s boredom. Andrew, you seem to be obsessed with Ron Paul supporters. Why? Also, I find it a little bit disappointing that you allow your disdain for Paul supporters to bleed into your opinion of Ron Paul.

(Well, if you ever read anything online that wasn't about RP, you'd know that the articles on him here are a tiny fraction of what we write about. True, they do tend to attract the angriest people whose idea of dialogue is, "You're a jerk!" But so what? At least they're participating in the democratic process, unlike a gazillion other Americans. Trying to think what I am obsessed about. But I can guarantee you it's not RP or his supporters. They're a great political story and we'll see real soon if they stay that way. That's what so fun about politics. You never know the ending in advance. Thanks for reading.)

[Fazsha]

Omigod, Ron Paul didn't know how many troops were stationed overseas! I guess that disqualifies him from being president!

Or wait - maybe we want a president who is educated enough to quote Frederic Bastiat. Hmmmm, it might be a good change of pace to have a learned man in there this time.........

(Well, if a major premise of your campaign is to bring home our many troops abroad, some might expect you to know how many you're talking about. But at least he was honest about not knowing.)

[Josh]

Andrew Malcolm , I can't believe I did it again and read one of your articles about Ron Paul.
I get it, you think Ron Paul is a flake with stupid polices. Fine, thank you, I heard you, and you know what, I can accept that but please put Andrew Malcolm at the beginning so I can just ignore you like I ignore Red State articles about Ron Paul.

How about Andrew Malcolm writes about Ron Paul then zip, zam, zoom I can bypass you and you can feel free to write whatever you like and I can change the channel.

Tks.

[Michael Shanklin]

Thank you for covering my candidate! It was greatly appreciated!

[Danny]

"...And if you think this item was venomous, you've got a real awakening coming in a few weeks from all over if Dr. P. wins something. That's the weird price of success in this free land"

Troof!

Once again, thank you for blogging about Dr. Paul. I totally dorked out here and read the commentary...yeah, I'm one of 'those' supporters.

Anyway, you made some really good points in the replies..like the one above. We supporters better thicken our skin a bit methinks, especially when RP starts doing well in the primaries! But, so far he's ducking and weaving pretty well...

The bigger thing that still bugs me about the whole MTP thing (and this election in general) is how everyone seems to pointedly ignore our economic and currency crisis here in the ol' Estados Unidos.

I mean, we have the Comptroller General for the US GAO touring the country to talk about how we, as a country, are on the verge of bankruptcy! (seriously... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/60minutes/main2528226.shtml )

Accountants do not and should not be doing tours (he says he 'gave up' on the politicians.) This speaks volumes to me. Ron Paul is the only candidate talking about this (the money issue, not the tour)...and no one cares. I fully understand that political shows would be tirelessly dull without digging for dirt but, at the very least, in the interest of self-preservation I think more journalists would be asking about our MONEY.

Or, more pointedly, about how our country is going broke and how our currency being devalued so quickly, it could teeter into Peso land without too much effort. I personally like running water and electricity...and eating. Why isn't anyone besides the Comptroller and RP talking about how bad our money situation is?

Cheers for helping to keep the RP buzz alive! UR repliez R funny...=)

(Thanks for reading and making good points.)

[Jennifer]

Boy Andrew glad you proved your not full of venom. I understand venom though like the kind some Ron Paul supporters have for people who keep bringing up the White Supremasist story when it's been proven untrue (see story on digg).

[Nick]

I respect your first amemendment rights to say what ever you want. I could be one of those RP supporters who talk down to you just as you talked down to us but i wont. ill just state a couple of facts just as u just tried to do.

Dr. Paul is a successful politician for many year, he is a leader in a growing movement that many people cant even understand yet, he doesnt take money from coorperations which try and buy him out, he is getting different treatment from the mass media, he doesnt carry alot of the same baggage other canidates carry, he has gone on some of the most bias and attack based "reporters" interviews, Ron Paul has been in office for as long as he has for a reason that reason is called democracy, and he has gathered a following of people that if he does loose many just think will disapear and will cause this Great Awakening to end (LMAO).

and now its your turn.... i dont know you so i wont slander you or look down on you as a person but from this article i can tell that....

Andrew Malcolm works for The LA Times, one of the top 500 sites on the Web just 18 months ago, but has recently seen its ranking dip below the 2,000 level, with no sign of a rebound, and is only getting worse and worse ratings, anderew malcolm wrote a recent attack article on Dr. Paul that many would say is and obvious attempt for attention for the LA Times and his obvious less then amazing position in media. andrew malcolm has just upset not just current RP supporters but current and future members of the movement, andrew malcolm in an obvious attempt to slander Ron Paul has only fueled the momentum in his campaighn and last but not least andrew malcolm just attacked the only person running for president that is fighting to protect his rights to say and to publish anything he wants (espically over the internet)

well i hope that my level of reporting measures up to your obvious skills. thanks for the great article its always nice to hear people express there views (even if people do have a common misconception that the la times only uses its name for news rather then for the views of a select few)

Happy Holidays and keep up the good work :)

(Thanks. Will do. Appreciate your reading.)

[Mike]

Sam you're a fool.

Ron Paul has done nothing wrong on earmarks, and you're unfairly smearing a good man with a good message , and I'll explain why.

The spending bills determine what kind of program the money will be spent on, so if they're passed, and they're for an unconstitutional program (like farm subsidies), then nothing Ron Paul does will effect or exasperate that. Requesting earmarks is not ADDING anything unconstitutional to the bill, it is simply determining exactly how that unconstitutional spending bill will be spent.

America is facing total collapse right now and gullible fools like you will lead it straight there:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGpY2hw7ao8

Here you have 3800 dead Americans in Iraq, a million dead Iraqis, four million Iraqi refugees, Iraq's infrastructure completely destroyed, a generation of Iraqi children that will grow up malnourished and without education, and what are you doing? Trying to smear Ron Paul on earmarks, despite the fact that unlike EVERY OTHER MEMBER OF CONGRESS, he has always voted against the earmarks that his constituents request.

[Mayberry]

Ron Paul received contributions from over 100,000 different people this quarter. He received $18,000,000 from those 100,000 people. His support is wide and deep. Look around your town and notice you see RP signs everywhere.

[Mike]

Ahoy. I finally jumped off of the Obama ship last week to vote for Ron Paul. I have been a disgrunteld Democrat for quite some time and more so since the Dems have done NOTHING after being given the majority in Congress. In Fact, they have furthered the agenda of this out-of-control Bush administration.

After seeing and watching the support for Mr. Paul grow and grow, despite the media's biased and marginal coverage, I have (don't disown me, Dad) registered as a Republican.

The unfair coverage from the media was one of the major factors that compelled me to research Mr. Paul's views and stances more closely. Now, I have to start working on my Dad.

[Dave]

Thank you for covering possibly the greatest US Presidential candidate that I have seen in my 25 years of existence.

Of course, hearts of hearts we all know it does not matter how many troops are deployed abroad ;) , and I am proud that you had to harp on this triviality to find a flaw in my candidate. It would have been so much easier on any of the other candidates.

[Mike]

How many troops are overseas is not particularly important. What is important is how much MONEY is being spent to maintain them there, and that is something Ron Paul knows all about. The only troop deployment that is important to know the details of is the ones in the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan where their lives are in danger, and Ron Paul knows the numbers of troops there, not only military but also defence contractors (mercenaries who are not counted in the government total).

Remember Ron Paul is probably the most active member of congress when it comes to taking care of veterans. He spends probably 1/3rd of his time on veteran affairs. No wonder he gets more donations from troops than any other candidate.

[joe bob]

Thanks for covering this interview.....very important that the american public is exposed to what Ron Paul is saying....as for his supporters, why bother? they are only there to get him elected.

[Dave in Alaska]

Thank you for covering Ron Paul! He has cured my decades of political apathy, and I will do everything I can in the next couple of months to help him spread his message of peace, freedom, and respect for the Constitution.

[john c]

Hey Andrew,
please check out this link.....tell me what you think.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3482995,00.html

[Joshua Frye]

Mr. Malcolm,

If you asked President Bush or any person on the Hill "How many people are oversees right now in the military?" of course they would answer "I'm not sure" or " In what context?" You've got military giving aid, occupying countries, in battles, on the seas.... etc. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to expect that someone (who is honest) wouldn't know the EXACT number.

Dirt on other candidates in this race is SUBSTANTIAL. Romney. Guilliani. Huckabee. Yet the media hasn't railroaded these guys with attempts to slander them, at least not with the ferver of those against Ron Paul. (and what have they gotten on the meek and honost Doctor? One journalist suggested to a Nevada brothel that they should support Paul, and then used it to slander. Entrapment.)

As Ron Paul defends freedom, I believe I can quote him saying "It's the media's right to their bias." However, are you willing to lose your honor/credibility to do so? I have the utmost respect for those in the media working against our countries turn towards fascism. I believe that if your paper made a stand, all at once, against those who tell you what to write about, we the people would honor you buy actually buying your newspaper........ every day.

(You may be right about people not knowing the number overseas, but if that person was making a big political deal about there being way too many of them, you might think he'd have some idea of what that way too many number is. To his credit, Dr. P didn't try to fake it. He just said he didn't know.)

[lnardozi]

Tim Russert is really something. He investigates OTHER people back to what they said 20 years ago, but does Mr. Russert disclose his OWN conflicts of interest? No, instead he silently plans his character assassination attempt without letting anyone know he has a dog in the fight. Well, you kind of have to expect that type of hatchet job from someone who in bed with the status quo.

I did my OWN little fact checking expedition and found the advertisers for Meet The Press.

GE lists 824 items regarding defense contracts on their website for 2007.
GE owns NBC, Tim Russert's employer.
http://www.ge.com/search/index.jsp

Boeing lists 72,200 items regarding defense.
http://tinyurl.com/2nm5y8

Fidelity Investments - tax and 401k services, need I say more?

Hummer - child company of AM General the company that makes all the HMMWV's for the Army.

UBS - Another banking company, certainly they have nothing to fear from Dr. Paul, right?

Toyota - makes cars which are CURRENTLY cheaper to make in Japan (and then assemble here).

Aleve - you think Bayer Pharmaceuticals has a reason to fear Ron Paul - who wants to allow young adults to opt out of SS and Medicare and is vehemently opposed to socialized medicine?

ABE - (shill for coal companies) do they have nothing to fear from Ron Paul's desire to deregulate nuclear power so we have safe, clean unlimited power?

CVS - A Pharmacy whose bread and butter is insurance and Medicare. Dr. Paul wants to remove the incentives for hospitals to overbill us.

Xerox - another defense contractor. Here's a link to their defense contracts of 2006. http://tinyurl.com/2wjzbb

MasterCard - Huge banking coop.

Why didn't Mr. Russert let us know that he had a HUGE conflict of interest BEFORE THIS SEGMENT AIRED? When half of your advertisers are in defense, the other half split between banking and Big Pharma doesn't that constitute NEWS? I mean, Mr. Russert dug back 20 years or more on Dr. Paul to try to find "dirt". Why not look in your own mirror? I find the FACT that Mr.
Russert did NOT disclose this relationship highly disturbing.

(Good point, but why don't you ask NBC, not me?)

[Chris]

"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."

Mark Twain

[Todd Schuller]

Andrew, thanks for the article. I know you can't admit that you like the guy, liberal myself. Keep up the good work, your reaching us from the left. RP08

[Evan D]

Keep up the Ron Paul columns.
Mitt cries, Huck insults religion by using it as a campaign slogan, Rudy remains sick, Tancredo quits, Fred sleeps and Ron Paul raises $6 million dollars in one day (and triumphson MTP). Except for Dr. Paul, "[t]here's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas, banning books like "America Deceived' from Amazon, warrant-less wiretapping and the PATRIOT ACT. They are both guilty of treason.
Time to take sides, fellow patriots, you're either for liberty and Support Dr. Ron Paul or you're against liberty and damn us all.
Final link (before Stark County DIstrict Library bends to pressure and drops the book):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0

[Chad Spence]

You're absolutely right. We don't care what others say about him or what polls show. George Bush can get up in front of the camera and tell people how good the economy is but everyone knows, almost in a sixth sense way, that things aren't right. The same is true with Dr. Paul. Everyone, whether a supporter or not, knows he is absolutely obliterating the competition. If you go by fundraising alone, he enjoys more support now, than John Kerry had after he was annointed as the Democratic nominee. AOL is currently running it's own supposedly spam proof "straw poll" and Ron is winning in all but four states.

[immigrant]

Ron Paul took Russert to school with ease. Plain and simple. Russert should have done his research on the functions of congress, also he made a really strange amateurish mistake of thinking the civil war was actually about slavery, which for the most part it wasn't.

Im a black immigrant by the way.

[Edward]

Say what you will, but Ron Paul has made you a star.

[Rob L]

Good article... Most of the coverage doesn't take the time to fully explain Ron Paul's answers to these questions, questions which couldn't be fully answered in 10 second sound bytes, but I think you did a good job.

You purposely injected some of your own opinions into the article, but at least you provide the reader with most of the content you're reporting on. I don't particularly like the title, but you have a lot more talent than most of the blogs I read on this site.

My only advice is to tone down the sarcasm. It has a place in journalism, but it tends to reflect badly on the writer by taking away a level of professionalism.

Good night, and good luck...

[1440 minutes]

Andrew,

Tim Russert was tough as usual, and Ron Paul did a fine job. We love Ron Paul because of his fabulous message, not because of his oratory or debating skills. Some Ron Paul supporters might be thin-skinned, but most of us are great regular people. Peace.

[Lucia SChmitz]

You are obsessively angry at Ron Paul and his voters. If you didn't give a hoot about him and think he is going to loose by a landslide why even bother to right such a long article about him. But deep inside of you, you fear that what ever you preach you might be wrong.
Win or loose, Ron Paul has started a movement in the country and that is the important thing here. There is a Confucian Sayings: Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.

[Matthew]

As long as this bad writing helps your ego, keep going!
You just aren't very good.

[Patty]

Mr. Malcom,

I wish you would write an editorial piece clarifying your opinions about Ron Paul. When I read your articles, I get the impression you dislike this candidate and his supporters but try and disguise your contempt for the sake of objectivity. Is objectivity that important? Those of us who wish to gain perspective on the Ron Paul Revolution and consider intelligent, dissenting opinions would appreciate your subjective analysis. This article presents itself as "objective" but still has a slant (in that it emphasizes Dr. Paul's ostensible stumbling points in the Russsert interview and does not mention his triumphs). That amounts to confusion, because your motivation in drawing the bias remains unclarified.

What is so interesting about Dr. Paul's wish to eliminate the Department of Education, for example? You mention it without comment. Do you think that's radical and negligent or a reasonable reaction to the utter lack of success in that department over the last 27 years? I would value your insight here.

In my opinion Tim Russert's "waterboarding" (as you call it) is reprehensible, because, again, it creates confusion. In a normal interview, the intention is to give people a chance to understand the views of the interviewee. Russert rapid-fires accusations without offering enough time for response. How does the audience benefit from this weird format? How do voters benefit from seeing candidates' characters attacked, often with accusations of dubious substance and credibility, in a situation where their mouths are for the most part effectively tied shut, so they are defenseless? I would argue that the whole truth has very little chance of seeing the light of day on Mr. Russert's show. And to the extent that the expression of truth is limited, the show is worthless, except in producing a cheap thrill of a sensationalized story.

If these are the shoddy means by which America seeks to assess the integrity of those seeking its leadership, no wonder it picks the wrong guy so often.

[Mark, Pasadena, CA]

I just want to know one thing, if any journalist is honest and courageous enough to say it. Let's look at something: Ron Paul - never has there been a campaign that raised so much money solely from individual donors - no corporate, no PAC money, none of it. It's plain Americans giving as best they can because they actually believe in someone. This is what we are always told politics should be about. This is what we always hear would be the ideal. This is a great American, democratic story. Anyone who believes in the ideals that we were brought up with - government of, by, and for the people - should be weeping with joy. And yet, with the exception of a few recent articles here in the LA Times and some other minor publications, no one has much of anything good to say about it.

Why?

[Scott Frost]

I would appreciate it if L.A. Times writers would not generalize about Ron Paul's supporters as if we are the Borg and of one mind. We did not all take offense at Tim Russert's interview, though most of us understood the issues being discussed better than the average viewer.

All we ask is that Tim Russert be equally tough with every candidate. Unlike other candidates, Ron Paul got no softball questions. That's okay. More time to answer the questions would have been nice, though.

What difference does it make, exactly, how many troops there are overseas?! There are tens of thousands of U.S. troops stationed in over 125 countries around the world and they should not be there. That's quite simple to understand. The number of troops based overseas should be zero.

Do you need to know exactly how many people were murdered in Los Angeles last year to know that murdering people is wrong and the number should be zero?

Ron Paul understands that government IS coercion and, the less coercion a society has in it, the happier and more prosperous it will be.

What I want to know is why do so many people in the mainstream media love government so much? (And, consequently, dislike Ron Paul. The tone in the above article betrays a deep loathing by the author of Ron Paul and, frankly, his supporters.)

[Tom Mathers]

I am 58. We have had a military presence in Korea my entire life. We have had one in Europe since before I was born. I spent a year in Vietnam, when we had a presence there. Why? Why can’t it just end? There is peace in Europe; certainly not because we are there but because those people got tired of war after war. Some hotspots in the traditionally volatile Balkans remain; not our problem, their problem. If there are Americans who feel so strongly about foreign issues that they want to fight then I say let them. Get a plane ticket, ship some guns to your “glory dream spot,” and party down with the folks you disagree with. But don’t expect some overreaching president who has cowed the congress into submission to send other peoples children to enforce your pathetic anti-American loyalties.

[skullfinders]

Another Word To Americans

This is Steven Douglas Elwood, I have spoken to you before about Ron Paul. Many people criticize what the man is saying. All he is saying about the government programs to be abolished, is that they should be handled on a state or local level. Another thing, non-intervention is not the same as isolationalism.
If we reduce the Federal Government and give the power back to local and state agencies. We will save billions of dollars that are wasted by giant bureaucracies. So many politicians and big corporations will loose Federal subsidies as well as political swaying power for government programs. A lot of people are going to fight tooth and nail so they can still suck millions of dollars off the Federal tit. The true American will fight for individual rights and tell the Federal Government we can govern ourselves on a local level. Remember private industry and free market competition is the greatest innovator. Ron Paul is the only man in the 2008 presidential election that stands for freedom and equality for all, which made America the strongest country on earth, financially and militarily.
Now big corporations and the behemoth bureaucracy called the Federal Reserve and many others are destroying our country and our individual freedoms as well as the value of the American dollar. If we do not return to the framework that our country was founded on, we are facing imminent doom. We are not the FEDERAL EMPIRE of AMERICA...We are a republic.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

My fellow countrymen and fellow patriots, I beseech you to join with me and vote for Ron Paul. This is our last chance to take our country back from these bureaucracies.

GOD BLESS AMERICA

Steven Douglas Elwood

[Robert Moore]

You come off as it's a bad thing that Paul didn't know the exact amount of money collected from the Income tax or the exact number of soldiers that the US has in it's 700 bases overseas.

Numbers are for clerks, not leaders. We all know that the nimbers are huge so whether it's $1.1 Trillion in income tax or 526,047 soldiers is makes no difference.

BTW, our natioanl debt sits at around $60 Trillion (that's about $200,000 for every US citizen)

[John Vaughn]

Andrew, I'm a Ron Paul fan, but you were right about this interview. I had been looking forward to it all week, and he blows it by not being prepared. "Alot"... "I don't know"... What kind of answers are these? He should have had answers ready. Although I would have to say not knowing the numbers is more important if you are asking for a reduction in force versus just bringing them all home. Overall, I think this interview with Ron Paul is what you get when candidates are not completely scripted and staffers aren't writing your every word. Thanks for the article.

[Koh Choon Lin]

Once again, a MSM had ridden Ron Paul off the election. How many more times do I have to read articles writting off his chances?

[bkusz]

Poor Andrew, after the elections and all the Ron Paulers are gone to bed, Andrew will be back to his dozen readers or so...

Never thought you could be so popular Andrew.

By the way Andrew, who's your man/woman/other in the Election?

No Comment?

[Emmett]

Ah, the kind of journalistic excellence we have come to expect from the LA Times. Now, I think Ill go shower a few more times.

[Virginia B.]

This article is not the sweetness and light I'm sure many of us Paul supporters would love to see, but it's certainly fair. I appreciate your continued coverage of Paul, Mr. Malcolm.

[Ward Ciac]

Hey, Dr Paul isn't perfect. But he shot down most of what Russert threw at him. He's also the only candidate with honesty and integrity. The others all have scandals and like to flip flop.

[bob a]

the headline says it all

it is negative, right andrew?

a new term in american politics is now emerging

ron paul's mesage will resonate for a century

i am declaring my self

a ron paul republican!

ron may lose the election but his message will eventually win the war

[jack]

It is not the "We the People" Ron Paul campaign that is irrelevant as you try to say... it is "You the KOWTOWING media" that is truly irrelevant. Save a tree and just get with the program at least the one you may understand... 18,000 dollars can't all be wrong.

[Lonnie Randall]

I am excited about Ron Paul because this is the first time in my fifty years that I have heard someone talk about restoring the America that we were taught about as school children. It only really existed in our imagination but we still believe in it.

My fear is that the people behind the military industrial complex that Dr. Paul talks about will never allow this movement to turn back the clock on the globalist advances they have made over the past century plus. If they cannot marginalize this movement with the msm, they will kill him.

Am I being impatient? I am wondering why you would not post this comment.

Is truth not allowed at your blog?

[Dale Legan]

Ron Pauls earmarks sure were not "pork barrel". To fix the only bridge on and off Galveston Island and to fix up a port in Texas City that is one of the few places to make Jet Fuel for the Military.

The Galveston Causway was in bad trouble. Can you imagine a hurricane comming and the thing collapsing so no one could get off of the Island.

Tough Questions I appreciate. TR did that but he also twisted the truth , avoided issues , changed subjects without giving the Dr. time to fully respond ect.

Ron Paul did great and hit it out of the park when dealing with this intellectual deciever.

[Dave]

Andrew, I guess all the economists that endorse Ron Paul are fools. How about all the military folks that gave him money? How about my wife, (a doctor), or the thousands of other professionals who are smart enough to know our freedom is being taken piece by piece. We are trying to stop the path America is obviously walking down. For ourselves, for our children. This is not about Ron Paul, Andrew. He knows this. You know this. Help us.

[Jack Wagner]

Andrew Malcolm,

you're a no talent hack.

Merry Christmas

[Charlotte]

What attracts people to Ron Paul is that he begins from large first principles (liberty, the constitution) and then fashions his views of particular issues by consulting the larger principles involved. For all the irony and downright sarcasm that Paul's critics muster, the critics don't mention that the particulars of Paul's platform aren't his greatest appeal. In reality, the fact that he genuinely believes in a set of fundamental, starting principles is what distinguishes him from every other presidential candidate because every other candidate presents his or her positions not according to principle but according to what the candidate perceives will appeal to voters at this time. With Ron Paul, one need only know the large premises to know his positions on a diversity of issues. With the others, foundational principles don't matter, and the platforms are a hodgepodge of "hot button" promises, arrived at primarily by the hope of raising money and being elected.

The hostility to Paul in pieces like this results from the resentment that mainstream politicians and media feel toward Paul. Paul isn't playing by the rules of political engagement. He really believes what he espouses. Paul's presence sheds light on the cynical, power-driven values of the political establishment. The same establishment resents being told that they really don't believe in anything but power. This reality of mainstream politics, while true, is off limits according to a "gentleman's agreement" of the political arena. By calling out the establishment on this point, Paul is breaking the accepted rules of engagement.

Andrew,
I appreciate your coverage of and commentary on Ron Paul.
I think it you also be wise for you and the media to begin covering the issue of debt in this country: government debt, consumer debt, corporate debt—a mountain of debt that no candidate other than Ron Paul seems to be particuarly concerned about.
Why is the United States borrowing billions of dollars from the Communist Chinese to "make the world safe for democracy?"
That's a flashing red light; it's ti