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

[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