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