Ron Paul draws stark contrasts with GOP peers

It was billed as a Republican presidential debate. And this time Fox News allowed Ron Paul to participate.

And, as if it was scripted, the 72-year-old, 10-term congressman from Texas provided some of the sparks and the starker contrasts to his more orthodox Republican buddies. "I don't think we're fiscal conservatives anymore," he said at one point. "Look at what we've done over these last 10 years. We finally got control of the government and we became big-government people. Our deficit's out of control and we no longer are opposed to new entitlements.

"We're entitlement people. And then we turn around and we talk about liberty. And we've undermined the 4th Amendment and personal liberty and personal privacy.

"In the year 2000, we won the election by condemning the Democrats for nation-building and ....

policing the world. And now, what are we doing? We're policing the world. We're involved in all these countries around the world and threatening going into Iran and in Pakistan and on and on.... So no wonder our coalition is breaking up. We actually have lost our way."

Paul urged U.S. disengagement from the Israeli-Palestinian situation. "It would be much better to have a balance by being out of there. And I think it would be a greater incentive for Israel and the Palestinians and all the Arab nations to come together and talk because I think we get in the way too often. And besides, it's costing us a lot of money and it's costing us lives now.... We're out of money. We can't do it any longer."

At another point Paul asked, "Why do we arm the Arab nations and they're the enemies of Israel? But we continue to do that."

Fox's Carl Cameron noted Paul's numerous differences with Republicans and asked, can you "actually win the Republican nomination, sir?"

"Well," Paul replied, "we've only had two little primaries so far. So it's pretty premature to decide which one is going to be the candidate.... Are you suggesting the Republicans write me off because I'm a strict constitutionalist? I'm the most conservative member here. I have voted, you know, against more spending and waste in government than anybody else. (Applause)

"So you're suggesting that I'm not electable and the Republicans don't want me because I'm a strict fiscal conservative, because I believe in civil liberties? Why should we not be defending civil liberties and why should we not be talking about foreign policy that used to be the part of the Republican Party?

"Mr. Republican Robert Taft didn't even want us to be in NATO, and you're saying now that we have to continue to borrow money from China to finance this empire that we can't afford? Let me see if I get this right. We need to borrow $10 billion from China and then we give it to Musharraf, who is a military dictator, who overthrew an elected government. And then we go to war, we lose all these lives promoting democracy in Iraq. I mean, what's going on here?"

At one point it did seem Paul lost his way. Asked about the recent naval incident in the Gulf of Hormuz, where Iranian speedboats menacingly circled American warships, Paul said:

"I would certainly urge a lot more caution than I'm hearing here tonight. It reminds me of what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin. We went to war there, then, later on, found out there was a lot of false information.... We have five small speedboats attacking the U.S. Navy with a destroyer? They could take care of those speedboats in about five seconds. And here we're ready to start World War III over this?"

A puzzled Brit Hume noted that, in fact, the other candidates had also applauded the destroyer captain's cautious response. "I just wonder what you're reacting to?" the moderator asked the congressman.

"Well," replied Paul, "I didn't hear that."

For a complete debate transcript, click here.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Danny]

I see LA Times, like Brit Humes, doesn't listen to the other candidates, but listens to Dr. Paul. For you would have heard Thompson on his remarks about going to see the 70 virgins, Huckabee's remarks about the gates of hell, Giuliani not really answering the question at all.

[Richard]

Thanks for a factual presentation of Ron vs the others on war (primarily) as well as the economy, etc.

Though (as many posters mentioned) I think you misinterpreted his "losing his way" bit, overall, it was a reality-based and snark-free post.

B+

[Lauren Drew]

Thanks for the decently objective article. I thought Dr. Paul did very well last night, and as someone who has spent four months in the middle east living with the people, studying their history, language, and politics, it scares me that all the other candidates are so wrong on their understanding of the middle east. Unless we elect someone who actually studies and understands the region, we are doomed to repeat the errors of the first and second gulf wars, and (God Forbid), maybe even 9/11. We must understand that the people are not evil, their religion is not evil, and their anger is caused by our actions. If we practiced the Christianity so many like to preach, we would not be having these problems around the world.
Dr. Paul is the true Christian Leader.

[Danny]

I see LA Times, like Brit Humes, doesn't listen to the other candidates, but listens to Dr. Paul. For you would have heard Thompson on his remarks about going to see the 70 virgins, Huckabee's remarks about the gates of hell, Giuliani not really answering the question at all.

[Three Chord Monte]

I can finally accept the phrase "speaking truth to power" without cringing.

Thanks Dr. Paul.

[Ed L.]

Brit Hume set a pretty good trap for Ron Paul, and the whole spectacle probably fooled a lot of people. Kudos for Brit on his quick thinking. He knew Dr. Paul was going to go on a policy diatribe about how we are trying to provoke war with Iran, and snared him.

Outside of that, I think Dr. Paul won a lot of support in last night's debate.

(One, it's journalist's jobs to ask tough questions, poke at hypocrises, delve into inconsistencies. That's all part of the Constitution that Dr. P feels so strongly. This question looked less like a trap than an opportunity for Dr. P to clarify his seemingly goofy answer about all the sabre-rattling he had just heard, when, in fact, all the other candidates had said the captain did the right thing by not attacking the provocative Iranian gunboats. Had Hiume not given Dr. P a chance to reply again, everyone would have been on his case for leaving the man hanging on this non-sequitor of an answer. That's his job. Fox or not, he did a good one.)

[Michael Pannone]

Dear Mr Malcolm,

I was linked to your editorial through LewRockwell.com.

I enjoy visiting here because I appreciate your reports and balanced perspective.

I write to give input and different perspective to the Brit Hume/Ron Paul exchange. Mr. Hume's supposed puzzlement was ad lib theatrics attempting to paint Ron Paul as an out of touch, extremist wack-job.

I do not believe Ron Paul, "lost his way" as you write.

Ron Paul, contextually compared the Iranian incident and the reporting there of, to the Tonkin Gulf incident of the Viet Nam era. He expounded on the fact that the neo-cons and their sympathizers were using the moment to re-invigorate the drum beat for war against Iran.

I think Mr. Hume failed and has exposed himself and his credibility to scutiny he did not need to attract. Now his motives and journalism are questionable.

Ron Paul gave as good as he got last night. I think Ron Paul is finding his campaign voice. Republicans, Democrats and Independents across the nation got a chance to hear Republicanism from the constitutionalist, small government, Reagan, Jefferson, Madison, Taft, respect for the individual, Pro Liberty wing of the party. And it resounded through the voice of Ron Paul.

See this link for more about Hume vs. Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018517.html

Sincerely,
Michael Pannone

(Dr. Paul expounded on many things. I agree with another poster that it was his best performance, but just as many of you anticipate negative coverage, you anticipated this story would be negative, Dr. P assumed the other answers would be provocative. There's even one poster who claims I said Dr. P. lost the debate, which I did not. I think some of you need to get better control of your paranoia and actually listen and read what some people are saying because, like Dr. P last night on that one question, owise you look and sound a little goofy. On the question he was given the same opportunity to answer. Had he been listening to the other responses, he would have known they all agreed the captain did the right thing by not (NOT) attacking the Iranians. But instead Dr. P went off on a thing from other's past statements about looking for an opportunity to attack Iran, etc. And Hume, quite rightly, asked him what in the world he was responding to. That's what everybody watching with me thought too. What's this guy talking about? Not sure if you're trying to sell yourself as the chief exec. at age 72 that the best excuse is to indicate you might have a physical infirmity like partial deafness. The other candidates all heard the questions. It was a momentary mis-step tho. Unfortunately, it came near the end so leaves a more lasting impression.)

[Jeremy]

Let me see if I get this right. We need to borrow $10 billion from China and then we give it to Musharraf, who is a military dictator, who overthrew an elected government. Musharraf then provides safe haven to Al Qaeda , The Taliban, Osama Bin Laden and becomes a sanction home for all our enemies. And we want to attack Iran?? They must be laughing at how stupid we are!!! Maybe our government needs a map to figure out where our enemy is. (not in Iran) And we lend money to our enemys while our own country self destructs economically???

The other candidates are just giving us lip service to get elected. They don’t have a clue when it comes to Foreign policy or the Economy.

Ron Paul is the only logical choice.

(That may have been his best moment in the debate. A very good contrast with the others, which, not coincidentally, is what this item's headline says.)

[MG]

Decent article, but when Paul said :I didn't hear that," he was talking to Brit Hume, asking him to repeat his question. He was not referring to not having heard his opponents.

(Right, but the full answer he had just given indicated he thought (anticipated) his opponents had answered very provocatively, which they had not. Hence, everyone's puzzlement over Dr. P's response. If he hadn't heard the question in the first place, why did he go ahead and answer one anyway and then claim he hadn't heard the question? He could have said something about, well, I'm glad I'm hearing such non-provocative answers tonight because so many others have been provocative and what we need to do , etc. It's like some posters here reacting as if this was a negative article because that's what they anticipate or want to see. Makes them look a little strange. When just a few weeks ago they were complaining there was NO coverage.)

[Republicae]

Dr. Paul is the only candidate that even brings up the issue of our failing monetary system.
Consider this: a person making $32,000 per year today has the equivalent purchasing power of $5,907.40 1970 dollars. So, the same person making $15.38 per hour today is equal to making $2.84 per hour in real purchasing power in 1970 dollars. It is not the price of goods and services that have risen so much, but the purchasing power of our dollar that has been so drastically reduced. Our standard of living has been effectively reduced through fiat money inflation.

Is there any wonder that poverty is becoming rampant? The government has no other choice but enforce minimum wages in order to keep the working poor at some level of subsistence. At the current $5.85 per hour a person has the same 1970 purchasing power of $1.08 per hour, at 40 hours per week that person is effectively making $43.20 per week to make ends meet.

What are we waiting on, to become serfs of the State?

(Dr. P needs to work on developing 30-sec. capsule answers to such questions or issues and then refer people to his website for longer descriptions. Going into all this at length on national TV puts people to sleep or to reach for the remote. Part of being president is being a better communicator than some of our recent ones.)

[Gregg]

I thought Ron Paul did fine given the rather sarcastic questions he faced towards the end of the debate. He had to argue in order to answer the same question as the other candidates. I do not put any confidence in Fox for putting together a non-biased focus group. While Ron Paul won the debate according to Fox's own viewer poll, scoring 32%---a full 10% more than the next candidate--- the focus group declared him the loser. Something doesn't add up here.

I am a Paul supporter and feel that he has much stronger support than you realize.

[Sean]

The other candidates are extremely rude and aggressive both toward Dr. Paul and in their attitudes toward people in the Middle East. However, I get the intuiton that their rudeness is highly defensive because they know that Paul is correct. Their laughter and smirking contain elements of fear mixed with reactive hostility. They are afraid that the public will wake up and recognize that they are hollow men with no more reality than those animatronic presidents at Disney World. Dr. Paul outflanks them because he is able to reason articulately while all they have is a bag full of cheap rhetorical tricks. I feel somewhat uncomfortable saying this but I feel that McCain basically milks his experience in Vietnam for poltical purposes in the same way that Giuliani milks his (alleged) experience gained on 9/11. The media seem to think McCain has ecpertise in military matters, but I frankly wonder what his expertise amounts to, aside from the fact that our foreign policy is not supposed to be a military agenda, but a Constitutional one.

[Trans-Mutant]

Did anyone get this from MaCain???!!

"We don't want to trade with them, they are only interested in Burkas and one way tickets"

RACIST!!

[Canadian Ron Paul Revolutionary]

It was quite clear to me that Ron Paul OWNED that debate last night. With everyone else talking nonsense and riddles and never really addressing any of the issues.

Fox news did allow Ron Paul to be in the debates, but clearly went on attack mode ASAP with their fake "focus" group. No mention or hardly any at all of the fact that their own polling suggests that Ron Paul won that debate but almost 2-1 from the next highest ranking debater.

I laugh at the bull the MSM is coming up with. Letters printed under Dr. Paul's name some 15 years ago, is this the best they have? The laundry list of scandals that should villify every other candidate in the race with the exception of Kucinich, should have them all running for the hills, but we never hear any of it.

I think Dr. Paul said it best when it said it was a witch hunt. Clearly the powers that be are scared, and the revolution most definately will not be televised.

Wake up America, and please PLEASE vote Ron Paul!

[M Lowe]

Dr. Ron Paul is a genius.
He knows the constitution and gives us insight to the problems that we are facing (economy, recession, war, foreign policy, immigration, etc.) The other GOP candidates are in the dark to what we need in this country. All they talk about is more WAR.
Give him the credit he deserves. We need someone like Ron Paul in the White House. If not President, he needs to be a key figure for his knowledge and wisdom to help the American people.

[Bob]

If Ron Paul is not electable, Cam the Fox guy who asked the question is the Tooth Fairy.

[Rafe OBrien]

DONATE---DONATE----Show our support!

[Robert]

I think Dr. Paul should have said, "We are doing enough telling people what to think. People have the right to think whatever they want." to the question about 911 conspiricy people and how Ron should distance himself from them.

[Thinker]

There's no doubt that the Republican party is undergoing dramatic change. This morning I looked up Ron Paul's website and watched a couple of videos of him discussing the economy and taxes. Then it hit me... the middle class is being slammed by our monetary policy. Though I was an economics major I never really put 2 and 2 together to see what was happening to the real value of my paycheck and what's in store for the future if we don't stop spending so much. I don't know if I could actually vote for Ron Paul, but I believe the party should seriously consider what he brings to the debates.

(Looks like the party is being supportive of giving him a forum for the people to decide. They included him in the S.C. debate and withdrew their sponsorship of the N.H. debate when Fox excluded RP. Unlike the other party which has permitted the exclusion of Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich at times. Up to Dr. P now to make his best case for himself and for the voters to decide. So far, it doesn't look very promising for him in terms of actual votes or delegates but it is early yet.)

[Vicki]

Ron Paul's ideas and thoughts are way ahead of the times. If our country isn't already bankrupt and in financial ruin in 10 years, the mainstream politicians will be co-opting his ideas as their own. It wouldn't surprise me if Mitt Romney started spouting these ideas as his "solutions", because as you know, he has so much integrity (ha!). Mark my words, as more people hear Mr. Paul and understand how much sense he makes, his ideas will filter into the mainstream and Fox News, Sean, and Brit will be seen as the closed minded blowhards that they are.

[Aaron]

Orthodox??? Who are the "orthodox" republicans on the platform besides Ron Paul then? He clearly laid out what the republican platform is all about, but yet you view him as the unorthodox republican. Come on, Andrew. You can do better than that.

[Judy]

I am so tired of the other candidates laughing and being disrespectful to Dr. Paul. He is the only one who makes any sense. The rest are the same old same old stuff. Why are the American people so stupid? As for the media - they are bought and paid for. Dumb sheep following their leaders to the slaughter. I almost feel they get what they deserve.

[C.RakishSpagaletto]

This government does not represent the people. Ron Paul is running for YOU. The other candidates are in it for themselves.

[Ian]

Okay, what Ron Paul was reacting to when he mentioned starting WWIII over speedboats, is all the sabre-rattling coming out of Washington about Iran, for example our own President specifically suggesting that "World War Three" could be sparked by Iran. Remember that?

Now, of course the other candidates are not going to stand up there and say a Navy captain made the wrong decision. However, the notion that their responses are any kind of indication that they favor a less confrontational approach with Iran is laughably naive.

Paul was responding to the obvious drooling desire of many within the administration and the neocon world as a whole to find a way to attack Iran, and as such his comments were far, far more relevant to the issue than those of the chickenhawks up there (who never served in the military, I might add) crowing about blowing them to hell and visiting their virgins.

[Nishi Kant]

I followed Ron Paul, his commentaries, his views on economy and foreign policy. If you have not seen it you should watch his quizzing of Bernanke. I don't share his view on Gun Control or the UN but among all things he stands for 80% are sensible and I would happily have him has US president.

He is the best candidate for America, Democrats and Republicans combined. It seem the powers that be have managed to convice average American not to think (they get cheap beer and burger in return).

If this nation was thinking Ron Paul would be the favorite.

nishi

[Tiffany]

On the speedboats- Ron Paul was pointing out that Bush seems to be looking for anything on Iran for another excuse to go into yet another country. Ron Paul pointed out that why is this even being brought up- we had the power to stop those little speedboats in seconds so why is everyone getting all uptight about it? I completely understood what Ron Paul was pointing out and he shouldn't have apologized at all.

(Actually, Tiffany, he didn't say anything about Pres. Bush, who isn't running anyway. He said he was bothered by what he'd just been hearing, meaning what the other candidates had just said, which was the destroyer captain did the right thing. So most people were puzzled when he then went off as if the other candidates had said much more aggressive things, which may have been what Paul was anticipating or imagined.)

[Samuel]

What an idiot Hume is! After the candidates answered the questions by saying "we'll send them to the gates of hell" and "we'll make sure they see their 72 virgins", Hume had the nerve to imply they were being passive. What Fox doesn't realize is the idiots whom that type of nonsense has an effect on would never vote for Paul in the first place (those are the people that believe Iraq was behind 9/11 and the Sun revolves around the Earth - I'm not joking, the % is the same - look it up in the NY Times article). On the other hand, many Republicans watching have functioning minds and are capable of objective though. Those people, like myself, either see Hume as intellectually dishonest or dumb (if he really believed what he was saying) and neither of those are bad for Paul. I was going to vote for Thompson until last night. No more. I just made a donation on Ron Paul's website and am now supporting the only real Conservative in the race.

[W. Jackson]

Ron Paul didn't "lose his way." Huckabee had just finished saying that if the Iranians kicked sand in our eyes, we'd show them the gates of hell. Then Thompson said he'd show them the virgins they'd been waiting for. These are not peace-lovers' words. This is, instead, fear-mongering, war-baiting talk. Paul was responding to this attitude--which prevailed on that stage--of aggression and belligerence.

[Julian]

lol...Really now, just what is it that happens to people's attention spans as soon as Iran gets brought up?

Since everyone seems to be suffering from a horrific lapse in memory that borders on amnesia, lets rehash the dialogue concerning Iran in Republican circles over the past year:

- We have been told by our government and most of the candidates (even Democratic ones) that Iran is a "leading sponsor of terror" and is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

- Democratic and Republican candidates alike have all come out threatening anything from a tactical destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities to a first-strike against the country using NUCLEAR WEAPONS...despite the fact that Iran has never threatened our country.

- At the height of discussions over whether to launch a "nuclear preemptive strike" against Iran, Ron Paul (along with Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich) emerged as one of the few candidates and figures in Washington who was adamantly opposed to goading Iran into a war/militaristic confrontation.
* Gravel was roundly LAUGHED AT by his Democratic counterparts and Hillary Clinton in particular when he angrily condemned this aggressive saber-rattling toward Iran in a debate. Ron Paul also took ridicule and laughter during the Republican debates for bringing up that our current intelligence suggests Iran is not a threat to our country. (look this up on youtube if you need help remembering)
* Ron Paul was asked again and again by Bill O'Reilly why he did not "fear" Iran and why he would leave the region. Paul responded by saying that most of our intelligence leads suggest that Iran DOES NOT have a weapon and WILL NOT have one likely until at least 2010 at the earliest. O'Reilly responded by shouting down Paul and saying "thats NOT TRUE!" Paul also pointed out that most of the attackers our soldiers are facing in Iraq are SAUDIS. He also said that considering their nuclear weapons and terrorist presence, PAKISTAN might be more of a concern than Iran. Bill O'Reilly waved off ALL OF THESE ARGUMENTS, suggesting that Paul was trying to "run away" from his questions by arguing that Bill was focused on the wrong places. (look this up on youtube as well if you need help remembering)

- Less than a month after Paul's appearance on O'Reilly, a group of intelligence agencies from around the world together released a report on Iran's nuclear capabilities that practically PARROTED BACK what Ron Paul had been suggesting in earlier debates and on the O'Reilly Factor. It was found that not only had Iran not been working on a weapon for over 3 years, but that they likely wouldnt be able to develop one until at least 2010. Does this sound familiar?

- Suddenly all moderators in debates have stopped asking questions about Iran's supposed "nuclear capabilities." Candidates continue a threatening posture toward the country, threatening sanctions and hovering over the idea that the "intelligence was wrong" and Iran really is still pursuing nuclear weapons. After a recent incident where a US Navy warship was approached IN IRANIAN WATERS by Iranian speedboats, Mike Huckabee has said that if Iran ever fires on our warships "the next thing they see will be the gates of hell." Fred Thompson has threatened to send the Iranians to "those virgins they keep wanting to see." Rudy Giuliani made the argument that this incident should remind us that perhaps Iran really IS still pursuing nuclear weapons (not sure what one thing has to do with the other) and wants to wipe out America, threatening sanctions and military action if necessary.

- Amid all this threatening talk, Ron Paul has maintained his position, insisting that more militant, threatening talk about Iran was counterproductive and worrisome in light of our present military commitments. The fact that all the other candidates took the safe route and comended the Naval ship's captain (who wouldnt?) for his discretion while still stressing how ready they are to bomb Iran into oblivion INVALIDATES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING Ron Paul said in his response.

After a full year of saber-rattling with Iran- who has never attacked us and whose help/cooperation we would benefit from while leaving Iraq- and a cherrypicking of international intelligence that strongly prefers the need for military conflict with them, Ron Paul is holding to his position that we should avoid a war or violent conflict with the country.

For Brit Hume and others to feign ignorance about the level of hostility that we are showing Iran and to act as if Ron Paul has "no one to argue with" when he argues against a military confrontation with Iran is incredibly dishonest.

For Hume and others to make such a colossal mistake as to simply "forget" exactly what political hostility and saber-rattling towards Iran Congressman Paul was indicating and warning against in his comments last night betrays a level of incompetence that no serious journalist should suffer from.

This amounts to a farcical journalistic (and worse, governmental) handling of a potentially very serious issue.

I know I for one had a perfect grasp of "what Paul was reacting to" in his comments last night; the big question is, how could any serious journalist actually claim NOT to?

[DemocraticType]

I wouldn't vote for this Paul guy, but I'll tell you - this whole new "National ID" thing is really getting me angry. They keep saying, "Oh have this restriction that restriction", and no bomb will go off.

Timothy McVeigh had a valid drivers' license. Didn't stop him, now did it. Plenty of criminals have valid drivers licenses - it's the ones they use for their side dealings that aren't legit. Being that the government hasn't bothered to make any processes available to handle mistakes on their no-fly list, have repeatedly lost information on social security and military personnel records, yet now they tell me "Oh, your information is safe with us".

Then what the heck do I have a passport for. Imagine not being able to freely travel within your own country, because the government doesn't *trust* you enough. Who's 'unamerican' here???

By the time the republicans are done with me, I'll be some New Hampshire Compound Libertarian, wearing a tinfoil hat.

[Joe]

Someone said the FCC should revoke Fox's license.

They are in bed together! Are you kidding me! Fox, the FCC, the MSM, the RNP, all do not have Liberty's interest at heart.

Paul's record speaks for itself. He's a true patriot and the most courageous of the bunch.

I am so happy that he is in the debates again, talking sense according to true principles.

But I must say, I sincerely believe that Mitt Romney is an "outsider," if you will. He is a good man full of great faith in God and in the heritage of America. As a Mormon, he was taught to revere and cherish the Constitution. He's obviously apparently misguided as pertains to his imperialistic foreign policy and may not understand how the Fed works in alliance with big government to enrich private bankers, etc.

But I do believe that Ron Paul's supporters (like myself) should take a hard look at Romney as a viable candidate. I believe Mitt's an enemy to the RNP, as is Paul, and as such, deserves our respect and support, should Paul not make it (as is likely). It would be awesome to see Romney choose Paul as his VP.

I would hope they would have a very well-trained Secret Service because they would definitely be targets of the Establishment. May God bless America and Ron Paul's revolution -- the revolution for Freedom.

[Chrstopher Witmer]

D.L. Mitchell hit the nail on the head. Clearly all the other candidates expressed a willingness to allow the Iranian boat issue to be escalated dangerously. They all manifest the very worst tendency in American society: the tendency to be aggressive and resort to violence not as a last resort, but rather as a first resort. It's just gross pride and bullying. That sort of stuff has no place in the foreign policy of a civilized nation. Unfortunately most of the Democrats -- with the exception of one person who has already dropped out of the race on their side and one who has zero chance of getting the Democratic nomination -- are not substantially better than the Republicans in this area. So between the Democrats and the Republicans, the only sensible choice is Ron Paul. A vote for anyone else is a vote for World War III.

On the Iranian issue, I think it was Brit Hume who lost his way. Prior to Paul's response, Huckabe had just said:

"I think we need to make it very clear, not just to the Iranians, but to anybody, that if you think you're going to engage the United States military, be prepared not simply to have a battle. Be prepared, first, to put your sights on the American vessel. And then be prepared that the next things you see will be the gates of Hell, because that is exactly what you will see after that."

And Thompson had just said:

"I think one more step and they would have been introduced to those virgins that they're looking forward to seeing."

So I agree with Paul. I didn't hear the other candidates talking about caution either.

Posted by:

[PhysicistDave]

Andrew,

Yes, you are trying to be objective -- I even have a sneaking suspicion you may have a bit of sympathy for some of Congressman Paul's views.

Don't be concerned by a few posters accusing you of bias -- passions run high in a political campaign. And, while you are a decent guy, some of your colleagues in the MSM really are biased (or maybe just stupid) -- I am thinking of the CNN infobabe's (Sledded O'Brien's) interview with Paul, for example.

Incidentally, Jay Leno's two interviews with Congressman Paul were extremely fair, even though Leno reportedly disagrees strongly with Paul on some key issues. It's a bit sad when a comedian turns out to be more objective (and brighter) than some of our leading television "journalists."

Everyone, let’s try to remember that the real problem is that most of our fellow citizens no longer remember or understand the basic ideas of the Founders – natural rights, limited government, non-intervention abroad, etc. People like Andrew Malcolm, Jay Leno, and, yes, some fair state GOP officials (in NH, SC, etc.) who honestly try to let Ron Paul get heard, are on the side of the angels, whether or not they agree with Paul. What we need is not blind agreement but honest and open discussion.

If our ideas are as good as we think they are, all we need is fair, free, and open discussion, and, in the end, our ideas will triumph.

Thank God for the Internet!

Dave

[Zack]

Good Article. Good to see other fellow Americans keep an open mind and possible unlearn what we've been taught these past 8 years

[Kyle]

I don't believe that it is right for the other candidates to mock other people's religion. Nor do I believe it is justified to start a pre-emptive war because of a couple of tiny speed boats. Iran is three times greater threat to the U.S. than Iraq the casualties would be huge. FOX news is one of the most biased stations I have ever seen in my lifetime and I am disgusted by them. Asking Dr. Paul about "conpiracies" and if he is even "electable" is absurd. Ron Paul is a 10 term congressman who has more expierence than all of the other candidates. Please understand that Ron Paul is the only true republican running with some of the most refreshing ideas I have heard from anybody.

[Fellow Citizen]

I must admit that I have never before been so involved in presidential politics as I am now and it is all due to Dr. Paul.

I have researched, read, viewed, and verified his background, positions, ideology, and messages for the past 2 months and have concluded that he is unique in his ambitions to be President of our Country.

First of all, one has to be more than a little suspicious of any candidate that really wants the job in the first place. Given the condition of DC and the Economy, and the turmoil in the world, one could assume that anyone who really wants the job wants it for alterior (selfish) motives.

Not Dr. Paul - Here is a candidate that is making an attempt to represent US. I don't beleive he is trying to gain the White House for himself, but rather regain our country for his fellow citizens. Given his resolve to diminish Government, Spending, and influence, what could he personally have to gain? Therefore, it is not about wether or not he is "electable". That form of logic would be playing into the current NEO-CON / MEDIA trap - it is more about wether We, his fellow citizens, have enough spine and fortitude to take back what our fore fathers (only 1 or 2 generations by the way - we don't necessarily have to go back as far as Jefferson) fought and died for.

It's not about Ron Paul - It's about his message - that our country belongs to us and that we have more choices than those just preselected for us by AMERICORP..

Secondly, if this country truly wants change, any GOP candidate other than Paul will surely lose to the Democrats and then it's a minimum of 4 more years of the same problems under a different name.

The first act of a newly elected American President is to raise his or her hand and swear to uphold the CONSTITUTION!
Why is it that all of them (with the exception of Ron Paul) make that oath, and then go on to regard it as some cheap secondary document afterwards?

A strict constitutionalist is transparent and continuously accountable. Now why would any politician truly want that?

My deepest respect and support goes out to you, Dr. Paul.

[Lee Reynolds]

That was not a slip up or gaffe on Ron Paul's part. Ron Paul was absolutely correct in assessing the other contender's hostility toward Iran. Perhaps the author of this article should have read and included the transcript that preceded Paul's assessing statement. Then he may have understood the war lust which dominated the stage and the answers to most questions about foreign policy. Just because Hume pointed something out, doesn't mean it existed.

[Dan Alba]

Nice write-up, but you're concealing the Brit Hume-FOX fraud in the question about the US Navy commander's decision to respond passively [sic] to the Iranian speedboats.

RON PAUL DID NOT LOSE HIS WAY! Hume phrased the question differently to Paul than he did to the others, and Paul actually responded more coherently and to-the-point than the others did.

To Huckabee, Thompson, McCain, and Giuliani, Hume asked:

"Did [the commander] make the correct call?"

Of course they all responded on bigoted, genocidal, warmongering tangents, implying that they would've acted more threateningly or violently. Giuliani plugged the neocon rant on the NIE. A couple of them answered coherently, but only after being nicely coaxed by Hume. (Note, also, that each one responded to the previous responder's response, without receiving upbraiding recourse from the moderators [sic]; whereas, Ron Paul gets punished for doing the same.)

And when Hume got around to Ron Paul, he asked:

"Congressman Paul, what if this happens again?"

And Paul's response, as you noted, was:

"I would certainly urge a lot more caution than I'm hearing here tonight. ... [L]et's put it in perspective. We have five small speedboats attacking the U.S. Navy with a Destroyer? They could take care of those speedboats in about five seconds. ... [T]oday, the Navy commander of the Fifth Fleet was on ABC and announced that, you know, that voice might not have come from those vessels. So what does that mean? Was there a rush to judgment on this, ready to go to war?"

So, as you can clearly see, Ron Paul did NOT lose his way; he responded to the question being asked to him.

When you put the whole excerpt into proper perspective, you'll realize that it was a fraudulent set-up using rhetorical shape-shifting and semantics play on the part of the Fox Goebbelians. (What else is new?)

Class dismissed.

[The Truth]

Again, you can see “they” are scared of Ron Paul. He was put in the debate and then was asked questions that the other candidates were not asked and was purposely asked those “other” questions in a full attempt to try to embarrass him and spoil his chance of any type of win. I am sure it will keep happening. However, their attempts failed. And asking him what he was responding to during the question about Iran. That just made Fox look not so smart. I knew exactly what he was responding to. Yes, the other candidates said the captain made the right choice, but then went into how we are going to stop Iran, staring into the gates of hell, etc. That is what he was responding to. There is so much going on in this country behind the scenes that we don’t know about when it comes to foreign affairs. You really don’t think they tell you everything do you? I am so tired of watching these psychotic political gangsters and seeing the same kind of people spewing the same crappy garbage every election. No one answers the question and no one tells you the truth about what is wrong. They all just utter whatever wonderful statement will win them an election. We are going to lower taxes, save the children, fix social security blah, blah, blah. Great topics, however we have heard it all before, every time there is an election and yet still we have the same problems. Obviously, none of the crooked candidates have ever fixed it. Ron Paul is the only one who tells the truth, tells it like it is no matter what you think of him or not. Anyone who doesn’t see this and thinks we are loons are living with blinders on. It is still hard for me to actually believe there is a candidate up there who has the guts to say the facts and not shout out some wonderful expression just to win them votes and you don’t really know what they are “really” all about. Ron is the only one I am not scared of. He lets himself all hang out up there. He’s not afraid. He’s obviously honest and a true fighter. He is the only one up there fighting for Americans. The rest are fighting for themselves. Get on the internet. Do some research. Watch some videos. Do whatever it takes to realize this. This backward corrupted government agenda has got to end and there is no one up there that isn’t like that and can’t promise to not screw up except Ron. Despite the way he was treated up there and with the questions he was asked, he came out looking great. Anyone who laughed is a sheep in the heard jumping on the everyone else train. And must want our economy to keep spiraling downward as it has been. I’d like to see how the other candidates would react when asked questions like that. But, of course, that didn’t happen to them. when the media and the people who have control over the media attempt to do this to someone you know he must be right and good or else they wouldn’t do it to him. They want to keep the swindling and money and greediness and everything else evil to themselves and never want it to end. Think about it. They don’t do it because he’s and idiot. They do it because he is right and they are scared and want to make him look like and idiot and only idiots can’t see that. Finally, someone for the people and not for himself. I am so proud of him. He is taking all the hits for us.

[Rhys]

Good stuff.

I think Paul was dead nutz to go after them for being war hawks on Iran and I wouldn't put it past Fox to play with his ear piece. That's neither here nor there.

I thought the good Ole Doc did great. I think the campaign found it's sea legs in NH and Iowa and we're gonna knock hard on Feb. 5 and the second half of the US after that.

Who knows, if you reporter types keep reporting Dr. P in the candor he deserves, maybe he wont be the only guy running who isn't a front runner.

[Keith Henderson]

I thought Huckabee and Thompson did sound pretty aggressive, even if they both said that the captain did the right thing (actually, Huckabee didn't ever say that the captain did the right thing, even after Brit tried to feed him the answer). Guliani didn't comment on the captain's doing the right thing, he just talked about how Iran is a threat. McCain's answer was the best, of course. Regarding the captain, he pointed out the stupidity of a bunch of guys in suits in Myrtle Beach trying to decide the merits of a military decision made in real time. Regarding the bigger picture, he emphasized that there is maritime law and that the U.S. Navy will abide by and enforce that law.

I think Paul's comment about toning down the reactionary rhetoric applied to two or three of the previous four answers. He should probably have said so.

[the other Kyle]

Thanks for continuing to provide objective and insightful coverage of the movement behind Ron Paul. Thanks also to those who posted comments clarifying just who got "lost" during the Iran discussion. It was not Ron Paul and the transcripts prove it.

Thanks again Mr. Malcolm. This makes me proud of the LA Times.

[Jacques Poirier]

Your Constitution is an amazing document that was copied and adapted and translated for many new countries or re-organized ones. It is so refreshing to see a man and his numerous intelligent supporters trying their darnest to put it back in force. You are still the hope of the world and reading your posts, gauging your courageous stance and amazing creativity is the most moving thing for us foreigners to look at. Many Canadians are envious of your cult for liberty and small central government. But we are also passionate about our desire to see you succeed ; so we we send money and spread your message by every means at our disposal, including writing posts like this one. We know you are generous and willingly share your riches, namely your Jeffersons, Ron Pauls and other luminaries that are actually citizens of the world, too strong to be kept within your borders. The future looks good for your country. If not in 2008, in 2012, after events have proven Dr. Paul right, a near certainty for us economists. You guys stick together. We are so much with you as you are redefining a political model that (was) is arguably the best in the world.

[clr]

This is the first time I have been to the LA Times political blogging site. The RonPaul2008.com website referred its supporters to this blog (i.e., to review more objective media coverage; and also as a means of encouragement). I live in NYC and have been an avid NYT reader -- particularly a Caucus Blog reader over the last nine months. I enthusiastically support Dr. Ron Paul's candidacy and I find it terribly frustrating to see him marginalized and denigrated on an almost daily basis in the NYT, as well as most other forms of the media. Since finding your blog and reviewing all of the commentary, I have attempted to post a positive referral to the LA Times on the NYT Caucus blog. I have made three attempts to do so -- none of which were abusive. The NYT has censored this referral each time, and my blog has not been posted. Although this is not unexpected, I find this absolutely reprehensible. I wanted to thank the LA Times for what seems to be professional journalism. You now have a new reader.
Thank you.
RonPaul2008.com

(Well, welcome to you. You can see how fast your comment is posted here. We're newer to this blogging business than some other sites, so maybe we appreciate our readers, especially the return ones, a bit more. We try to be unpredictable here, so you never know what you might find. Hope to see you back here reading--and commenting--a lot in the future. Thanks again for your kind words.)

[Anonymous]

Good article. Thank you!

I agree, Dr. Paul had a misstep when Hume asked him the question, but Hume's facial gesture was not very professional. Hume could have been more respectful.

Beyond that, I think Dr. Paul did very well. However, he has to be careful the next time he goes on the stage because a small misstep can sometimes cause a lot of damage.

Finally, I hope Dr. Paul talks even more about the economy in simple terms that most people can relate to. The country is drowning in debt and is in dire straits, more dire than the strait of Hurmuz. If nothing is done, the prospects are grim.

Thank you again!

[G. J. Granath]

I am reminded of the lines from Rudyard Kipling ... "If you can keep your head when those about you are loosing theirs and blaming it on you ,,, then YOU are a MAN"

Dr. Ron Paul's scholarly intellect and knowledge of the relationship between economy as related to peace and harmony between nations is of such depth and breadth that he overwhelms the other candidates capacity to even discuss on the same level. Dr. Paul's passion is fueled by his love for individual freedom, peace and a societey that abides by 'Constitutional lLaw. His humanity and humility stand in sharp contrast to the egos and ambitions of the others who seek the Presidency for the POWER of the office and their own self-gratification. ONLY Dr. Paul understands the gravity of our financial situation.

[dave]

'And, as if it was scripted, the 72-year-old, 10-term congressman from Texas provided some of the sparks and the starker contrasts to his more orthodox Republican buddies...'
guess what, trying to turn this around won't help...by now it's painfully obvious to most people that everyone but ron paul was in fact parroting their previously assigned and poorly rehearsed cheap lines.
that way ron paul again stood out as strangely real - as if among a bunch of actors - he was the only one obviously capable of employing common sense in real-time.
(it's also not going to help to carry on with the shoddy 'subliminal' propaganda as again shown in the short article above. people notice when phrases like 'FOX NEWS ALLOWED ron paul to participate' are highlighted...you would expect that sort of thing to be below if not the ethical, then at least the intellectual standard of someone writing articles for the la times. it's not as if ron paul had to kiss anyone's behind for having been invited to the debate, and while i don't expect faux news to apologize for having banned him in nh, it would have seemed the journalistic duty of the la times to raise questions about this example of clear media bias.)

[George Dance]

I just wanted to congratulate you on an excellent article, Mr. Malcolm. These days, with everyone telling us what we should think about Ron Paul, it's refreshing to find some honest reporting: no commentary, just give the facts and let the reader judge for himself.

(Thanks for your kind words. Obviously, a good number disagree. But I appreciate everyone coming, reading and many participating in this blog dialogue.)

[independant in MN]

When I watch the other candidates, I see their lips moving, but nothing that comes out of their mouth makes any sense. Ron Paul is the only candidate with any real solutions and the only logical choice.

[Dr Ward Ciac II]

At one point it did seem Paul lost his way. Asked about the recent naval incident in the Gulf of Hormuz, where Iranian speedboats menacingly circled American warships,...
______
No, you just have to be a little intellectual about it - what Dr Paul was saying is that these people who want to bomb Iran will do is to use any excuse like a few speedboats. And although the other candidates claim they don't want to bomb Iran over this, they're clearly in the bomb Iran mode. McCain: bomb bomb Iran.