Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
My Interview with Ron Paul
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Over the last few months, I've received hundreds of e-mails from people asking me to interview Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, so I did.

It's refreshing to interview a politician who doesn't mince words. It's even more refreshing to interview one who understands the benefits of limited government.

Here, then, is the first in a series of columns on my talk with Ron Paul. Some of Paul's answers are shortened.

What should government do?

Ron Paul: Protect our freedoms. Have a strong national defense. Look at and take care of our borders. Have a sound currency. That was the responsibility of the federal government, not to run our lives and run everything in the economy and extend the interstate-commerce clause and the general-welfare clause to do anything they want to do.

So defense, the military, police forces enforce contracts, and that's about it?

That's it. We would have a court system to enforce contracts, and when people do harm to others, when they take property or injure property, or pollute a neighbor's air, I think there's a role for government to protect our environment through private-property rights.

So keep us safe, enforce contracts, run the courts, pollution rules and otherwise butt out? Leave us alone?

Basically that, which would mean if I'm elected, I should immediately take a pay cut. You know, because I wouldn't have so much to do.

The Department of Education. You'd get rid of it?

Yes. We don't need it.

How will people get educated?

We might get better education. The evidence shows, since the 1950s, since the federal government's gotten involved, the quality of education has gone down, and the cost has gone up.

The federal government should have no role?

There's no authority for it, and they've proved themselves inefficient. The one city they're totally in charge of is Washington, D.C. Thirteen thousand dollars a year per student. They have more guns, more drugs, more violence. So there's no evidence that the government can do a very good job.

The Department of Energy.

We don't need a Department of Energy. It serves the interests of big business.

Other cabinet departments? Department of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development. You'd get rid of all of them?

Yeah. Of course, that's not on the immediate agenda, but they're unnecessary, and we should think about what kind of a country we would have without these departments, and I think we would have a better country, and all those problems that they're supposed to solve, I think, would be lessened.

The Commerce Department? We don't need the Commerce Department to have commerce?

No, absolutely not.

Homeland Security. Isn't that a role for the federal government?

Not really, not the way that's designed. That's the biggest bureaucracy of them all. There are some parts that are OK. You know, they put the Coast Guard in there, and they put FEMA in there, and everybody's bunched together. And I think it was failure of government on 9/11, not the fact that we didn't have the Department of Homeland Security and a national ID card, and this constant surveillance and loss of our privacy.

Failure of government how?

We spent $40 billion on intelligence gathering, and it didn't prevent (the 9/11 attacks) from happening. But the government was in charge of the airlines. FAA, they were supposed to inspect the people as they went on, and you weren't supposed to resist any takeovers, and (passengers and pilots) weren't allowed to have a gun. Maybe if you and I had the airlines, we might have said, "Hey, you know, we want to protect our passengers. Maybe we should have a stronger door on there, maybe we ought to give our pilots a gun." So 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

So government creates too many rules, and the wrong ones?

That basically it. Most of the time well-intentioned -- but good intentions will not solve our problems.

Here are a few clips of the interview:
Rep. Paul on drugs, prostitution, and gay marriage.
Rep. Paul on the necessary role of government.
Rep. Paul on foreign policy and the war in Iraq.
Rep. Paul on immigration.

Next week, Rep. Ron Paul talks about the war in Iraq.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
He sounds so reasonable
Maybe he should be considered for a prominent policy position in a Republican administration.

I have two question: Why are his "supporters" more like cult followers? And why are his supporters so nutty?

His supporters are just intelligent
They know what the country really needs, they are well read, they are knowledgeable and they often understand what the role of Government should be. In a world of crazy, the sane look like kooks.

Not to mention the media has slanted Dr. Paul as a kook for far too long. Thank you so very much Mr. Stossel.

Outstanding article!
Go Paul go!!!

Our party has ONE real conservative running for POTUS. I'm confident many will be wise enough to make the right choice for our future.

Ron Paul 4 President!
Ron Paul for POTUS!

Every true conservative, that is, every God-fearing, rule of law liking, small government walking talk, Constitutionally sound-minded person, in this exceptional nation of ours, has no choice but to vote for Ron Paul!

All other candidates are simply big-business sycophants that shall maintain America's ungodly status quo.

Amen

Ron Paul is reasonable
First, I would like to say thank you John Stossel for giving Ron Paul a fair interview.

To Tweaky: I would say that you are not completely informed. Yes, Ron Paul has some supporters that are a bit different. That could also be said for any of the other candidate's supporters as well.

Ron Paul supporters are very worried about the state of our country and feel that they have finally found a candidate that cares more about what is good for this country rather then benefiting himself. They are also excited about a candidate that is willing to actually answer questions directly. So, yes some people might get enthusiastic about it. But no it is not a cult, because in a cult everyone believes the same thing.

Ron Paul has attracted people across the political spectrum. With as divided as this country is... It is a good thing to have a candidate that can bring such a diverse group of people together. A few things I think all Ron Paul supporters can agree on are:

1. Bring the troops home from Iraq ASAP.

2. Governing by depending on the Constitution for direction.

3. Restoring our Freedoms and Liberties.

This is what we have in common, but we can differ on many other issues. Ron Paul just has a bigger tent than any other candidate. What is truly remarkable despite the ugly political climate, is that we will come together despite our differences and try to elevate Ron Paul to a competitive position in the race for President.



Tweaky
1)My fellow Ron Paul supporters are excited about politics, some for the first time in thier lives. Some may get over excited some times but they mean well.
2)They felt alienated by all the other canidates, who in thier eyes were all either NeoCons or Socialists. Dr Paul's message cured thier apathy. They feel like a part of something.

Hope this answers your questions. If you want to learn more about the good Dr and his message google him, go to http://www.dailypaul.com or http://www.ronpaul2008.com.

He Is A True Republican … BUT
I would vote for this guy in a heartbeat, but almost every Ron Paul sign has a 9/11 was an inside job, 9/11 Truther, etc. I think most of his support comes from those kind of wack jobs. I support his ideas, but his support has way to many gullible people to make him a creditable candidate; it makes me wonder who would be surrounding him during the general election.

A True Republican … BUT
I would vote for this guy in a heartbeat, but almost every Ron Paul sign has a 9/11 was an inside job, 9/11 Truther, etc. I think most of his support comes from those kind of conspiracy theorist. (No Humpty Dumpty wasn’t pushed) I support his ideas, but his support has way to many gullible people to make him a creditable candidate; it makes me wonder who would be surrounding him

Thank you for this John
quote:
Over the last few months, I've received hundreds of e-mails from people asking me to interview Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, so I did.
-------
Best interview and answers I have seen yet.
This man is for real and his 30 years in Congress proves it.
He has given the same answers all that time to his faith in the Constitution and support of it.
Exactly what Americans are deeply hoping for.

We know NOT a single on of the others, the money backed big business front men like Romney and Rudy and Huckabee will ever want the USA to go back to our roots, the US Constitution.

YES, get rid of all those departments and the hundreds of others that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Starting with the Federal Reserve bankers who are destroying this country right now.




Some of his ideas are refreshing, BUT
His hyper-isolationist views that America should leave Iraq immediately and largely divorce itself from world politics is dangerously naive.

Also, his insinuation that we were attacked on 9/11 because of our involvement in world affairs is a step away from the most despicable comments of Leftists for whom, 9/11 was "chickens coming home to roost."

For these reasons I will not vote for Ron Paul.

fight4right
Don't shoot the messenger Ron Paul was only quoting the CIA's report from the 911 commission. They inferred that blowback from years of intervention in the Middle East incited hatred toward American Foreign Policy. As far as immediate withdrawal, Ron Paul wouldn't even be in office until Jan 21 on 2009, that's more than a year away. How much longer do we really need to be in Iraq?

I hope interview gets into pensions ...
Government obligations - not only SS, Medicare, etc - but especially and increasingly government pensions are going to sink this country. Government at all levels (Federal, State, Local) is THE growth industry in America and much of Europe. It's entirely unsustainable and what's happening to the likes of GM, Ford, Delta will inevitbaly happen to Government, Inc.

The only way to avert this mammoth "bill due" shock is to start shrinking government as soon as possible wherever possible. Paul is the only candidate who has the convictions and arguments to make this happen.

I don't know if I agree with him on every issue, but he's the only conservative I've seen in my lifetime who seems to believe in the limited role of federal government as outlined by founders. His proposals are touted by many in the media as radical and even laughable, but they are not. For example, the sky would not fall if we suddenly had no Department of Education, Commerce and Homeland Defense.

I'm voting for him on principle. Like Stossell says, it's so refreshing to see a politician who doesn't mince words.

And, in my view, John Stossell deserves secret service protetion and a medal! He is the one contrarian in all of TV news journalism - a "gate keeper" who actually lets in fresh and provocative (or actually old) ideas, presented in a way that can change conventional wisdom, which is almost always wrong.


I hope interview gets into pensions ...
Government obligations - not only SS, Medicare, etc - but especially and increasingly government pensions are going to sink this country. Government at all levels (Federal, State, Local) is THE growth industry in America and much of Europe. It's entirely unsustainable and what's happening to the likes of GM, Ford, Delta will inevitbaly happen to Government, Inc.

The only way to avert this mammoth "bill due" shock is to start shrinking government as soon as possible wherever possible. Paul is the only candidate who has the convictions and arguments to make this happen.

I don't know if I agree with him on every issue, but he's the only conservative I've seen in my lifetime who seems to believe in the limited role of federal government as outlined by founders. His proposals are touted by many in the media as radical and even laughable, but they are not. For example, the sky would not fall if we suddenly had no Department of Education, Commerce and Homeland Defense.

I'm voting for him on principle. Like Stossell says, it's so refreshing to see a politician who doesn't mince words.

And, in my view, John Stossell deserves secret service protetion and a medal! He is the one contrarian in all of TV news journalism - a "gate keeper" who actually lets in fresh and provocative (or actually old) ideas, presented in a way that can change conventional wisdom, which is almost always wrong.


Wasp..
..It is true there are alot of "truthers" amung us Paulites, but I can empathise with them. Most of them just want the investigation on it re-opened, to get to the root of the cause. I persoanally don't think it was a inside job. I believe that it is blowback from decades of bad foreign policy. Did Dubya know about the attacks in advance? I highly doubt that, he had been in office for 8 months. Did he know about them in advance and do nothing to stop it? I doubt that even more. That is all illrevalent though my point is freedom is popular. We all know that and we know that there is a fork in the road right now. One fork leads to a nanny state and another to a police state. We don't want to take either of those paths. We just want to be free to take the path we choose. We want an end to the fiat money system backed by debt and a end to the endless tax code that caters to the elites.

Bigger government is never the cure, its the cause. America is sick and we need a doctor to cure her of Defecit spending, government waste, a trade policy that is killing America's workforce all in the name of "globalization". Ron Paul is that Dr.

For Mavtek & Wasp
Here are Ron Paul comments provided by Reuters:


"Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," Ron Paul said.

Asked by a moderator if he was suggesting the United States invited the attacks, Paul said: "I'm suggesting we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it. And they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said: I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier."

Bin Laden has provided many reasons for attacking us, and Iraq wasn't on list until well after 9/11. The real reason, which other Islamofascists have voiced too, is that America is not an Islamic country and that we don't live under Sharia law. It's the same reason they've attacked Russia, the Philippines, India and on and on.

Anyone who aspires the the Presidency of the U.S. who believes the quotations listed above is too dangerously naive to hold the office. This is true of all the Democratic candidates and of Ron Paul as well. He simply can't be entrusted with our national security.

It Sounds Good ...
Ron Paul's biggest problem is Iraq. His position is contrary to a majority of the Conservative voters. He has plenty of friends on the other side of the aisle but he has ZERO chance to win the Republican nomination just based off Iraq.

Throw in his isolationist position in foreign affairs and you have another red flag. Isolationism would KILL our economy. Every economist is in agreement. So what if we mind our own business? When unemployment is 10-15% are you going to be OK with it?

Unfortunately, it needs to be said again, our presence in Saudi Arabia did not lead to 9-11. Bin Laden and radical Islam would find any excuse to bring down the USA. Terrorists don't use reason and they don't need to justify their positions. Trying to come together with them and negotiate is an effort in futility. To think otherwise is simply naive.

All that criticism aside, I do commend Ron Paul for being true to his convictions. He does have some very strong conservative positions. If this was 2000 (prior to Iraq and 9-11) I think he would have been very appealing. He's just on the wrong side of couple extremely important issues.

Isolationism
BJsGuess-

He understands that isolationism is not a good foreign policy and he continually corrects those who attempt to paint his non-interventionism as isolationism.

He's the only candidate that said, in a debate with an audience full of conservative, Hispanics in Miami no less, that the US embargo against Cuba should be lifted. How does that hurt business? Show me an economist that says that non-intervention would hurt our economy?

@Fight4right & BJsGuess
I believe that the quotes Ron gave in that debate are accurate. There are quite a few published works to back that up*. Of course Iraq wasn't on the list of Bin Laden's reasons for attacking us, Iraq's occupation had not yet begun. However, U.S. troops on Arabian soil were a major contributor by all accounts. If the lack of Islamic government is the motivating factor of our enemies, then why hasn't Norway or Canada been attacked? They are softer targets and it is opportunity that guides the criminal mind. There must be something more than religious zealotry that motivates this enemy.

Also, there are many conservatives who, after 'mission accomplished', do not approve of the waste of national resources in Iraq. Fiscal conservatism and the occupation of Iraq do not coincide peacefully. We are spending trillions, debasing our currency, and wasting lives for very little gain in security. What security does the taxpayer have to show for their investment in Iraq's continued occupation? Simply put, we are spending U.S. treasure and U.S. lives to protect and secure a fledgling foreign government. Remember, if Paul were to be elected it would likely be late 2009 before troops began withdrawing. If the Iraqi government hasn't gotten their act together by then, we taxpayers should no longer be giving them handouts. We could really use that money to better secure our own borders and infrastructure.

*Google Rudy's Reading List

Even Patraeus wasnt sure if we are safer
.. from being in Iraq.

Also, an example of an isolationist country would be North Korea. Now, does anything in Paul's rhetoric imply that we should become like North Korea? Didn't think so.

One thing I love about Ron Paul is that he really does care about our national security. His idea is that we shouldn't bog ourselves down with nation building countries, and unnecessary bases in places such as Germany and China. He rightfully supported going after Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and would do everything he could to stop any imminent attacks. He also supports streamlining our intelligence services, which if you think about it, really dropped the ball regarding 9/11. If we brought our troops home and focused some of the saved money on refining our intelligence capabilities by cutting out some of the bureaucracies, there is no way we could be attacked even if a country like Iran got a nuke. The logistics involved in a "worst case scenario" attack I believe would be monumentally greater than 9/11, particularly considering our current post-9/11 atmosphere and the fact that Ron would do everything he could to secure our borders.


Ron Paul
Is meaning to mind our own business for a change, not "isolationism".

America as the rest of the world has always had global trade, always.

Well since men sailed ships anyway and the days of Marco Polo.

Ron Paul just wants us to stop being in everyone else's affairs all over the world like we are.

Our Military is spread out in over 120 countries around the world.

WHY?
Protecting international corporations interests, that why.

We need to get rid of the business partnership our government has with these corporations.

And FORCE them to limit their governing to the US Constitution.
Just as Ron Paul has asked for for 30 years

4Anderson
There have been plots to attack Canada, but the point is America, not Canada, not Norway, is the leader of the free world. There is so much more propaganda value to striking the "Great Satan." It seems to me that there are many Americans who, metaphorically speaking, would like the U.S. to crouch behind a rock, hoping no bad guys will notice us.

But that's not possible, and is certainly isn't admirable. As a nation we stand tall, and as such we're a big target. We have a great amount of influence in the world and those who don't like the way we exert that influence are against us. We could opt for isolationism, as Paul seems to want, but the consequences would be dire. We could cede Japan and South Korea to China; we could abandon Israel and stand by as it is obliterated. We could pull out of the Middle East altogether and see our oil supplies dry up and our economy sink to depression-era levels.

I don't think any of those things would benefit the world and they sure would harm Americans. So isolationism is a bad idea. And in the end radical Islam will still want to convert America or destroy it.

One more thing, John Anderson
There is nothing more than pure religious zealotry that motivates radical Islam. Nothing. They are driven to impose, through horrific violence, their interpretation of the Quran on the world.
Period. This is as obvious as a poke in the eye but folks with your worldview just don't get it.

You're like the wife whose husband beats her and cheats on her and she looks in the mirror and tells herself that she must be doing something to make him act that way.

fight 4
it seems you do not know much about the rise of Islamic jihadism. its birth began with the egyptian botherhood opposing unislamic rulers of islamic country's. its first target was Nasser. Bin Laden began is politics in Saudi Arabia, his specific target was the ruling family of SA. When Bin Laden went to Afghanistan to fight the USSR. his specific target was an invader of Islamic Afghanistan. During that war he and his comrades was segregated from non Arabs. they tried assaults to earn acceptance from the Muhajaden, they failed leaving him further ostracized and laughed at. it is then that the tactic evolved into jihad against the west, not middle eastern rulers. Bin Laden's declaration of war against the USA was specifically the result of US bases and forces in SA and elsewhere. this is brief, and the full story is easily available but the jihad as we know it is specifically a result in USA, or infidel presence in Isalm. to think they hate the west and would attack us without our intermittent and now permanent presence in Islamic country's is simply bologna.

it should be noted that in general non Arab Islamics hate Arabs. speak with anyone east of Iraq and the racism is overt.

to label Paul as an isolationist is simply and completely wrong. He voted for action in Afghanistan. He is opposed to democracy building, a specific pre Bush republican plank

We only have part of the interview so
far. In general I could support 90% of everything that Ron Paul espouses but is Pat Buchanan style isolationism and his bombast concerning the causes of 9-11.

It is his followers, who with the aid of the MSM, give him the bad name and the impression of being a nutcase.

His ideas on the Constitution are actually the best of the Republican Party. Too bad he has no chance of getting the nomination.

fightr4right
Is it worth giving up the "shining city upon a hill" that Reagan envisioned to be "leader of the free world" by force?

Should the wife whose husband beats her leave him, or should she stay, tie him up, and beat him senseless forever?

Also, since you insist on calling Paul an "isolationist," you should check this out...
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst121806.htm

fight4right
Should we give up being the "shining city on the hill" Reagan envisioned to be "leader of the free world" by force?

Should the wife whose husband beats her leave him, or should she stay, tie him up, and beat him senseless forever?

Or will you argue that after being beaten awhile, the husband will change into a caring, supportive spouse?

sorry, double post
The first one one didn't seem to work, so I re-posted.

GC and Fishy
Your views are consistent with the Left which sees U.S. influence as a negative force in the world. I do not hold this view.

GC, your rationale for radical Islam shrivels in the light of common sense. These fanatics are chanting for the death penalty over the naming of a Teddy Bear, for goodness sakes.

It also fails to explain Islamist attacks in the Philippines and other countries that have not ventured onto Islamic lands.

Good luck with your Quixotic venture to have Ron Paul as our next president. As I said, he will not have my vote.

Talent Scout writes . . .
"And FORCE them to limit their governing to the US Constitution.
Just as Ron Paul has asked for for 30 years"

How effective has Ron Paul (my Congressman) been for the past 30 years? How will he force the Supreme Court to let him do their job interpreting the Constitution? When he brings home the troops from 120 Countries, will he ignore treaty obligations? Will he downsize the military or open new bases in the US so they have a place to train for non-deployment? Since the terrorists were encouraged by our perceived weakness when we ran before, how will he ensure that abandoning Iraq will somehow reveal our toughness? If the Navy's job is "projection of power" will President Paul declare the Navy to be unnecessary? How will he persuade the Congress to quit passing laws he doesn't like? Veto? Ha. It's easy for a Congressman to just say no . . . Not very effective, but easy.

I am a Ron Paul supporter...
...and I am not a nut case. I voted for Reagen, I voted for Bush Sr and Jr. I am a conservative, middle class homeowner. I am ex-military. I am a patriot. I KNOW 9/11 was not an inside job. How does any of this make me a nut job?

Are some of Paul's supporters loony? Yes. Have any of you seen supporters for Giuliani or Mitt or Huckabee? Some of those people are real tin foil hat types. Most anyone at a Primary election seems a bit off to me. So don't lump everyone in Paul's supporters (or anyone else's for that matter) as all nuts. It just shows your lack of intelligence in that you have chosen to eat at the table of the MSM.

As far as Iraq is concerned, I think we need to deal with the problems we are having at home prior to turning our wealth over to foreign nations to fix thier problems. We have troops in Iraq, Afganistan, South Korea, Japan, Germany, and most of the rest of the world. What does all this cost us? How much of that money could we use to deal with our problems at home? Or just pay off our debt? We spend billions of dollars overseas, and still the world hates us. Let's spend those billions here or better yet don't spend it all.

Ron Paul, Conservatives and Libreality
Being SSD since 2002, I wonder if we can ever cut out or back HEW, SS or Medicare (where NBC did a report last night on rampant thefts).

Sounds treasonable, damnit!
--
We *ARE* "the cops of the world," aren't we?

We need absolutely everything in this country regulated, reviewed, or just plain damn' run by the government, don't we?

We can't *POSSIBLY* rely on the private citizen to manage his/her own life without a pistol-packing government thug looking over his shoulder every second of every day, can we?

Migawd, without the Department of Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, and consolidated omnibus budget acts slammed through the House of Representatives every twenty seconds, these United States would just fall to pieces!

For the love of God, won't somebody *PLEASE* shut Ron Paul to hellangone up before people start listening to him?

--

the problem is that no matter which side
of the argument that anyone is on...Ron Paul isn't even on the radar. He has some good ideas but has NO CHANCE of winning even a single state.

The MSM has ignored him and thus the public does not know about him either.

It ain't going to happen.

furthermore
If Paul were to, miraculously, get elected, all his plans for massive change and department elimination would never pass muster with the congress. This government is already bought and paid for.

I too would like to get back to a more solid constitutional government - but I see it happening only in very small incremental steps.

We need more Ron Pauls, but in smaller doses.
®

Ron Paul on the View

Ron Paul on “The View” Talking About Abortion

GREAT VIDEO

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/ron-paul-on-the-vi ew



questions...
Okay, I took a strong look at Ron Paul via his web site. I like what is there. However three very strong questions remain and I hope someone can point me to explanations written by Ron Paul as opposed to someone's opinion of what he might say to the following:

1) I do not get his position on Iraq and isolationism. How would he end the war in Iraq? What criteria would he use or would he just immediately withdraw?

2) I do not understand what he is saying about social security. It sounds like he thinks we need to keep it (where in the Constitution does he find authority for it), but where would the funds come from if he cuts payroll taxes? And it sounds like he still wants to force those entering the workforce into it, albeit with some "undefined" measure of privatization.

3) How would he actually go about eliminating Departments? In other words what power allows the President to eliminate these Departments? Would Congress have to co-operate?

If anyone can provide links I would appreciate it.

FuwaFuwaUsagi

Some good ideas...
does not a president make.

I am interested in hearing his concepts of government. Some of them are conservative in nature, some of them are naive and simplistic, which is my issue.

Look around him and see who is attracted to him.
Measure the magnetism and I think you'll see a little Gore, a little Kerry, and a dash of Buchanan.

A real Conservative would not ignore the silly simplistic stuff by saying he really doesn't mean it, just because he says something that sounds conservative sometimes.

You who are wild eyed supporters, look at the others around you, the other minds that are seeing right in his views, are they wrong?... or are you?

How about neo-cons & nannies in smaller
doses? It gets old real fast voting for 'lesser of two evils' candidates when those evils are the neo-cons or socialist nannies. Ron Paul will give us an intelligent alternative whom we can all be proud to have for our President. Cut the big spending out of government, get back to the Constitution & more freedom; Ron Paul has better policies than any other candidate running. Look at the issues & it becomes clear he would be the best to keep the economy from tanking further. I don't believe the country can continue to afford to keep troops in Iraq indefinately without this seriously affecting the economy. Why keep troops there now that Saddam Hussein has been gotten rid of? Why continue wasting money in Iraq?

RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT...
...1789.The no foriegn entanglements crowd are still living in colonial days.There has been 225 years of history since our two great friends,the Atlantic and Pacific oceans,protected us from foriegn nations.American isolationism was destroyed on 7 December,1941,and it ain't coming back,so please stop with our "founding fathers" philosophy of isolationism.

"Men may argue forever
on what wins their wars,
And welter in cons and pros,
and search for their answer
at Historys' door,
but the man with the rifle
knows!"

Because we are the oldest unchanged form of government in the world,we have grown to be the biggest kid on the block.And the biggest kid on the block makes the rules!

Live with it.

Tweaky
There are always some nuts somewhere and the fact that some of Paul's supporters are is not surprising. Look at how many republican candidates have supporters that think trade barriers and protectionist policies will benefit America.

Look at how many people show up at democrat fuctions carrying signs condemning you and I for killing the Polar Bears, Penguins, etc. and for causing global warming. In my eyes they are worse fruitcakes than the 9/11 truthers.

Paul stinks
John's questions are lame. Pauls answers are generality with no substance. It's ludicruos to think we can do away with all these departments and isolate ourselves from the world and all our troubles will magically disappear. America could stand less government and less interference with other countries, but Ron Paul is not the answer. I repeat he was the only congressman to vote against a resolution supporting an Islamic man overseas who is being presecuted because he supports Israel. Does Ron Paul support Israel? I want less government, not no government or a President who sits around and drinks coffee all day. Paul is not a Republican, he is a libertarian. He is booed over and over again for his stupid statements about American foreign policy causing 911. If you can't get this right, you can't get much of anything right. Well, waste good space interviewing this nut job.

Thasic,
don't take criticism of Ron Paul supporters personally. It takes all kinds of people to support a candidate and it seems as though those on the extreme end of the opinion scale are always the object of derision from those from other camps.

Having said that, there are legitimate concerns about Ron Paul's objectives and how he plans to achieve them. The world is not yet a friendly place to all ideas and societies and withdrawing to our borders is not a practical solution to the problems Dr. Paul points out.

Ron Paul, the only hope for America
Yes, for once something to read that makes any sense whatsoever, as a candidate speaks as a true and loyal American patriot, as opposed to the one that sits in the Oval Office who is nothing but an Imperialist and what I considers treason of the first order. Besides, the rest of the Republican aspirants in general are of the same cut as George W. Yes, a few have some good ideas, on the illegal issue, etc, but even on that issue it is real mess. Yes, I will only go voting if Ron Paul, by the grace of God, becomes the nominee. This man is the only one that respects the Founding Fathers in full.

But What About Foreign Policy?
So long as one stays on the subject of domestic policy, then an interview of Ron Paul will seem to be an intelligent affair. Ron Paul's combination of of consequent criticism of government and pro-life protection strike resonant chords. But when the discussion turns to foreign policy, then Ron Paul starts sounding like a left wing Kos-truther nut job and as a result, is not qualified to be President.

Ron Paul
After reading the interview, I would like to hear more of what Ron Paul thinks, and his views.

He is not known yet. Whats his plans as a canidate for Iowa?

BJsGuess
BJsGuess writes:

"Unfortunately, it needs to be said again, our presence in Saudi Arabia did not lead to 9-11. Bin Laden and radical Islam would find any excuse to bring down the USA. Terrorists don't use reason and they don't need to justify their positions. Trying to come together with them and negotiate is an effort in futility. To think otherwise is simply naive."

Pardon me, I didn't realize we had a foreign policy "expert" here with us. Especially one that apparently knows more than the CIA, Wolfiwitz, et al. Apparently, us "naive" people are very fortunate to have such an "expert" among us. We are not worthy.

Unfortunately, I believe it just your completely misinformed opinion guiding you to this conclusion, not some great foreign policy experience. Therefore it is YOU that are naive.

Actually, I think it is your love of big government that really motivates your opposition to Ron Paul, but you realize that that isn't going to sell well with the conservatives.

Thanks for playing...



You fools! Don't you see the danger!
--
Ron Paul poses a stark and terrible threat to everything we hold sacred in modern American government!

He and his supporters see nothing of the awe and majesty of grand, glorious, into-every-crevice and up-every-oriface official scrutiny and control, the sublime glory of layer upon layer of bureaucracy, the massive reams of paperwork, the ponderous grandeur of rank upon rank of civil servants, lobbyists, executive secretaries, and ninja-suited SWAT squaddies, all marching and counter-marching through the streets of this gratefully prostrate and helpless nation....

These are truly not Republicans! They are not good, government-loving, Israel-worshipping, faithful reverberators of whatever blatant foreign policy idiocies are proper to be stuffed up the collective American cloaca by the elite cabal leading the incestuously inbred Old Boys Network running the RNC!

They are individualists!

They are moralists!

They are - *Gasp!* *Shudder!* - Constitutionalists!

Oh, silence them!

Close them out of all public discourse, let them not be heard, dismiss them as the white trash they truly are, and let us hew faithfully to the blue-blooded Truth and Purity and Beauty of the Grand Old Party as we've always known it to be!

--

I hate progressives
And my favorite:

"All that criticism aside, I do commend Ron Paul for being true to his convictions. He does have some very strong conservative positions. If this was 2000 (prior to Iraq and 9-11) I think he would have been very appealing. He's just on the wrong side of couple extremely important issues."

Always a great candidate... yesterday. The favorite dismissive from a progressive. Always "yesterday."

You're right. He would have been great to have yesterday, but you people were too busy doing the same thing to Buchanan then.

So when is a "convenient" time to put our country back on track, then? Yesterday?

This argument is why we should be extremely careful. About going to war. It is always used as an excuse for why we can't fix our country right now. The focus is always outside our borders.

But what do I know... I'm just naive.


Another visit to '64?
Not since 1964 when Senator Barry Goldwater campaigned from a train have we seen another cadidate who is basically correct in many ways while remaining just as unelectable.

It will take generations to wean a great many Americans, dependent on welfare, and motivate and help them learn how to be independent and responsible for themselves.

Ron Paul is a prophet to be heard, not put in charge.

Introspection ...
For many years, when my wife would get mad at someone for doing something to her, she blamed it all on them. She was not able to see how what she had done could possible have caused one of our friends to say and do something so mean to her.

Any time I would try to help her see how her actions may have triggered a negative action by a friend, she would then get angry at me. How could I take their side? I was her husband and I was supposed to support her, for ill or good.

I'm not saying the libs have got it all right, I am saying that sometimes our actions in world, good intentions or not, are not always well received. Especially when we forgo our national morals strictly for our own benefit.

I do not think we deserve all the blame for what occurred on 9/11, but you'd have to be an idiot to think that we didn't do something to tick somebody off. What's wrong with asking those questions? Why is it when someone asks those questions, they're almost immediately smeared as anti-American or as siding with the enemy?

Think about it. We judge ourselves by our intent, but we judge others by their actions.

Our country needs to do a lot of soul searching. Yes, I believe we try to do what is right on the world stage most of the time, but we're not perfect. I think those are the types of issues Ron Paul will help to address.

Paul
Spirit of 76 is correct, Paul is not a Republican but first and foremost a Libertarian. Some of his views "sound" good to conservatives but I think he is speaking to itching ears to get voters.
Isolationism never works, especially in a shrinking world where the troublemakers of the world can be in your backyard in moments. Pulling out of Iraq right away is naive. The press and the Dems are trying to hide the fact that our efforts are working. It is their hope that it fails.
Everyone should read the Dec. 7 article by Townhall's John Hawkins. He says if you follow the money you find that Paul has huge financial support from liberals and left-leaning Libertarians. The campaign is trying to get these folks to jump Democratic ship so that the money support will be reflected in voter support...something not seen to date. You have to wonder when whore house owners are supporting the guy (see news on Pimping for Paul). He welcomes money from anyone. Low lifes of all sort support a world where there is no oversight on their behavior.
While I would welcome getting the Feds out of aspects of our lives that would require greater State support, something the States willing handed over to Washington in the first place. Can we trust that State governments of this day and age will support Conservative causes. On top of that, if Calif. and Mass. pass a law in support of abortion or gay marriage other states must honor their laws via the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause. So, handing things to the States doesn't solve our problems but likely makes them harder to combat. Beware of Paul, he isn't the answer.

Still Waiting...
Several people have asked (in a variety of ways), but I will ask again:

How, and under what authority, will Ron Paul accomplish his stated goals?

If Ron Paul (or anybody else) is to be taken seriously by me, he has to tell me not only WHAT he would do, but HOW he would do it. Some good questions have been raised on this thread, and I eagerly await some enlightenment by the Paul supporters that have been posting.

Thanks in advance.


Liberals in denial
Why don't you people go watch NASCAR or something, and leave the country-fixin' up to the grown ups that don't get headache parsing cocepts more complex than "they hate us for our freedumb" and "how we gonna have firefighters with no federal taxes"

Thankfully, I don't expect that those so unwilling to pay attention to what is going on to get out to vote in the primaries.

Go back to your football game and the headaches will stop. Don't worry, the grown ups will handle everything.

Smaller gov -vs- Dismantled gov

Paul has "some" good answers, but it appears that his plan is to leave the greatest country in the world vulnerable in many ways.

And, if you notice, he really doesn’t “answer” some questions….

For example:
JS: “The Department of Education. You'd get rid of it?”
RP: “Yes. We don't need it.”
JS: “How will people get educated?”
RP: “We might get better education. The evidence shows, since the 1950s, since the federal government's gotten involved, the quality of education has gone down, and the cost has gone up.”
JS: “The federal government should have no role?”
RP” “There's no authority for it, and they've proved themselves inefficient. The one city they're totally in charge of is Washington, D.C. Thirteen thousand dollars a year per student. They have more guns, more drugs, more violence. So there's no evidence that the government can do a very good job.”

There is not doubt that he’s right about the Dept. of Ed., but he never answered the question as to how people will get educated.

Many of his other “answers” are actually “non-answers” such as his response to education.

Simply dismantling government agencies that are there to protect us from thos who would do us harm is NOT looking out for our welfare.




A softball
FROG writes:

"What's wrong with asking those questions? Why is it when someone asks those questions, they're almost immediately smeared as anti-American or as siding with the enemy?"

That's an easy one, FROG. Because America is incompatible with globalism. The idea of individual responsibility and freedom impedes the progress of a one-world government.

Think that's crazy talk? Think back to all the others in this country warning about "crazy" things and how they ended up being right.

Must we always only have clarity in hjndsight?

Good morning Anne
"Simply dismantling government agencies that are there to protect us"

Spoken like a true liberal.

fight 4
you obviously have control issues. the need to moralize and control others. it is the basis of american ethnocentric delusion. you site the Philippines. Islam's oldest jihad, has been for one thing, an islamic state there, not here. so what? it supports paul's ideas. the death penalty for the teddybear comment has nothing to do with the USA. so what, they are crazy. Iran hangs little girls. so what? that is them. it is horrible, but it is not a cause for American intervention. the point was and is true, that 1. past American foreign policy is the predicate of the danger we experience with Islam. period. end of story.

Paul makes a distinction between protection and projection. that is smart. you are not.

Paul
One more comment addressing the view of Paul and liberals that we must pull out of Iraq and, indeed, the entire Mid-East. What will result? A safer world? No!

In American history there was a time when no Native American was safe from the widely held view that "the only good Indian is a dead Indian"? Well, the radical Islamists believe the only good non-Muslim is a dead non-Muslim, this means you and me. Who among us is safe from a people that holds such views. If you think they just want to destroy Israel think again. I don't buy that line others have bought that they wouldn't have attacked had we not "meddled" in their lives for so long. They attacked because black gold and Western education have given them the resources to reach us as they never could before. They attacked simply and purely because they hate us. There's no stopping them if we ignore these facts.

no tol
nothing any candidate supports is accomplished in total. he is asked about what he would support. what he would get would be less. but like RR, it takes the USA in the correct direction, unlike today.

Paul's Kook Supporters
The last site I visited to ridicule 9/11 truthers was filled with Paul supporters. They also told me we never landed on the moon, and that one of Jupiter's moons had a lost civilization on it. Not one supporter, but MANY. Why does he attract these nut cases? Paul does have some good ideas concerning adherence to the constitution. However, he needs to distance himself from these kooks asap. He will be nothing but an ineffective tool until he does just that.

Jack: "Spoken like a true liberal."

"Simply dismantling government agencies that are there to protect us"

You do realize that your post makes NO SENSE what so ever???

Liberal? Moi? Hardly!

But, let me guess... You're a real ronpaul fan?







education
Anne, it is precisely the lack of a detailed and specific answer that makes him unique among all the other candidates. He wants to get rid of the Department of Education because it is inefficient and unconstitutional.

You ask, and Stossel feigns asking, "but how will people get educated?

You don't like the fact that Paul doesn't give a specific answer and that is precisely what I like about him.

He doesn't have any interest in telling parents and teachers how to educate their children. If they want to educate them at home, that is fine. At a private school, fine also. Or if states or local school districts want to pass taxes to educate kids in a public system, good on them.

He does not want to control your life from Washington. He does not want to control the economy from Washington. And he does not want to police the world from Washington.

Anne
The supposition is that the children will be educated the same way they were for 100 years before the feds got involved. Local teachers will teach in local schools, all paid for with local taxes. With all decisions made by local boards of education and some guidance from the State accreditation boards.

This is how it should be.

gc
It is understood that, if elected, RP can only ATTEMPT to accomplish those goals that he supports.

So, how, and under what authority, will he ATTEMPT to accomplish his stated goals?

Thank you, again.

Have We Forgotten Israel?
If someone mentioned our relationship with Israel above, I missed it. Seems to me that one of the unifying motives of the Islamofascists is the eradication of Israel. They, the Islamofascists, hate and target us in no small part because of our relationship with Israel, which continues to thwart their plans to "recapture" the holy land. I do not see us backing away from Israel and letting the Islamofascists have their way with her. If we did, even though much if the world is none to fond of the Jewish state, we would further tarnish our esteem in the eyes of our other allies and give them good cause to believe an alliance with the USA is worthless.

To me, Ron Paul's "non-interventionist" posture ignores the fact that we have alliances around the world where we have pledged to help protect our weaker allies. If we turned our back on Israel, she could very likely wind up using her nukes if the Isamofascists moved on her. I submit that would be contrary to our national interest because at the moment we don't produce enough oil on our own, and getting oil from nuked OPEC nations might prove difficult.

Whether we like it or not, we are for the moment the world's lone superpower, and we cannot expect to stay the lone superpower if we take a wait-and -see attitude on foreign affairs.

We have made a commitment to the people of Iraq to ride it out until they are reasonably stable. Pulling out prematurely would further destabilize things in the middle east. It would give rise to more Islamofascism and put the Iraqi oil revenues into the hands of those who would do us harm.

ron paul good on some points
mr paul has got it right on a lot of points.
there is way too much gov't interference and nanny gov't at that. no smoking ... eat your vegetables ... lose weight ...

where he needs some more substance is in foreign policy and foreign relations.

better than any of the dems who love gov't and want to regulate everything!

Anne
I don't expect you to understand complex issues. That's why liberals love it when the government offers to take care of everything for them.

It would be humorous is the epidemic was not so tragic for everyone else.

There are other countries that you would better fit in, why ruin ours?

no tol
as president he would use that authority in the same manner other presidents propose and support legislation. what is your point? it seems your question is not serious. you should write directly as to what your issue is, it is the way to get a direct answer.

no tol
as president he would use that authority in the same manner other presidents propose and support legislation. what is your point? it seems your question is not serious. you should write directly as to what your issue is, it is the way to get a direct answer.

treasonous repugs
See. That's exactly what I am talking about. Liberal=Morons. I set you up for it, and sure enough you stepped right in it.

State issues, idiot.

"If we don't pay federal income taxes, how we gonna have a fire department or public roads?"

Proof that our "federal" education system is failing us.

People, you need to stop calling yourselves conservatives, immediately. It is obvious that you do NOT understand conservatism or even what this country is all about. Please stay home on election day, you are ruining our country.


GC, yes I'm serious
When a candidate makes a promise, I simply want to know how the candidate intends to keep that promise. This doesn't just apply to RP, but any candidate. When a local yokel runs for city council and promises to cut my property taxes, I want to know Why, How, and What will be the effect. This is no different.

Most of RP's ideas are appealing to me, but that doesn't make them realistic. The POTUS does not have the authority to do many of the things that he states he would do. I find it difficult to believe that he would have the support to accomplish his goals.

Ron Paul makes simple, direct statements of intent, and I like that. We need more of that. But honest questions follow. Anne's question about education was not unreasonable, and Vic gave a good answer that presumably reflects Paul's intent. But there are more questions to be answered. For me, at least.

I am not as sophisticated or informed on political issues as many on this board appear to be. Therefore, I don't ask sarcastic questions. This thread started with Paul supporters, well, supporting Paul, and asking me to do the same. But I can't support anyone who can't tell me how they intend to accomplish their goals, and what the (intended) lasting impact will be.


Anne
Yes. Anne=Liberal. I base that on what you say, not what you claim to be. Some people claim they are the easter bunny as well, but that doesn't make it so.

Based on things you have said all over this site, I would require extraordinary proof to accept you are anything BUT a liberal.

-The easter bunny

Tweaky is absolutely.....
correct in her assessment of Ron Paul supporters. Those supporters are the primary reason that he doesn't have a snowball's chance. And that is too bad because he does speak with a voice of reason. However, I have to wonder, did he cultivate this cult like following?

No Tolerance for Laziness
No Tolerance for Liars writes:

"But I can't support anyone who can't tell me how they intend to accomplish their goals, and what the (intended) lasting impact will be."

Right then. So who do you support? Let's take a look at their 300 point detailed plans for accomplishing their goals.

Perhaps you can go look at the his website to find out? No, of course not.

You are here to argue, not debate or listen.

Must be a Huckabee supporter.

Sorry, Jack...
Sorry that you can't comprehend what I am asking of Ron Paul's supporters. The same questions that I ask of any candidate, as I stated, but you think I am here to argue. I am listening.

And I've been to his website. I have questions. If someone has answers, I'd love to hear them. Or am I not supposed to ask?

Boomer
Boomers little nugget might as well say:

"I can't support Jesus Christ because some of His followers are wierdos. I mean, He might be the only path to heaven and all that. It's too bad, really. I want to go to heaven, but His supporters just turn me off."

You want cultish followers? How about ANY supporter of ANY candidate. What exactly makes Ron Paul's supporters any more cultish than than any other?

Please tell us how we are different than supporters of Romney. How about supporters of Huckabee? In fact, many say the same things about them. Guiliani? Well, nobody actually supports him, so I can understand that one.

Enlighten us, please. We are unwashed and ignorant.

No tolerance for myself
"The same questions that I ask of any candidate, as I stated, but you think I am here to argue."

Ron Paul is commenting here?? Where?

Paul's Pie-in-the-Sky Policies
I agree with many of Ron Paul's positions, but, folks, it ain't gonna happen. There are too many vested interests in Big Government. We conservatives can't even limit the growth of government, much less hack off its limbs like the Departments of Education and Energy.

Even Ronald Reagan, one of the most charismatic conservatives ever to win the presidency, could do very little to prune this monstrosity. Let's face it, conservatives, liberals are in the ascendancy in this country today and we're going to have a bloody battle just to defeat Hillary's asinine, budget-busting universal health care plan.

Sigh
treasonous repugs writes:

"i'll agree that these people aren't true conservatives but your extra special stupid. it's ironic that most red states would be screwed without federal funding."

See you can't simply make a claim without supporting it. How? How are states screwed without federal funding? Why?

Maybe because the federal income tax is far greater than the State's income tax? Maybe because States can't raise their taxes BECAUSE of the federal income tax being so high? Maybe because government has a monopoly on these services when private business could do it, and probably better?

Why don't you enlighten this "extra special stupid" person?

To the Paul-Bots
Anne is not a liberal she just doesn't agree with some of RP's stuff. TR is simply a liberal troll trouble maker. I never respond to anything he posts.

Jerseyvet
So, we should just lie down and accept big government, then?

I mean if you're gonna get raped anyway, why fight it, right?

Should I start watching "24" or "Dancing with the stars" to mask the pain? Which do you suggest?

Vic-Bot
Anne is a liberal. Yes. I have concluded this from reading her numerous posts. Barely a conservative thought comes out of her. Ask her who she supports and I can guarantee it is one of the liberals running as a Republican this year.

Anyone else find it odd that the most liberal "republicans" somehow are the "front-runners?" Of course, the "liberal" media would never lie to us.

You are probably right about TR, though - just look at the name.

Ron Paul is genuine conservative.
I don't know of anyone who advocates strict isolationism.

Ron Paul doesn't. Pat Buchanan doesn't.

There has to be a middleground between strict isolationism on the one hand, and on the other hand with a U.S. viewing itself as an empire, as some self-appointed guardian to go about the globe toppling governments, reordering societies to more nearly reflect what we deem they should be(especially when the effort is looting our treasury and childrens' inheritance).

Some nations play us like a fiddle, letting us to the heavy financial lifting while they spend their monies modernizing their economies, infrastructure and standard of living.

Meantime our infrastructure rots, or bridges, roads, subway systems, water and sewer systems, electrical grids decay as we funnel money into Iraq.

The more I read about Ron Paul, the more like him.

However, with an infestation of neocon fanatics controlling the GOP, along with big money interests and the open borders crowd, I don't think a genuine conservative such as Ron Paul stands a chance of getting the GOP nomination.

And that's a pity, for I think he is best qualified.

I like a whole lot of
what Ron Paul says but also dislike a whole lot which has been articulated by earlier posters. I also dislike how he says it. There is a show business aspect in campaigning and he just doesn't have it. To me, he sometimes comes across as a crazy old man.

On the other hand, some of you have decribed Romney as to " slick" because he speaks well, articulately, clearly and with intelligence. Go figure!!!

Good interview; I'd vote for him...
If he wins the Republican nomination, I'll vote for him. If he doesn't win the nomination, I think he would be a good candidate for a prominent cabinet post.

He seems so measured and reasonable. What is he doing that attracts all those wacked-out nut-burgers as his supporters? The good parts of his message are being drowned out by the kook-fringe-conspiracist-white supremacist-drug legalization rejects who view Paul as the "Second Coming" of... something...

Curious...

I see two problems
With Ron Paul. I could be wrong and I want to hear more detail on his position on the WOT especially what he would actually do about it.
The problems I see after listening to several of the debates are:
He talks like an isolationist and I do not believe you can be one and survive in todays world.
He just does not sound or act presidential. In order to get elected you have to a certain presence or personality. Ron comes across a shrill as Hillary.
So while I can agree with him on most positions intellectually I cant seem to align with his personality.

Just Think
If we were to shrink the bureaucracy, all those out of work government employees could fill the jobs that are currently being done by illegals - you know, the jobs that no Americans will do. Of course they would do them if it meant a choice between that or unemployment. Along with that, there would need to be an elimination of welfare, so lazy laid off government workers would have to take those jobs.

Mr. Nobody
Good stuff.

I cast a broad net earlier, asking how RP intends to do the things that he states he will do. Nobody would take the time to answer. Let me narrow my focus and ask you.

How would Ron Paul eliminate the Department of Education, given the history that you provided at 9:46?

I agree that it needs to go. How does he plan to get the support necessary to do it when others have failed?

Phileo
In 1988, Ron Paul won the nomination of the Libertarian Party for President. If you check out the LP website (http://www.lp.org/) you will quickly recognize most of the positions you characterize as whacko. I belong to that party; however, because I support the WOT, and they don't, I'm still looking for a candidate.

BTW: This weekend the Libertarians resolved to invite Dr. Paul to run for their nomination in the event that he does not get the GOP nomination.
Here's the link:

http://www.lp.org/media/article_545.shtml

Ron Paul
Can you say Fruitcake? Nut case? Republican version of Dennis Kucinich? Whiner?

Fortunately, Paul has no chance.
After seeing Paul in one of the debates I was unimpressed. The tone with which he answered questions seemed to have an almost hysterical edge to it. My initial reaction was, “What a nut.” It may not be fair to judge him on just that performance, but he certainly did not appear to me as presidential material.

I agree with those here who’ve said that he’s simplistic. He certainly does not appear to have thought through some of sweeping proposals, and that’s scary.

If the 9/11 conspiracy fools like him, that’s a sure sign that something is amiss.

Re: How will people get educated ...
without a U.S Department of Education, asks Anne on this board:

Excerpt from Anne:

"There is not doubt that he’s right about the Dept. of Ed., but he never answered the question as to how people will get educated."

Anne, I think he did. Did you read his comments about how education has gotten worse (Or certainly) not better since the creation of the Department of Education?

How did folks get educated in the 1930s, 40s, 50s? America's "Greatest Generation?" How did they somehow get educated. My parents, who graduated from high school in 1958, received a far superior high school and college education than I did (graduating in 1983). But I had the Dept of Education and many more federal dollars supporting my education.

The answer to your question though is one word:

Teachers.

Abolish the Department of Education and the world will still be full of existing and future teachers. Many can teach algebra or English or history just fine without help from the bureaucrats in Washington. They'll still be demand for teachers. The states and local school boards can hire them, fire them, give the good ones pay raises, etc.

I hope Paul also takes on the teacher's unions and schools of education, tenure rules and silly certification requirments that block competition for teaching jobs.


Re: How will people get educated ...
without a U.S Department of Education, asks Anne on this board:

Excerpt from Anne:

"There is not doubt that he’s right about the Dept. of Ed., but he never answered the question as to how people will get educated."

Anne, I think he did. Did you read his comments about how education has gotten worse (Or certainly) not better since the creation of the Department of Education?

How did folks get educated in the 1930s, 40s, 50s? America's "Greatest Generation?" How did they somehow get educated. My parents, who graduated from high school in 1958, received a far superior high school and college education than I did (graduating in 1983). But I had the Dept of Education and many more federal dollars supporting my education.

The answer to your question though is one word:

Teachers.

Abolish the Department of Education and the world will still be full of existing and future teachers. Many can teach algebra or English or history just fine without help from the bureaucrats in Washington. They'll still be demand for teachers. The states and local school boards can hire them, fire them, give the good ones pay raises, etc.

I hope Paul also takes on the teacher's unions and schools of education, tenure rules and silly certification requirments that block competition for teaching jobs.


hagar
As far as a glimpse at his personality, this local New Hampshire video of him at a breakfast provides an idea of the type of person he is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mc07JtpzS4

I will agree that he is not "presidential" the way the media defines presidential these days. According to them, Hillary Clinton is "presidential", Rudy Guilianni is "presidential."

This man is humble, honest, intelligent, charismatic and a leader. In my book, that is presidential.

Dictionary
I am glad to see this interview turned into article form! I will also look forward to the next part!
I'm also glad to see that the "Ron Paul is an isolationist" comments seem to be dwindling. Maybe the dictionary consulting is doing some good.
For those of you that continue to insist, I'll go over it again. An isolationist would be someone who proposes not to interact with other countries at all. A non-interventionist, like Dr. Paul, proposes that the USA not get involved with the politics in other countries. (See Iran in 1953 for an example of this.) This certainly would not preclude economic interactions with other countries, even Cuba!
Keep up the good work! Eventually, with enough repetition, you'll get it!

Teachers' unions
It is not necessary for Ron Paul to "take on the teachers' unions. Removing the government's role in the education process will commensurately reduce the influence of teachers' unions.

Galltegfa writes:
I wrote earlier: "The good parts of Paul's message are being drowned out by the kook-fringe-conspiracist-white supremacist-drug legalization rejects" who support him.

Galltegfa writes: "...check out the Libertarian Party website... you will quickly recognize most of the positions you characterize as whacko. I belong to that party..."

I have only one response: Galltegfa, get out of that party!

Only two problems with RP
First, he is for immediate withdrawal from Iraq which would be a disaster worse than the war itself. We started this and we need to finish it with a reasonable chance that Iraq will become a stable, self-governing nation.

His second problem is that he is running as a Republican. Given that the two parties have manipulated the election process to keep power in their hands, anything that strengthens either party is bad for America.

We need to reverse the trend of the two majors accumulating more and more power. This power hold is what causes partisanship to reign over leadership, and the liberal/conservative ideological battle that the elites have created has forced us into voting the lesser of two evils every election.

What we need is an independent Prersident who can and will stand up to the elites and represent the rightful owners of this nation first. That ownership resides with us, "we the people", and it is time we reasserted our authority by denying the elites the Presidency in 2008. That, and only that will get their attention.

If you are interested in a more thorough explanation of how the elite DEM/GOP/MSM machines have accrued so much power and what we can do to stop it and restore Constitutional, limited govt. to our great nation, I urge you to visit my website, JOEOLIVAFORPRESIDENT.ORG. It is the one place you will find common sense solutions and a candidate not tied to any party machine, PAC, corporation, or corrupt lobbyist!

Check it out, why not? The elites have already stolen our birthright and mortgaged the future we are handing off to our kids. You will not be disappointed. Thanks, Joe

Mr Nobody
And FDR would be a Republican!

I suppose
he has more than his share of outlandish supporters. On the other hand I think Hillary is supported by some of the skankiest creatures to don the title human. I kid not a whit. Yet she's the potential democratic nominee. Why isn't she getting hammered for her oddball supporters? I do not think democrats are anything but good misguided Americans as a rule. I even think Hillary is the best example of a good American who is clueless about how to bring about the better America we all want. I don't believe she really has evil in her heart for the nation. She's just witless and over important in her own mind.
That said, this is about Ron Paul as a potential nominee. The question that should be asked is would Ron Paul try to govern like his few nutjob supporters? The obvious answer is absolutely not. The man is a pillar of conservatism, maybe THE pillar that is in the national public spotlight. The more honest ones among us realize that Paul's edgier notions would be culled by congress. They need not be feared in reality. His better ones would get the national attention and debate we absolutely must have if the nation is to survive and prosper.
The hits that Paul takes because some of his supporters bother some people seem to me disingenious ways to get people to elect another RINO. They're the desperate attempt to deflect the people from evaluating the candidate instead of some impertenant and tangential issues about supporters. I'm having none of it. Paul is still in contention in my mind along with one or two others. I still like Fred and wish Duncan Hunter would get a larger airing out.

Ron Paul Culturist?
Ron Paul seems to be ver