Ron Paul takes on Repubs from Lincoln to Bush

Ron Paul did very well in this interview. Russert asked tough questions as always, but Paul was always quick to respond with a rationale and honest answer. He is different in this respect because he does not have an arsenal of rehearsed, pre-packaged answers to recite. He comes across as an authentic, genuine person who believes strongly in his positions. This is what attracts people to him. People have waited a long time for someone with this kind of integrity.

Thank you for a clear analysis of his appearance. Most I've read so far have relied on quotes without offering any explanation.

I find his earmarks rationalization, well, reasonable. I mean, if you don't earmark the money at all, the money will still be spent. The problem is, who should be able to allocate the money? The Department of X, Y, and Z or the Congressmen? He believes bureaucrats are inefficient, so he chooses to listen to his constituents and allow them to request back the money. Seems reasonable to me.

And I like that he didn't vote for Bush, just like he didn't vote for the War and the Patriot Act. He seems to know whats wrong right when he sees it, rather than voting for something and saying "sorry, I didn't know this was going to happen!"

And, Reagan was, in some aspect, a failure. The Reagan pre-presidency was not the same Reagan that was in office.

And that Civil War comment, he just won the South with that! And, it's not like it's anything crazy. He just references what happen to other countries that ended slavery and stated we should have done the same.

Overall, it was pretty decent showing - considering it /is/ "the" grilling interview. And, he actually got Russert on a few things, "I's amending the Constitution not, constitutional?" haha.

Ron Paul said "War is the Health of the State" not 'a helpless state'. You might want to fix that misquote.

JASON GEORGE RESPONDED:
Thanks Rahul and others. Fixed.

Bourne said "War is the health of the state." Ron quoted it correctly but MSNBC transcribed incorrectly. Ron has my vote and I think the interview was just fine. Tim's problem was he didn't have the standard political hack he is used to interviewing.

"Randolph Bourne says war is a helpless state."

HEALTH of the state.

Dr Paul was great in this interview. He stopped every bomb by Russert. Clear, concise, consistent. Dr Paul was also very congenial. His ideas are different and refreshing. The American Civil War cost 600,000 lives. Dr Paul said the war was unnecessary - we could have bought the slaves out of slavery like the British did and stopped slavery just like every other country did - without civil war. That war caused resentment in the South and lack of progress in civil rights. Dr Paul has always been against taxes. But if the people are going to be taxed, let the people he is representing - his district - get their money back - that is his philosophy. He is the only one to have a plan to set the economy aright - by stopping the spending of $1 trillion per year for foreign militarism and spreading goodness about the world through the barrel of a gun.

Oh yes, I forgot; Lincoln started the Civil War. And that darn pesky TR, dragging us into the 20th century like he did.

So little Pauly is going to rewrite the legacy of the two greatest Republican presidents?

Jason, thank you for an excellent summary of the Tim Russert interview. I think Ron Paul did great!

Regarding Earmarks...

When someone steals from your constituents then you have a moral obligation to try to return it any way possible. The federal government stole the people’s money in the form of federal taxes. Ron Paul is returning the stolen money to the people it was taken from.

By the way, the whole point of the American Revolution and the Constitution was to eliminate corrupt and distant taxes similar to the federal income tax.

I think Tim Russert was confused about Earmarks (confusing them with Pork). Pork is different from Earmarks. Pork is adding more spending 'stealing'. Earmarks is just dividing up what has already been agreed to spend, what was already stolen.

Put another way, Earmarks are spending money that was already budgeted in. Earmarks don't affect spending levels. Earmarking is more transparent, effective, accountable, and representative of his constituents' interests than letting Washington bureaucrats decide where to send his constituents' tax dollars.

The reason he votes against every bill that he places earmarks on is to make a clear statement that he thinks the system is messed up.

CNN called the offices of members of the House to ask whether they would make their lists of earmarks public. Only 50 members' offices provided a list (including Ron Paul); of the others, 68 declined, and 311 did not respond.

According to Citizens Against Government Waste, Ron Paul is rated at 95% for the year 2006 and earning grades of A by the National Taxpayers Union. By comparison, Hillary Clinton comes in at 14% for the 109th Congress while earning a 10% lifetime score.

John McCain has said that Ron Paul is the most honest man in Congress and Pat Buchanan recently stated that Ron Paul has the best voting record in Congress.

I would just suggest that he is a good man trying to do the best he can with a very bad system. And he makes very clear to anyone who will listen that it is a very bad system.

Something else to keep in mind about Ron Paul’s 20 year is that he has never voted to raise taxes and never voted for an unbalanced budget.

Ron Paul has a plan to eliminate the IRS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8

I am a french-canadian.
I look at Ron Paul since +- 2months.
All I can say is...What a MAN!.
He is your last hope.
Do not elect him and you will be in an horrific situation very soon.
There is limits to make war for years despite the fact that 70% of your people (you know...'we the people...) want to stop it!
For the rest of the planet (I talk obout men and women, not corporation...)it look completely crazy and nonsense.
Life is a place to learn LOVE and COMPASSION, it is not a warfield for a bunch of retarded teenagers who are thirsty for power and money.
I show you my point of view from Canada.
Imagine how a middle east ordinary man can perceive your acts...
Shame on your establishment.
History's judgement will be extremely hard to swallow for your honests citizens.
You will be the perfect example to show how far human cupidity can go.
It is so sad for america.

I'll be absolutely honest and come off as a person swayed by pure television . . . But this interview sold me. Read up on him! There's BRILLIANT logic behind the madness, I swear it. Don't go for Romney, the Huckster, or Mccain, they're all like Bush version 2.0.

Uh, really really.

One correction:

"Randolph Bourne says war is a helpless state"

war is the 'health of the state'. And Paul goes on to talk about other 'wars', like the WOD, WOpoverty, etc..

If the only criticism, and really, let's face it, Tim Russert had to dig really deep to try to catch Ron Paul on anything, was Paul trying to give some money back to his District, well, then ROn Paul should be the clear winner and the next PResident of the United States.

That whole thing just seemed silly and probably the reason why Paul laughed and told Tim he was confused and ironic that he was trying to turn something good into a "flip floper" thing. Just didn't succeed, except if you are already a big Government spender and want Paul to just stop talking because it hurts your cause.

"Randolph Bourne says war is a helpless state" is incorrect. The correct statement is "war is the health of the state".

You left out that he didn't think George W Bush was a conservative - which he isn't. Anybody that thinks the Bush's are bums has my vote - Bravo

The quote from Bourne (or whoever it was) should have been "war is the health of the state" not "war is a helpless state." It was clear that Russert was extremely hostile to Dr. Paul and often fired off two to four comments on different issues before letting him get in a response to even one of them. It is also well known to anyone who studies Lincoln in detail, and not just the sugar coated popular biographies on him, that he was very much in favor of increased federal power and decreased state power. He was also not a very intelligent man, despite, again, the popular attempts to make him out as a great intellect who read a lot and even walked miles in the snow to return borrowed books. What sap! Powerful governments always make heros of those leaders who have greatly increased their power, so in our government owned and controled schools we teach our children how wonderful Lincoln and FDR were...two men who did the most to destroy our federal system, states rights, the very concept of a "republic," and freedom. And in the Soviet Union they made heros of Lenin and Stalin. We had our first military draft during the civil war, and an income tax, later declared illegal (the tax). Lincoln was also known, from at least one letter he wrote near the end of the war, to have been planning on expelling the former slaves from the US. We were the only large country that went through a war to remove slavery. Numerous other countries managed to do so peacefully. Perhaps that subject should be taught in our schools.

"war is a helpless state"

You misunderstood. War is the HEALTH of the State. Not in a good way. Times of war or the spectre of war always include the expansion of the State's power over the people. Open any history book at random to see this view validated.

Right on, Jason!

What a great interview. Russert threw the kitchen sink with his questions and Paul answered every one with reason and intelligence.

Civil War?! Come on Tim.

The best part was Paul laughing at Russert for having it all wrong on earmarks.

I bet you don't see a single clip on the news because he did so well.

Although I support Paul, he is being unfair to Lincoln.

Lincoln admitted, "I don't control events, events control me." Remarkably similar to Paul's own statement that he doesn't control the internet message, the internet controls his message.

Lincoln was known for highly imaginative resolutions to the civil lawsuits he settled. His resolutions were intended to protect social harmony as well as deliver justice.

Unfortunately, South Carolina struck the first violent blow by shelling Fort Sumnter.
As the Chinese proverb goes, "One who strikes the first blow is he whose ideas have failed him." The idea of slavery failed the South, so they began the maelstrom that engulfed the US including its president.

The war wasn't Lincoln's initiative. He was just another victim of it. Given a chance, his negotiating skill exemplified in his case histories would have saved the social fabric of the Union without a shot being fired.

You misquoted Paul on Bourne. Bourne said that war is the health of the state, not a helpless state.

I'm glad you included at least some of Dr. Paul's reasoning. The personal income tax represents nowhere near half the federal revenue stream. Eliminating it would leave approximately the budget of ten years ago.

Tim Russert is a tough questioner, but Ron held his own. Again the whole argument boils down to what the proper role of government should be. As a Historian and Economist, Medical Doctor, and Constitutional Scholar, Paul is well-versed in philosphy, foreign policy, and monetary systems. He is definitely the man to lead this country, and to finally reject the idea that Government is more powerful than the people.

I generally like Ron Paul, but I feel bad for him that he is so historically challenged when it comes to the Civil War. The war was not fought to rid the country of slavery. It was fought to save the Union. The southern states seceded from the Union approximately one month after Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration. He did nothing to cause the split other than get elected and show up to take the oath of office. He even tried to appease the south in his First Inaugural Address, assuring southerners that he would take no action against the institution of slavery and cautioning them against taking precipitous action that would divide the country and make us all enemies.

It wasn’t until after the war had been fought in earnest for a couple years that the issue turned to slavery. Even then, it only arose as a military measure to take away the south’s means of conducting war. Read carefully the Emancipation Proclamation (effective January 1, 1863) and you will notice that it did not purport to free all the slaves. It only applied to those states and portions of states then in rebellion. That left several, neutral slave-holding states (Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland and West Virginia), and several parts of states (a number of parishes in Louisiana and counties in Virginia) with their rights to maintain slavery intact. Ultimately, it wasn’t until after the war with the ratification of the 13th Amendment that slavery was finally and officially abolished.

So, I don’t get where Congressman Paul got the idea that Lincoln was blameworthy for conducting the war as a measure to rid the country of slaves. Lincoln had to fight the war to suppress insurrection even if he never dealt with the issue of slavery.

I am so looking forward to casting my vote for this man of integrity. Ron Paul has my vote and support. He is the only one running willing to stand up against our corrupt government and the media.

The comment should be "War is the HEALTH of the state"; it's quite famous actually.

Ron Paul received contributions from over 100,000 different people this quarter. He received $18,000,000 from those 100,000 people. His support is wide and deep. Look around your town and notice you see RP signs everywhere. Grab a cup of coffee and go to http://freeme.tv

"Randolph Bourne says war is a helpless state."

The transcript misquoted Dr. Paul. He said "Randolph Bourne says war is the *health* of the state."

Randolph Bourne said that war is the HEALTH of the state. Meaning, that government tends to grow during wars and emergencies.

The quote was "War is the health of the State" not "war is a helpless state"

Tim Russert is really something. He investigates OTHER people back to what they said 20 years ago, but does Mr. Russert disclose his OWN conflicts of interest? No, instead he silently plans his character assisination attempt. Well, you kind of have to expect that type of hatchet job from someone who in bed with the status quo. I did my OWN little fact checking expedition and found the advertisers for Meet The Press.

GE lists 824 items regarding defense contracts on their website for 2007. http://www.ge.com/search/index.jsp

Boeing lists 72,200 items regarding defense.
http://tinyurl.com/2nm5y8

Fidelity Investments - tax and 401k services, need I say more?

Hummer - child company of AM General the company that makes all the HMMWV's for the Army

UBS - Another banking company, certainly they have nothing to fear from Dr. Paul, right?

Toyota - makes cars which are CURRENTLY cheaper to make in Japan (and then assemble here).

Aleve - you think Bayer Pharmaceuticals has a reason to fear Ron Paul - who wants to allow young adults to opt out of SS and Medicare and is vehemently opposed to socialized medicine?

ABE - (shill for coal companies) do they have nothing to fear from Ron Paul's desire to deregulate nuclear power so we have safe, clean unlimited power?

CVS - A Pharmacy whose bread and butter is insurance and Medicare. Dr. Paul wants to remove the incentives for hospitals to overbill us.

Xerox - another defense contractor. Here's a link to their defense contracts of 2006.
http://tinyurl.com/2wjzbb

MasterCard - Huge banking coop.

Why didn't Mr. Russert let us know that he had a HUGE conflict of interest BEFORE THIS SEGMENT AIRED? When half of your advertisers are in defense, the other half split between banking and Big Pharma doesn't that constitute NEWS? I mean, Mr. Russert dug back 20 years or more on Dr. Paul to try to find "dirt". Why not look in your own mirror? I find the FACT the Mr. Russert did NOT disclose this relationship highly disturbing.

Ron Paul is the only politician willing to "tell it like it is." Go to RonPaul2008.com and listen to the message. Ron's "common sense" approach to our troubles is the only one that will work. We can't keep living above our means and expect that the rest of the world will keep extending us credit forever. What happens when the Chinese won't lend us anymore money? What do you think is going to happen when the government goes bankrupt and government agencies shut down? We can't believe that we can have a global economy and North American Union and keep our national security and sovereignty! I say stand up for your civil liberties! Join the Ron Paul Revolution!

Can you even imagine another candidate shooting from the cuff like that, and being so right about something most of us never even bothered to consider?

Let the corrections begin--

On the civil war: Dr. Paul said the government could have paid for the slaves and freed them, making war unnecessary.

On the IRS: Dr. Paul said if the IRS were eliminated, the federal government would have the same amount of revenue it had 10 years ago.

On war: The quote is, "War is the HEALTH of the State".

Now for my opinion: Russert piled on charge after charge, apparently after having his staff spend weeks trying to dig up something to attack with. The tactic is to interrupt the answer with another charge, and pile them on so fast that a coherent response is difficult. I lost count of the number of time Russert interrupted Dr. Paul as he tried to explain his well-considered positions. Although Dr. Paul held up admirably well, the tactic gives the lazy press a menu of issues to gleefully spin.

But Russert and the press who seize on these issues are overplaying their hand; what is coming through is not that Dr. Paul is some kook, what is coming through is open contempt by the media for the constitution and our rights. It glares louder than the intended message, and fools fewer people every day.

Ron Paul is a great man.

Now this is a good article. Sharp, but accurate title and plenty of accurate citation of the good Dr. The list of "bum" "failure" and another "Dr. 'No' " vote on G.W. Bush has me slapping my knee :-) . Why can't anyone else be as refreshingly frank as Dr. Paul?

Randolph Bourne wrote "War is the Health of the State".

You got it wrong in the article. Here's a link if you'd like to read it.
http://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/bourne.htm

The Randolph Bourne quote is actually "War is the health of the state" as opposed to "War is a helpless state."

TO MR. RUSSERT: I think your attempts at a 'gotchya' moment were not very becoming. It was almost as if you'd only show respect to him if he followed principles so closely that he didn't exist as a politician. See Tim, in order to fix a system you must first work within it. To casually suggest that Ron Paul voted against earmarks b/c he knew it would fail and then he could corruptly receive what he wanted was beyond reproach.

Paul handled your questions with grace and intelligence. It's a shame you didn't always give him a chance to answer.

But what was probably the most disgraceful moment was after paul left, and you proceeded to talk with your round table about candidates and completely acted as if Paul didnt' exist. Jeez Tim, he was still in the building for goodness sake.

I just wish you could get over yourself a little bit. You are a decent interviewer, but you are not fair, and that is something you should work on.

He's got my Vote!

Someone please explain to me why the USA gives a Damn about Israel. Seriously. What is in this relationship for the USA? We give them 3 Billion a year, because???

John Adams, one of the greatest founding fathers, was constantly attacked by a scornful media. Nothing has changed. Ron Paul is right on the issues, and has the love of the people on his side. He is winning this race.

Slight misquote:

Ron Paul said "War is the health of the state" quoting Randolph Bourne. It means means the more "wars" we have, the healthier the state is to encroach on our freedoms.

He actually said "War is the health of the state" not "War is a helpless state."

Incorrect quote: Randolph Bourne says 'war is a helpless state'

The actual quote is "war is the health of the state." In other words, the state (government) grows at a phenomenal rate during wartime.

Great article! It is so funny to me that Ron Pauls views are considered odd and yet the other cadidates are all for bombing and invading countries and killing thousands of people. The American dollar is falling every day. I hope Americans wake up and smell the coffee before our finacial situation become utter chaos.

I can't believe these smear attempts.
Even if the earmarks were considered and issue, I would have to say he's still a shining star compared to every other Candidate.

DR. PAUL CURED MY APATHY

On scrapping the IRS, Paul pointed out that the remaining revenue from sources other than the income tax would still be about what the federal government collected in total, ten years ago.

It's "War is the HEALTH of the state."

This is a truth proven time and time again throughout history...and the last few years is no exception.

The whole interview consisted of nothing other than Russert demanding that Paul defend positions that Russert thought were indefensible. Russert was wrong on every count. Whether or not slavery could have been banished in the US without 600,000 deaths is not exactly a hot topic in the presidential race. But the fact is, every other civilized country in the world banished slavery without a bloody war with repercussions that lasted at least 100 years.

Actually, I believe that you accidentally misquoted Paul. He quoted Randolph Bourne as saying "War is the health of the state." Not, as you mistakenly understood, "War is a helpless state." Actually, "War is the Health of the State" is the title of one of Randolph Bourne's essays.

You transcribed: "Randolph Bourne says war is a helpless state."

That is actually a misquote. The correct quote (RP says this often, not surprisingly) is "War is the HEALTH of the state".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randolph_Bourne

-Jeff

Tim Russert never got into the issue of the suicidal monetary policy the Fed is following.

Just 40 years ago a coke or a cup of coffee costs 10 cents, a gallon of gas costs 30 cents, a new car costs $2,500 and a new house cost $25,000. Today a coke or cup of coffee is over $1.00, gas is $3.00, the new car cost is about $25,000 and the new single family house averages $250,000 or more. Over the last 40 years, prices for all these commodities have increased by a factor of about 10 times or more.

This means that in the last 40 years, the dollar has lost 90% of its purchasing power. Today you need $10.00 to pay for what you use to be able to buy for $1.00.

Why has the US $ lost 90% of its value? Because in the last 40 years the Federal Reserve has printed increasing amounts of paper money to fund excessive government spending for wars and welfare programs – and this paper money has no gold backing. The result has been constant inflation.

The US is on the brink of a financial catastrophe. The dollar is in freefall on foreign exchange markets and there are increasing signs that governments and investors around the world are looking for alternative currencies to use for investment vehicles. The US government is in debt to Foreign Governments a total of over 2.3 Trillion dollars and that borrowed money has been spent on wars and welfare (yes – that’s 2.3 TRILLION dollars). And these foreign governments are not all friends – almost $700 billion is owed to China and the Oil Exporting Countries in the Middle East.

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that is discussing this coming financial collapse and understands the incredible economic dangers we face.

I recall being shocked by Ron Paul's statement that the Civil War should not have been fought. It took about 5-minutes for it to dawn on me that he's right. It'd have been cheaper to buy and free the slaves than to sacrifice that many American lives.

Given my public school training on such matters, it occurred to me that getting rid of the Department of Education seems -- in retrospect -- a good idea.

The Civil War wasnt a mistake? 600,000 deaths were needed to free slaves? Or would a more common sense approach have worked?

Getting rid of the IRS isnt a good idea? It wasnt there until 1913 and got swindled into power. I do believe JFK was the last sitting president to go after the Fed.. thats not nearly as unAmerican as you might think.

Quit policing the world? Awesome idea!!! We see how well our policing has helped America. 3.5Trillion spent on Iraq alone.. 1 Trillion spent annually. Meanwhile our debt is at 9Trillion and we borrow 3B a day from China.

Israel.. with 300 nukes and the 4 or 5th largest military in the world can take care of herself.

What exactly are pundits scared of? Youd think these people have been living under a rock while the average American has been taking it in the..

Regardless. Ive done my research and I support the most honest candidate thats trying to save what little republic we have left. The constitution and rule of law matter. Economics matter. Its just to bad people in power dont understand it.

"Randolph Bourne says 'war is the HEALTH of the state'

The Randolph Bourne quote is "War is the health of the State"

Amazing how the Dr. can say something as inflammatory as 'Abraham Lincoln started a senseless civil war' and then immediately make sense of it. It's so brave.

I think Tim Russert asked very good and tough questions and Ron Paul responded with his usual sincerity. I think Ron Paul did a great job.
Go Ron Paul

Its about time there was a good interview with Dr Ron Paul. I can't wait to vote for him.

Umm, the correct Bourne quote:

"War is the health of the state."

Nice write up though, thanks for at least giving a run down of Paul's positions. You didn't take cheap shots by excluding portions of his reasoning.

Great insight. One comment, though, and I noticed this was incorrect in the original transcript.
The Bourne quote is: "War is the health of the state" not "war is a helpless state".

The more enemies that might be hiding in your closet, the healthier the state is. When all is calm, even the common man can see he does not need an overbearing government. If you press people, such as with an impending war, some people with good intentions will willingly get behind the effort without questioning it.

Thus "war IS the health of the state".

CORRECTION:

"Randolph Bourne says 'war is the health of the state'"

You quoted Dr. Paul as saying:

"Randolph Bourne says 'war is a helpless state'"

I believe your source for Dr. Paul's comment transcribed it wrong. The quote is "war is the health of the state" which is what Dr. Paul said during the interview.

You have misquoted Dr Paul. He said that Randolph Bourne said that "War is the health of the state."
http://www.bigeye.com/warstate.htm

Wars empower and enlarge the government. War is used as an excuse by those seeking power to enhance and abuse that power.

This is rich. Pauly wants to rewrite the legacy of Lincoln, (he started the Civil War!) and TR, (That bad man dragged us kicking into the twentieth century!)

The two best Republican presidents, dissed by Mr. Paul.

This is rich. Pauly wants to rewrite the legacy of Lincoln, (he started the Civil War!) and TR, (That bad man dragged us kicking into the twentieth century!)

The two best Republican presidents, dissed by Mr. Paul.

"CORRECTION:

"Randolph Bourne says 'war is the health of the state'"

It depends on what the definition of 'is', is.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. GE, the defense contractor, owns NBC and therefore Tim Russert's soul.

"I generally like Ron Paul, but I feel bad for him that he is so historically challenged when it comes to the Civil War. The war was not fought to rid the country of slavery. It was fought to save the Union. The southern states seceded from the Union approximately one month after Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration. He did nothing to cause the split other than get elected and show up to take the oath of office. He even tried to appease the south in his First Inaugural Address, assuring southerners that he would take no action against the institution of slavery and cautioning them against taking precipitous action that would divide the country and make us all enemies. "

Any why did the South want to secede? Because they wanted to keep slavery from being contained which Lincoln promised to do. Saying Ron Paul is historically challenged is ridiculous considering they had about 2 minutes to discuss the issue.

No, I'm not going to correct you on the Bourne quote! Once again, the Baltimore Sun has offered some of the more insightful commentary out there. Thanks for reporting this substantially and in context, as opposed to AP, MSNBC and CNN.

Merry Christmas, Republicans

-from your favorite Senator, Larry Craig:

http://mikk2.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/make-the-yuletide-gay/

C.Mo,

Yeah, it's always good policy to run against Lincoln and TR. We would.

I'm going to take a contrary position. Rather than a hatchet job, I think that Tim Russert says "It's my job to throw your words and positions back to you in the worst possible light. It's your job to defend your views and convince us by bringing them into the best possible light. You will be tested by fire. From this, we will choose our leader." On that basis, how on God's green earth can you avoid this conclusion: Ron Paul should lead us out of this mess we're in.

""Every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach."

Every election has it's nut cases. In the past we have had Goldwater, Perot, (I liked him, my kinda nut case), George W. Bush, lyndon larouche, Reagan, and others.

This guy wins going away.

It seems almost unbelieveable that our budget has grown over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS in the past ten years. Surely we can cut back to 1997 spending levels and not even notice a difference in the crappy "service" government gives us. Go Ron Paul! Get rid of the income tax!

Ok, after reading the comments that were finally posted I just had to laugh. Apparently dozens of foolish and ignorant Paul supporters (like myself) immediately caught the Randolph Bourne mis-quote, but all the great minds in the media had no idea what he was talking about, including whoever did the transcript. You guys do actually read sometimes, don't you? Or do you spend all your time doing your hair and cadging invites to cocktail partys? Sorry, sorry, I shouldn't mock you, that was unkind. *snort*

John W.
Here in South Carolina, the Civil War is referred to as the "Northen War of Aggression".
Concerning why the Civil War was fought. Dr. Paul stated that the reason was not for slavery. Please listen to the interview alittle closer. This same question was asked by Bill Maher, or however you pronounce his name, back in March of this year. Dr. Paul stated that Lincoln was not the strongest opponent of slavery.
At least he has an understanding of History. At least he reads books.
The Media went back 15 yrs to find something on Bush with the DWI thing, but here Russert has to go back to the Civil War to try and dig up something on Dr. Paul. This is fantastic!

It should not be incredible that a candidate speaks frankly against Lincoln's federal government invading and attacking its own people. Now, like in 1861, it is all about a federal government that props up banks with a miltary machine that owns the media. The democrats love it too so long as the socialist spenders continue to get theirs.
NBC is not for our Constitution.

"The Civil War wasnt a mistake? 600,000 deaths were needed to free slaves? Or would a more common sense approach have worked?"

Parke,

This is an incredible statement. Any war is a failure of the politicians, but not really Lincoln in this case. This failure had festered for decades. Surly you know this.

A 'common sense' approach?

Lincoln didn't try every possible approach before the South attacked Ft. Sumpter?

I would love to put Pauly in a time machine, send him back and see what the H he would have done.

Of course 'common sense' would have been better, but the slave states weren't interested in common sense. (Ending slavery, that is.)

But never forget, common sense can be over rated. According to common sense, at one time, the Earth was flat, and the center of the universe, red heads were witches, and people of African descent were inferior.

"Paul agreed with earlier statements he's made, calling George H.W. Bush "a bum," Ronald Reagan a "failure" and saying he was happy he never voted for current President George W. Bush. "

Well, I can agree with all that, ha ha!

Hey, where is this guys flag lapel pin!?

Any why did the South want to secede? Because they wanted to keep slavery from being contained which Lincoln promised to do. Saying Ron Paul is historically challenged is ridiculous considering they had about 2 minutes to discuss the issue.

Posted by: Timur Rozenfeld | December 23, 2007 8:12 PM

Regardless of the reasons for the south’s desire to secede, Lincoln didn’t start the war. And it wasn’t Lincoln’s fault – as RP makes it out to be – inasmuch as Lincoln tried to appease the south but failed. The south fired the first shots of the war to expel the federal garrisons at Charleston harbor before Lincoln could lift a finger to do anything. Since Lincoln didn’t start the war – as RP claimed – it wasn’t proper for RP to blame him for its causes or charge him with failing to pursue alternatives to peace. Those alternatives were non-existent. So I stand by my statement that RP is historically challenged on this count.

Furthermore, there were many reasons the south gave for secession. All secession declarations cited grievous injury and hostility from the northern states over a period of decades – from a time long before Lincoln took power. Any stated gripe against Lincoln was more for the fact that he symbolized unrelenting hostility of the northern states against their interests. Thus, other than the pretext of fighting against an unimplemented policy that Lincoln promised would not be implemented (Go read his 1st Inaugural Address), his presidency offered no ground to secede.

RP is right on a good many issues, but this isn't one of them. You should quit trying to defend him this time.

I'm from Australia, and think Ron Paul would be a welcome change for the whole world. Sure his ideas are a little different, but he sounds like he's willing to work with others for positive outcomes. Australia has the best voting system in the world. You guys should copy us. Everyone votes on the same day, 75% of results are in by the same night, it's all on paper. Fast, quick, efficient and fair. No discrepancies, no complaints. No need to register for a particular party, no need to show ID when voting. The American system seems crazy, unfair and downright corrupt with electronic voting.

I believe it was Russert, not Paul, who seemed to think that the Civil War was fought to end slavery. If the southern states had a right to join or not join the union in the first place, it's not clear to me why they didn't have a right to leave later on. Lincoln was the candidate who embodied the north's economic domination of the south. In any event, try to keep in mind 600,000 dead. Proportionally to the total population, that would be 6 million today.

"War is the health of the state" is the correct quote.

-Brad, active duty military, disgruntled Republican, voting for Ron Paul in 2008

I can't believe that Ron Paul has got you people discussing real issues... the establishment must be turning in their (future) graves.

I would love to see Paul win just to shut C.Morris up.

Notice how they left out the original question regarding Ron Pual's fascist statement regardingg Huck's ad from the original taped interview. Instead, Tim changes the nature of the original question, and then plays Ron Paul's taped answer, which was not his complete answer, thus, taking Ron Paul's statement out of context. Yet, Ron Paul was still able to effectively answer the question.

The Iran / Mars reference was priceless!!

They tried to make him appear anti-Isreal, but it back-fired. Ron Paul revealed that his policies would greatly help Israel. This should headline news, but the corporate media will not mention the fact that if we stopped giving our hard earned tax money to all the Middle East conuntires, then Isreal would have the best of it.

Ron Paul revealed the injustice and abuse of the Federal Government and how the Neo-Cons trample our rights, and state rights by arresting sick people who are legally using medical marijauna and putting them into jail. He clearly demonstrated the hypocrisy and abuse of the govt. on the war on drugs, torture, etc.

Ron Paul's facial expressions were priceless, looking at Tim as if he was in wonderland, not understanding that amendments to the Constitution IS Consitutional.

Ron Paul clearly demonstrated that he has what it takes to take on ANYONE and will be the next President of these United States of America.

As an Orthodox Jew opposed to Israel, I am thrilled that finally there is the possibility that the USA will no longer fund Israel's brutality against the Palestinians. I also found Ron Paul's views on the Civil War fascinating. Buy the slaves and free them! It would have saved 600,000 lives!! Amazing! But of course we know that inherent superiority of "the Union" is not part of the Constitution. Every state has the right to secede. This is enshrined in the Constitution.

He said "War is the HEALTH of the state" dumbass

I'm voting for Ron Paul! I have never met a statesman like Ron Paul. Are we lucky or what?

Didn't Russert bring up the point about the civil war?
I am no historian, but from what I understand slavery was only a secondary reason for the southern states secedeing. The primary reason was the southern states rejection of the centralization of the federal government and it's imposition of tariffs which were strangling the southern agrarian economy at the benefit of the industrial north.

re:RP Supporter
"Just 40 years ago a coke or a cup of coffee costs 10 cents, a gallon of gas costs 30 cents, a new car costs $2,500 and a new house cost $25,000. Today a coke or cup of coffee is over $1.00, gas is $3.00, the new car cost is about $25,000 and the new single family house averages $250,000 or more. Over the last 40 years, prices for all these commodities have increased by a factor of about 10 times or more.

This means that in the last 40 years, the dollar has lost 90% of its purchasing power."

Forty years ago a one ounce silver Dollar bought about 4 gallons of gas. Today, at about $14, one ounce of silver buys about 4 gallons of gas.

Gee, maybe we should have kept our currenct backed by silver and/or gold. Or maybe I'm a kook, or fringe, or Quixotic, or any of those other stupid names the press calls Ron Paul.

Could anyone imagine George W. Bush answering questions about the civil war?

Interviewer: What were the causes of the U.S. Civil War?
GWB: Ahhh,uhhhm, I, I, think many evil doers were involved. And if we're not careful a mushroom cloud will appear.

Ron Paul is too smart to be president.

I hope he runs third party. With the Constitution hanging by a thread, we need to do something. He will be a real third party deal only if he picks a real Veep running mate. I wish Tim would have asked him about high gasoline prices/ high credit card/ and home and car takebacks by the banks.

Geez.., yet another smear article against Dr. Paul. I've been reading all day about this mornings MTP and I'm happy to see that 99.9% of the replies have been pro Ron Paul. It just goes to show what a fight we're up against with the media clearly taking their marching orders from their bosses. Smear all you want, Dr. Paul will stand strong in the primaries.

Why, at the end of the interview, did Russert tell Paul to "stay safe" while on the campaign trail?

What is wrong with you. It's "War is the HEALTH of the state". No offense, but that quote has been around forever, how did you get it wrong? can you at least correct yourself?

And to clarify the earmark issue. Earmark funds are funds that are there for every (or most, but that's beside the point) congressional district to use. the money is stolen from the citizens and then put into a savings, basically. If the money is NOT used for earmarks it is then used by the EXECUTIVE branch, instead. So, either way the money is spent. All Paul is doing is returning the stolen money to the people, in the form of earmarks. Russert didn't understand what earmarks even are.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who understands the war issue. He's absolutely right about Vietnam. Even Americans can just walk across the border, buy a sandwich, and leave. Search for the USS Maddox to find that the initial cause, just as in the present war, was wholly false. There were no torpedoes. In fact, if anyone could be perceived to be provoking an incident, it was US.

You know, what really bothers me about the questions is that they demonstrate our inability to learn. It's as if there's nothing to learn; as if war, war, war should be just routine. Just imagine a North Vietnamese Navy steaming up and down the coast of California, and provoking no reaction whatsoever.

Just think about it; it's amazing we can buy a sandwich there. All we had to do was give history a little time. Even despite all the aggravation we caused -- millions of people killed for nothing -- North Vietnam is now a westernized country.

So I'm EXTREMELY impressed with the courage and "presidentiality" of this candidate. We have a great one on our hands.

LETS GET HIM ELECTED.

Ron is also the ONLY candidate to understand the economy. We're in big trouble; and the mess is only going to get deeper if we elect anyone else.

Thomas Jefferson said, "If the American People EVER allow the banks to issue their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and [bank owned] corporations which WILL grow up around them WILL deprive the people of [ever more of] their property, until their children wake homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Only Paul understands this issue: It's mathematically impossible even to maintain a circulation without suffering inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt, because we must perpetually re-borrow whatever we pay against principal and interest as a new debt, increased so much as periodic interest.

Ultimately, every such system collapses under insoluble debt, because the unassented system generates such a sum of debt that the subject people can no longer afford even to service their debt.

We're right close, ladies and gentlemen; and if you dare face another 4 years with an incompetent in office, you best be warned you yourself are the greatest obstruction to true freedom and prosperity.

Just something to think about, as we plunge ever closer to insoluble debt.

Visit the link, if you want to understand the issue.

It's time for a better America and world; and it's a pity if you can't make yourself part of that.

Best wishes to all for the New Millenia.

Kash and John W: go watch Bill Maher's first interview with Paul from last summer. Paul actually explained it in more detail that A. Lincoln wasn't too crazy about the abolition in the first place (ambivalent at best) and that he was even willing to compromise with the South to preserve the Union.

I don't think his interview today at Meet the Press is the best interview so far. To be fair, it's Russert's job to ask difficult question and he did his part. If you research Paul's views, however, you would find that his views are well thought-out and backed up by historical precedents and facts.

Kash and John W: go watch Bill Maher's first interview with Paul from last summer. Paul actually explained it in more detail that A. Lincoln wasn't too crazy about the abolition in the first place (ambivalent at best) and that he was even willing to compromise with the South to preserve the Union.

I don't think his interview today at Meet the Press is the best interview so far. To be fair, it's Russert's job to ask difficult question and he did his part. If you research Paul's views, however, you would find that his views are well thought-out and backed up by historical precedents and facts.

Thank you Tim for a terrific interview! You really showed all astute viewers that even with a big and well financed shovel, when there is no dirt around, none can be flung!

Ron Paul has my vote!

GREAT NEWS FROM NH!

It's the night before Christmas Eve and I just got in- John Mexician had Manchester NH sign bomed!- I was so pissed... Then all of the sudden I turned the Corner and started seei