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

[D Lopez]

I like reading about Dr Ron Paul even if I am being spoken to as if I was insane. Face it we are a crazy group! Planning on taking our country back to it's origins! We are filing lawsuits to get voting away from the machines and into the open. We are signing up people to run for congress in 08, we are running to be delegates. This is the revolution. Dr Ron Paul has won more straw polls and historically they have been more accurate than telephone polls. You have to get off the couch and drive, stand in line and vote, not just answer the phone. http://www.paulcongress.com/Candidates.html
http://www.libertycongress.org/ We have to win this.

[Talcott]

The author doth prostest too much, methinks.(concerning the tone of his writing)

Andrew

Mr. Russert didn't allow Dr.Paul to fininsh a substantial portion of his

answers, including the troop count.

And btw he wasn't invited on MTP to 'make his case", he was invited to be

MIC'ed, however I percieve that he rose above.

[Robert]

I have to say, Paul is not much of a speaker. Kind of awkward really, but he's honest he didn't try to fake it when he didn't have specific facts. After Meet the Press, he's got my vote.

To me the white supremacist money is a red-herring. Are Romney and Huckabee to be held accountable for the supporters of theirs that cruise the streets looking for homosexuals to assault? Is Hillary responsible for the actions of the terrorist wing of PETA?

Not that I think he can actually dismantle the entrenched interests in Washington, like the Dept. of Education, but I think he's right. What have they done besides proven themselves to be efficient money pits with untraceable records? I think every single one of these departments should have to justify their existence based on their performance. Of course only Paul would put something like that forward.

Personally I think Russert avoided the Iraq war all together, because Paul isn't soft there and Russert's modus operandi is more about exposing weaknesses.

Turns out that Paul was also right about Israel wanting us to go after Iran next. Sharon made the statement a couple years ago. Paul should have had the facts though, because he looked weak to me when he said that, but couldn't give specifics. I was fortunate enough to get a google hit via lew rockewell's site.

I'm with him on Social Insecurity.

I thought the earmark thing was a good point, but Paul's answer made sense to me. If the fed takes a dollar out of your pocket for every two you earn and then states that it's going to spend that dollar regardless of necessity, would you stand in line to see if you could get as much of it back as possible? I don't know. Makes sense to me.

You can hate the game and try to change it, but only a fool wouldn't play by the rules to effect as positive an outcome as possible until the needed change is enacted.

Still kind of amazed that Russert went back 25 years to try and ding him for flip-flopping on immigration. If your position changes once or twice in several years, I thinks it's safe to say you're not campaigning by focus group or playing both sides of the issue. 25 years... Russert fell on his face on that one, right up there with insinuating that amending the constitution was somehow unconstitutional... but hey it made me laugh, in a unnerved sort of way.

I like his position on drugs. Alcohol is just another drug, just state sponsored and responsible for a ridiculous number of deaths. I may not smoke weed, but my grandparents do and you'll be hard pressed to find a sweeter couple.

I'm not sure I understood the civil rights thing. To me it seemed like Russert basically tried to paint him as a racist, but Paul's response was that the legislation had more to do with eroding property rights than anything else. I'd like to hear more about that, but he hardly strikes me as being racist.

Anyway, it was interesting. I'd kind of like to see Paul brush up on his speaking skills, but maybe that would come at the cost of the authenticity that I find so appealing. I'm still not sure how I'm going to explain this one to the family... I think they're split between McCain and Giuliani.

[NMITT]

The tone of this article, and many others as the primaries arrive, is exhaustive, biting, and bitter.

I'm just making sure we still live in America. It's as if support by individuals for a common candidate is distasteful to you, that the fervor (only from the Paul supporters) leading up to the Primaries is uncouth and even annoying. "Why are Ron Paul supporters so involved with this Primary?" you seem to be saying, "Look, I'm giving him his article, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. You Ron Paul supporters shouldn't be active and vocal, it's obnoxious - nobody likes a real democracy."

As if a single white supremacists $500 contribution was something that should even be mentioned. One of Hillary's supporters was actually breaking the law to give her his money and that incident is all but forgotten now.

when Russert tried to pin Paul for simply giving the taxes back to the citizens in his district (not that Paul thinks the money should've gone there in the first place) Paul tried to explain that he's not just going to give money away to the federal government because he is forced to and not try to retrieve it. It's rational, it's certainly not criminal (as Russert alluded to Giuliani that his company may be), yet Russert acted like Paul was the biggest hypocrite on the planet.

While you seem to want to elaborate on these points and many others you choose to bite your tongue because it'd be "taken out of context." But how did they find the single White Supremacist that aided Paul's campaign? Could it be because Paul is running his campaign in the open allowing the public to see minute-by-minute contributors? The fact that Paul wants to run a transparent government in which we will be able to know these things and much much more (as if a mere $500 contribution from an unsavory person is a crime) seems to leave a bad taste in your mouth.

To me your article seems less a cry for the smothering Paul supporters to give you some breathing room and more of a demand for a truly public (individuals, not corporations) campaign to shut up and allow people such as yourself to dictate who is important in this election and who is not.

I am a Paul supporter and I'm not exactly like the Paul supporter who posts before me or like the one who posts after me. We are not a fringe group. We are the American public who corporations like the one who pay for your bandwith have abandoned for more plastic news. When you do look at a candidate you'd rather not be a frontrunner you try and evoke the apathy of the American people to use their hate against any sort of excitement or movement. Granted it's harder to profit from something you can't control and why I understand you and other large corporate media are acting like children as opposed to reporters during these debates. But grow up and treat all the presidential candidates with a level of respect, don't just make pouty articles about how you can't bash one because there is hardly anything to bash.

Ron Paul is an honest candidate who hardly contradicts himself and makes logical sense (as in the case of the earmarks and Russert) when he does... as if what he did was even that manipulative. "Look! Ron Paul wanted to excavate a ship off the coast of Texas with FEDERAL money! Obviously he's going to be a terrible president who doesn't care a thing about the United States."

If you're going to report on Paul please be poignant. If you're tired of people supporting a candidate then don't report on the Primaries, you're obviously not interested in the process that makes this country great... and that's fine... so long as you don't pretend that it's a problem when it works.

[Gary]

Just four years ago, in his message "The War on Religion" (December 2003), Paul claimed that the U.S. Constitution is "replete with references to God." Apparently Paul missed the Constitution's grand total of ZERO references to God. This interview with the Russert is further evidence that Rep. Paul makes glib statements and sweeping generalizations without any more thought than a typical politician.

In the interview with Russert, Paul manages to get his message out a few times, but he's caught stumbling and backpedalling just as often. And for good reason: Paul has a history of saying things that make him look silly.

Rep. Paul's performance in the Russert interview may prove satisfactory to the true believers who support him regardless of his gaffes or grandiose claims, but that wouldn't be news.

[Winston Parsons]

Dang it. Don't try to type a message into the computer with your keyboard sitting on top of a big open book. Anyway, what I was trying to post before my keyboard moved all around and hit the wrong button was "Thanks to you two chaps for putting the links to Ron Paul's book "A Foreign Policy of Freedom". Mine arrived by UPS this morning. I did not know that Ron Paul wrote books. Actually I did not know about Ron Paul until several months ago.

[tammy]

why even bother to write something if it's going to be garbage like this? Pure venom. Disgusting. And guess what? a bit of MSM coverage right at the very end doesn't erase how paul has been treated for months.
get over yourself.

[brian thornton]

Ha Ha!You sound soooooooooo afraid!Those darn Americans are upsetting the applecart eh?Get a life,if being for peace and prosperity in this world is wrong,your missing the boat!I am voting for Ron Paul for President of the United States of America!Merry Christmas to all my fellow patriots who are acting!

Brian Thornton

[Endo]

I don't think Andrew is Bias.I think Andrew is doing his thing.I am going to vote Dr. Paul for one reason.Honesty.I heard of Dr.Paul by way of online media.Good or bad,Media is important,and I can care less of what people think.I have children,and I'm frightened by the path our country is going.I am a Republican that has always backed the majority,until now.Andrew,your piece was good,Thanks for giving Dr. Paul his due.

[Tracker]

Interesting how Russert buried the real issue.

"Eventually the masses come to understand the schemes of their rulers. Then the cleverly concocted plans of inflation collapse. Whatever compliant government economists may have said, inflationism is not a monetary policy that can be considered as an alternative to a sound-money policy. It is at best a temporary expedient. The main problem of an inflationary policy is how to stop it before the masses have seen through their rulers' artifices. It is a display of considerable naivety to recommend openly a monetary system that can work only if its essential features are ignored by the public."
-- Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit

RP on Mises:
http://www.mises.org/books/paulmises.pdf

[Tom]

Too bad it is just a blog not ignoring Ron Paul. If it wasn't for Google, you would loose half of your readers. Let me check the newspaper... Nope, don't see him.

[Chris]

You sound as scared as the politicians in Washington.

[Hayley Nelson]

Oops LA Times.. looks like you forgot to proofread your article:

"Because everybody Ron Paul supporters say they talk to..."

(Thanks for watching but that's right. Could also have said: Because everybody who Ron Paul supporters say etc. )

[James D]

There you go again Andrew. There you go again. The skin of the snake was just too tight when you pretended to be 'impartial' (ever wonder what that feels like?).

But then you go and spoil it all by responding to a one-sentence mention of 'venom' with this revealing (but not surprising) outburst of - well, venom: "You're hilarious! THIS is venom to you? If this was venom, I'd have said..." Yes, then you go on and say all those venomous things you were hiding under the guise of 'impartial'.

Your writing is not only usual but unimpressive, inaccurate, slanted and vain. Now please respond with your patented outrage at those wicked people who call a spade a spade. Now there's a good idea - why don't you play cards and leave the writing to professionals. But wait! I know the answer. Vanity. How it looks. Too bad that this time the people are looking for substance instead of pretty looks that hide the putrid stench of rott and corruption.

(This is a blog. By definition, it takes a stand, not impartial. You can disagree--and did. Great. That's why we all gather here to discuss and read.)

[Tom J]

Clarification: Ron Paul contrasted Korea with Vietnam. We stayed in Korea, and it's still a mess. We got out of Vietnam and now it's reunified and one of our trading partners. Which approach was more successful for everyone involved?

imo Ron Paul has already won, simply by having his ideas discussed. They may be 'counterintuitive' to some in the MSM, but he has the advantage of many more years of life experience to see what works and what doesn't work in RL.

The wildest part of Meet the Press was when Tim Russert claimed we'd still have slavery if we hadn't fought the Civil War. Well, maybe on his planet.... Watch the video for Ron Paul's response - priceless! (His campaign's response to keeping the money from the white supremacist was equally priceless: "Keeping it meant it couldn't be spent doing whatever that guy does.") Let's apply some pragmatism to untying the Gordion Knots for a change, instead of always claiming war is the only way to achieve our objectives. I'm not suggesting we can buy our way out of everything, but the next time "you're wrong --> I hate you --> war!" works, it will be the first.

page 4 of the transcript:
Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.

(Actually, to be honest, the Republic of Korea (South Korea) is a huge democracy success story, now an industrial powerhouse. We can argue about usefulness of U.S. troops there; their presence with the loonies in the North has been at least a deterrent to another invasion. But South Korea is now an operating real democracy that would not have been without deep U.S. (actually U.N. led by the U.S.) involvement way back.)

[Brian Donnelly]

Hey Andrew, thanks for the exposure for Ron, by writing this article you defeated your own purpose of diminishing him, good job buddy! Besides, didn't you know satire is the lowest form of comedy. As far as Tim Russert goes, it was pitiful to listen as he tried his damndest to dig up dirt on Dr. Paul, who, unlike all the other candidates, isn't personally fitted for the excess baggage politicians usually carry. Then again, Ron Paul isn't your usual politician, he has actual character and integrity.

[kamaka]

Ron Paul is truly the people's candidate and doesn't belong to the corporations like the rest of the slate. The US media has long since lost any neutrality due to its symbiotic relaitionship with big business and is not in the business of report the truth. Rather, US media serves a corporate master and does its business by tainting its news with distortion, disinformation, and outright dishonesty.
Ron Paul knows what America needs before it's too late - a return to the constitution.

(Just fyi, being a blog, we make no claim whatsoever to neutrality.)

[Tim Millerick]

Interesting side note regarding the earmarks that didn't come out during the interview. All 435 members of congress were asked to provide a list of their earmark requests. Out of the 435, 52 responded....would you like to guess which group Ron Paul was in? If you guessed full disclosure then your right. Again just another example of how transparent his candidacy is. What he says is what you get. Link below:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/18/earmarks/index.html

(He's consistent.)

[Carlo]

This Andrew character is just one more media puppet who's agenda is to belittle Dr. Paul. The Neo Cons who manipulate our media want to take him down one way or another, because he represents our Constitution and our Freedom (personal and economic). There is NO other candidate like him in the Republican ticket, by not supporting Dr. Paul Andrew makes it transparent that he is supporting the warmongers who are running against The Champion of The Constitution.

Andrew, take a hard look at yourself, you know your loyalty isn't to our beautiful country or its Constitution.

Carlo. Miami, FL

[Tom J]

John from Warren, MI brought up the point that Democratic voters in Michigan might vote for Ron Paul. For those interested in the rules on that, I looked them up.

http://michigan.gov/sos/0,1607,7-127-1640_9150-181601--,00.html
Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land reminds residents that Monday, Dec. 17 is the last day to register to vote in the Jan. 15 presidential primary election...When they arrive at the polls Jan. 15, voters will be asked which party's primary they wish to vote in and they will receive a ballot for that party. On the absentee voter application, voters are reminded that they must check a box to indicate which party's ballot they would like.

In Florida, the deadline is --->December 31st<---:
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/regtovote/regform.shtml
Dates Registration Closes for 2008 Election
Presidential Preference Primary ... December 31, 2007
Florida is a closed primary state. If you wish to register to vote in a partisan primary election, you must be a registered voter in the party for which the primary is being held. All registered voters, regardless of party affiliation, can vote on issues and non-partisan candidates.

[Zephram Stark]

I wonder if the primaries will be closer to the corporate news polls (where the corporate media decides the small number of people it will call and doesn't let anyone else verify the results) or closer to all the other polls (where hundreds of thousands of people vote, and Ron Paul consistently blows everyone else away).

When it comes down to it, getting rid of the IRS only requires one person who successfully avoids IRS extortion. Everyone else who doesn't enjoy financing federal murder, torture and rape of entire countries will follow suit. I am such a person. I have not paid federal income tax since the signing of the USA PATRIOT Act and I will not volunteer my money to the federal government until it has been revoked. I am not required to pay for illegal activity. I am not legally bound to obey the "code" of a non-legislative body. I have made a formal public statement to that effect and I am not alone. Over 1.9 million people have made the same public statement, almost half of whom formally joined the movement after Ron Paul planted the question in their minds, "Do we really need the IRS and the Federal Reserve?"

This movement will keep growing no matter what happens with Ron Paul. When I say that Ron Paul cannot lose, I know that for a fact because he has already done more for this country than any person in over a century.

[Nicolas Martin]

One of the many good effects of the Paul campaign is that it has revealed the contempt of many journalists for freedom, and has firmly alienated many Americans from the MSM, thereby immunizing them to media rubbish.

(Can't speak for others, but if this blog had contempt for freedom, why would we be providing such an open forum for advocacy and discussion right here including your incorrect remarks about us? C'mon. Are you finding this openness on all other blogs? Somehow I doubt it. But it's not just freedom to agree with Dr. Paul?)

[Tannim]

Well, it was Paulitics As Usual on Beat By the Press, with Tim "Mr. Potato Head" Russert providing the usual angry waste of electrons and special guest Dr, Ron Paul providing the best viewship of the year, since most of Russert's normal viewers are either die-hard political junkies or football fans who hit the wrong channel looking for the NFL.

Sunday we were treated to such inane questions as the following:

- Was the Civil War necessary? (No, Dr. Paul replied, cash for slaves was better than the blood of 600K. Besides, Lincoln actually started it by replenishing Ft. Sumter instead of bringing the troops home. The more things change, the more they stay the same--the Civil War started from interventionist foreign policies!)
- Will you run as a third-party candidate? (No intention, Dr. Paul replied, for the gazillionth time. Remember that intentions can change, though, see also Hillary Clinton Not Running For President. Revisit after Feb 5.)
- Do you still ascribe to what you said regarding X 20 years ago? (Like that matters? Most of us can't remember what we said last Thursday!)
- Do you really want to bring our troops home? (Yes, all 600K of them from over 700 bases overseas. BTW, what do you call 38K US troops standing in the way of 1M North Koreans? A speed bump. Oh yeah, how's that border defense doing? Not so good? Gee, I wonder why? Could it be because the Department of Defense actually isn't doing any Defense? Instead we have the DHS, aka the Americanized GRU.)
- Do you really want to cut $1T in government theft revenue by eliminating the IRS and the misapplied income tax? (Yes, Dr. Paul replied, for the umpteenth time, and unconstitutional spending with it! Never mind the obvious fact that it would be an immediate and continued pay increase every paycheck of up to 30% for those int he lower- and middle-class that so desperately need it! That's one heckuva economic stimulus! But think of the tax collectors! We can't just throw them and their children out into the streets to find honest work!)
- You would have voted against the Civil Rights Act? (Yes, Dr. Paul replied, because it interferes with private property rights. It also interfereses with First Amendment Freedom of Assocaition as well, but Dr. Paul didn't mention that. And it had nothing to do with racism. But again, that was 1964, and Dr. Paul was busy serving our country in the Air Force at that point.)
- How do you justify your earmarks? (Simple, Dr. Paul, replied. There's a difference between opposing spending but if it's going to happen anyway, to direct how it's spent so that your district benefits from its own tax money. No hypocrisy there, just a better say in the process. I wish we all had that, so I could have them direct my $12K in taxes every year to an earmark to pay off my credit cards and my fixed-rate, equity-losing-from-the-subprime-bailout-while-us-wise-folks-get-shafted-mortgage.)
- Who is Eric Dondero? (Who cares? He's a guy who thinks Judy-Annie is a libertarian that doesn't cross-dress and that Cynthia McKinneey appeals to libertarians as a Watermelon Party candidate and that libertarians can believe in pre-emptive first-strike war--wrong on all counts. He got fired from Dr. Paul's staff after 9/11 for pushing a pro-war stance, and the Dunderhead has been in and out of straitjackets ever since. That's not even his real name, either! Say, hi, Jonas Rittberg!)

By the time Mr. Potato Head had finished, he was ready to quit his job and go to the nearest Ore-Ida plant, since he was officially hash-browned, because as usual Dr. Paul peeled and shredded him in the same manner that he does to every interviewer who attempts a hit job. No interviewer yet can answer the simple question that Dr. Paul repeatedly poses: "Would we like it if these nations did to us what we're doing to them?" And that's where he gets them. Rudy Judy-Annie tried first in the May debate and wound up looking even more stupider than usual. The Golden Rule wins every time!

So why was this Paulitics as Usual? Because once again, a member of Last Millenium's Media tried (and failed) once again to smear Dr. Paul. Then another LMM twerp tried to do it again (and failed) over at CNN, proving that they hire third-grade dropouts for holiday jobs, and the beat goes on. Ditto for the Murdoch Spin Co., aka Fake News.

So as 2007 comes to a close, with 2008, The Year of Ron Paul opening on its heels, all we can say is, "Buckle Up, it's gonna be a wild ride!"

This biting satire was brought to you by Tannim, in the serious hopes that the Cliff Notes of the interview will spur readers to actually watch the interview on YouTube and judge for themselves that they'd be insane to vote for someone other than Dr. Paul, and hopefully they arrive at this conclusion before this nation goes off the cliff in 2008 if Dr. Paul is not elected.

(The links to the transcript and video are right in the item.)

[chris Mcdonell]

Hey Observer, every congressman in this country has voted for earmarks. Should his constituents pay federal taxes and not get any of it back? You'r e a moron. It fits perfectly with his philosophy. He just does'nt want his people to pay that money in the first place but has no choice in that matter. Go vote for comrade Hillary and get your communist jollies. Fool

[Chris]

Do your kids and Grandkids a favor, VOTE RON PAUL!!!!