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