Ron Paul Gets 32 Minutes On MTP
A seemingly unflappable Ron Paul was on Meet the Press this a.m. ... He told Tim Russert that the Civil War was unnecessary, that Ronald Reagan was indeed a "failure" as president, and that the country in the last 100 years has moved toward facism.
Snippets of the interview after the jump, per NBC's transcript. The full interview can be read here.
And here is Paul signing autographs outside NBC studios in Washington. Note that he says he was scheduled for a 16 minute interview but that Russert kept him on for 32 minutes. No commercials, Paul notes.
(JENNIFER SKALKA)
On foreign aid to Israel:
MR. RUSSERT: Would you cut off all foreign aid to Israel?
REP. PAUL: Absolutely. But remember, the Arabs would get cut off, too, and the Arabs get three times as much aid altogether than Israel. But why, why make Israel so dependent? Why do we--they give up their sovereignty. They can't defend their borders without coming to us. If they want a peace treaty, they have to ask us permission. They can't--we interfere when the Arab leagues make overtures to them. So I would say that we've made them second class citizens. I, I think they would take much better care of themselves. They would have their national sovereignty back, and I think they would be required then to have a stronger economy because they would have to pay their own bills.
Ron Paul is the only choice to reduce the size and scope of the government and the police state. No one in the race will stand up for the American people like the good Doctor. Yes, some of his views are unusual compared to career politicians but that is what we love about him. We will need creative solutions to solve the problems that have been created by decades of corporate greed. Don't believe the lie that we can't win. Freedom is popular. The war is a lie (like most of them). I can not imagine voting for anyone but Ron Paul. I love this country and hate this government too much to vote any other way.
So, did MTP edit the interview to get a quarter hour? Or are they planning on airing the rest later? That seems strange. Could Paul have been misunderstood about the time?
Paul looked good, but I wish the topics could have stayed on the important stuff and not get into the goofy. I want to hear about what Paul has to say about the economy, the war, the presidency. I was glad to hear about getting rid of the income tax; some people seem to think that was brought down by Moses on the ten commandments.
Great for Ron Paul, no matter how hard poor Russert tried - no dirt can stick to Dr. Paul. There is nothing to find - he answers any (stupid, annoying too) questions. Not your usual flip-flops of politics
No candidate is perfect; but what he stands for -- restoring our Constitutional rights that both the dems and reps have taken away from us -- and will be taking away -- this is the important message. He is the only candidate with this message (although sometimes Dodd is on point). We need a third party.
lol @ "facism"
America has over 700 military bases in over 130 countries. We protect Seoul South Korea better than we protect New York City. Is this what we want for our country? Is this what we want for our children? an Empire! Please vote Ron Paul.
I'm glad you posted the Civil War quote...It was the most bizzarre statement he made. I couldn't believe timmeh didn't follow up on it.
I think Ron Paul is an interesting figure. His answer on fascism shows a keen understanding of the difficulty we're in. His answer on slavery shows only a southern regional refusal to admit responsibility. In fact, the South threatened not to join the United States unless they were given more political power than their (free) numbers deserved. This degree of constitutional protection made them arrogant. Today's libertarian devolutionists refuse to see that the South had made a bargain with evil. Lincoln campaigned on "no expansion of slavery," because that was the constitutional position. He presumed that, once isolated to the original slave states, slavery would wither and die. He was not given the chance to allow that to work.
Paul looked terrible, and I say that as someone with sympathies toward most of his positions. He couldn't cite any numbers regarding the income tax or where the federal government gets its money, but just stated flatly that we could get rid of the income tax. He had no idea how much money the income tax yields. He had no idea how many troops are stationed abroad but wanted to bring them all home. He had no idea how much we spend on the military. And he had no meaningful explanation for why he inserts earmarks into bills. It was thoroughly devastating.
DT - Dr. Paul serves on the Financial Services Committee and the Joint Economics Committee. You need to do a little research before dismissing his answers. It's very difficult to give 1 min answers to very complex issues especially when the interviewer is banging you with question after question rapid fire for a half hour. Ann
"very difficult"? The questions were things like, "How much revenue does the income tax provide?" That answer takes 5 seconds, tops. Now, explaining how he would replace it, or what programs he would cut, is very difficult and complex. Giving a number like that? Or, "how many troops are stationed overseas"? Not so much. And for a guy who's primary issues are eliminating the income tax and bringing home our troops, it would be nice if he could acknowledge a basic understanding of what such proposals mean by indicating the simple numbers behind it. Paul flubbed big time, unfortunately.
Ummm, get rid of Dept. of Education? Get rid of Income Tax? Federal Funding of education keeps the schools going and keeps them on even ground (so to speak). Putting it off to local governments will allow lower income school districts to slip FAR below the national average. Getting rid of the Income Tax won't work either, if it does go away then something will be cut, or another tax will raise (i.e. Bush #2 cut taxes, National Parks suffered, education is suffering and much much more!). Think about what these things do before you think it will save you a penny!
dt - Ron Paul has said in the past America has over 700 military bases in over 130 countries. The income tax is roughly 40% of the federal government's income and would have to cut back spending to the levels of about a decade ago. About half of our budget is earmarked for defense. He has said we can save billions by withdrawing our troops from countries we are protecting for over 50 years unnecessarily. What does it matter the exact number of troops in these 700 bases abroad? What matters is we don't need to police the world and we can't afford it. What matters is our government constantly overspends and just prints money through the Federal Reserver. What matters is Ron Paul will reduce spending, make us better defended at home, and bring about a stronger dollar by getting rid of our central bank. There's no one else I would vote for besides Ron Paul.
Ron Paul's Paulbots aside, Dr. No did a horrible job bobbing and weaving to explain his ignorant, naive, often ludicrous views. The civil war was "Senseless"? He didn't vote for a Republican president in the past 15 years? And he claims to be a Republican NOW? How stupid does he think voters are?
Russert nailed him on putting millions of pork projects in a bill. Busted!
He says we're "very close" to fascism? What is he smoking? Oh, yeah. He want's to legalize all drugs, too. I forgot.