|
|
Texas Congressman and Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul
listen:
  He opposes the income tax, the FBI and the Department of Education and has a rather large group of supporters who campaign on his behalf by spreading flyers, knocking on doors and spreading his message through the internet. His poll numbers are slightly higher here in the Live Free or Die State and he has surprised many with his fundraising efforts- raising $6 million in one day recently. He faces tough competition from his Republican competitors and hopes to draw on his base of support to make a good showing in the upcoming Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary. We’ll talk with Dr. Paul about his run for President, the issues and how he thinks his showing in the two first-in-the-nation states may impact how he campaigns from here on out. Guest
Web resources:
|
Support FromHighlightsNavigationUser login | |||||
Be careful, Laura. The money is coming in so fast the campaign is scrambling to find ways to spend it, I hear and see more Ron Paul commercials than from any of his other "tough competition" except Romney, and Ron Paul can't even keep up with all his media requests. He's gotten millions of dollars of free media exposure because of November 5, and you just wait until December 16! I've knocked on a hundred doors myself, and you know what I've found? The competition is not "tough" at all. Voters are overwhelmingly undecided, and it's EASY to turn them to Ron Paul supporters -- all we have to do is expose them to what he stands for. They're already Ron Paul supporters, but they don't know it! They just have to shake off the bias against him, that they get from media blips like this one that say he faces "tough competition." This is an obnoxious and unsubstantiated claim. You're missing the story! The real story is: there has never been a ground movement for a presidential candidate like this in history. And when the tally comes in -- the tally of first-time voters, former democratic voters, independents, libertarians, and formerly disenchanted voters (that was me) -- it will be plainly obvious that the media has been missing the true story of this election cycle. Ron Paul just might win by a landslide. Get ready.
Ron Paul has more money. And if you count people like me, who are freely giving their time and effort as volunteers, he certainly has more staff. And I'll bet after the Dec 16 Tea Party, his media exposure will expand drastically. Of course, the mainstream media will still continue their "adjective and adverb" campaign. He's never "Presidential Candidate Ron Paul". It's always something inaccurate or insulting, like "Presidential Longshot..." or "Isolationist", etc.
But you know what? We, the people, are sick of the lies and deception of the status quo. That includes federal bureaucracies and the mainstream media. So spin it all you want. The ordinary citizen owns this nation, and holds the real power. You are just seeing the first few drops of water spilling over the dam.
You were the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 1988 and you are the most libertarian candidate for president today. Don’t you think that the principles of a libertarian would give a woman the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion? I understand that you would go back to banning abortion.
Martin Bender
You need to understand that this election is about the process by which we reach answers to the challenges we face, not about specific answers. To present the abortion issue as pro-life vs. pro-choice is to present a false dichotomy. The question is much more nuanced than that.
Ron Paul is running for President of the United States. All he says is that we ought to get the Federal Government out of our lives so we can make more sensible, personal decisions. He is not running for Governor, so he's not talking about what he or we ought to do at a state level. Even at the Federal level he candidly says that he can do nothing unless we, the people, change our attitudes toward government. Do we seek government direction and control in our lives and in the decisions we make, or do we seek to do-it-ourselves.
Under our system the Constitution leaves issues like this, and many others, to the states. Were the abortion question left to us to decide at a state level, some communities might ban abortion. Others, seeing this as a moral question, would place the decision with the individual, since only the individual can make moral choices.
What is clear is that Ron Paul's personal position is consistent. He favors life in all its forms. He is against war. He is against abortion. He also will not impose his personal moral choices on anyone else. He may lead by example. He may lead by persuasion. He will not impose solutions by force.
Its amazing I listen to your show online frequently but today all of your streams are full. This may also lead you to your answer on the polling question as well. Many of the people who support Dr. Paul are using a computer, a cell phone, etc. for communication not a land line. The only land lines I use are at my office. So I have a challenge for NPR why don't you team up with the survey center at UNH and do an unbiased poll by texting people cell phones. May be the polls are out dated because technology has changed, so maybe we need to change how we poll.
Yesterday I was fortunate to be able to meet Dr. Paul in Portsmouth with some other business owners/entrepreneurs. The small group that met Dr. Paul represented 100 million + dollars of the NH economy. The group was diverse, a restaurant owner, a high tech hardware designer and manufacturer, a seafood importer, a food manufacturer and value added processor, and a retailer. Dr. Paul's support is the most diverse I have ever seen in a political campaign.
Why does Ron Paul only want to tear down the power of government in the name of individual freedom when our freedoms are under assault from the unchecked power of multi-national corporations that continue to gain more power through mergers and acquisitions?
It seems to me we have suffered from the worst of both worlds under the Bush Administration which has increased government spending through tax breaks for corporations while allowing corporate power to expand through de-regulation. WE now have bigger government and bigger corporate dominance in daily life.
It seems libertarians never want to deal with issues of corporate power.
Mark Vallone
The corporations cannot exert their influence over our freedoms without a powerful and frankly "obese" government. That is their only weapon with which they can control us. Dr. Paul's idea is to promote individual liberty neutralizing this "weapon" as much as possible.
Dr. Paul is so popular he has garnered the most volunteers (more than all the other "contenders" combined) without having all the media exposure that others have had. He is definitely ahead. I'll be surprised if he DOESN'T win.
Don't pay attention to these silly phone polls that the media is always displaying like a horse race. Just one glance at history should teach us otherwise (On Dec 17th 2003 Kerry was at 4% in the polls yet he came out and won the primary, ok)
"Ask your doctor if a non-interventionist policy is right for you. Side effects may include a feeling of freedom and a sudden drop in national debt"
Mark,
Many of the corporations get that big because of government interference. We give them special deals and breaks. I don't think that Ron Paul is all about big corporations. At heart Ron wants Congress and the Executive branch to follow the Constitution. How can anyone not get behind that? To obey the laws of the land. Sometimes I wonder if Ron Paul is the only one in Congress who has read the Constitution.
I've been watching and listening to libertarians for all of my adult life. I don't think they would enjoy living in the United States that they want to bring about, in fact I don't think many of them would even be able to survive.
If the federal government were to be paired down to nothing but the basic constitutional elements (no federal road building, national parks, environmental regulation, FDA, FAA etc) modern life would quickly collapse. In these days of barely regulated corporate power, without the agencies that are still in place, the work place would quickly return to age of Sinclair's "Jungle". Without the agencies that make sure our food and drugs are safe, corporations would add sawdust and paper chips to our food in the name of profit. Drugs would be reduced to sugar pills or vials of water.
If the present fiat money system were abruptly replaced with the gold standard, no country in the world would sell us anything. Our national bankruptcy would be instantaneous. No more big screen TVs, parts for our cars (even American brands are 60% foreign made), oil imports (60% of our usage), clothing from China, or food imports (no more grapes in December). There would be famine and food riots. Electricity would be shut off because there would be no oil or gas to make it with.
Dr Paul has been a member of Congress for 30+ years. In that time he has been the beneficiary of the best socialized (single payer) medical system in the world - the one paid for by us and given to the members of the congress free of charge. I'd like to see the look on his face when he saw his bill for health insurance if he had to buy it privately.
A Ron Paul presidency would be an interesting experiment, but I'd rather read about it in a history book than live through it. In spite of the good points he makes (inflation, anti-war, personal liberties) he is just as out of touch with your and my problems as anyone who has had a career in Washington DC.
I only have time and space to address a few of your points.
I think it's a shame that you have so little confidence in your state government's ability to perform tasks that the federal government currently does that they have no business doing.
There is already no federal road building, the federal government does not build roads, they merely supply some funding that the states use to build and maintain roads that the states own. Even the Interstate Highway System was built and is maintained by the states. And the federal money comes pricipally from the federal excise tax on gasoline, why do you think the states could not collect that tax themselves and cut out the middleman? What value is the federal government adding here?
Have you read any of the reports about how outdated the entire system of FAA air traffic control is? They are using computer systems built in the 60's that they can't even get parts for anymore and are terribly fragging their feet on implementing a new system. How can you not think that an industry corsortium could not build a better and more modern system? Why do you think there are so many delays in air travel? It's because of the inefficient use of air space and inefficient airport scheduling by the FAA.
Dr. Paul does not say he wants to abrubtly return to a gold standard, he says that he wants to gradually transition to a commodity-backed currency. Mostly what he wants to do in the short term is to make it legal for people to use gold and silver as alternative private currencies, and eliminate the taxes currently imposed on gold transactions. Dr. Paul does not advocate going back to the gold standard as it once existed; he recognizes that there are flaws in that system.
I've identified myself as libertarian since 1980, and I would rebut you point by point, but you haven't made any specific points regarding libertarianism. Mere allegation.
Dr. Paul does not propose abrupt replacement of the fiat money system with a gold standard, which you would know if you really had been paying attention.
I have a problem with this assessment.
If it is your intention to denounce libertarians broadly, then these comments belong elsewhere as they are not germane here.
If these comments are indeed directed at Ron Paul's stances on the issues you raise, then you are simply mistaken.
As far as I am aware, Ron Paul has not commented on the necessity of the Federal Highway Administration. If I am right, your comment regarding "no federal road building" is disinformation.
National Parks? If the states wish to continue supporting their parks, they should pick-up support for them (and I would support this).
Environmental regulation? Paul spoke at length on this topic. He said it is a basic matter of property rights. No one is allowed to pollute another's property (including the air it contains, the river that runs through it, etc.)
FDA? The market will handle this functions of the FDA much better than the FDA do. Google "Underwriters Laboratories" for an idea of what I mean.
FAA? Again, the market would do a better job. Google recent stories regarding air traffic controllers.
Modern life would certainly not collapse -- that's just asinine.
All of the victims in Sinclair's "Jungle" were the under-educated. In many ways this is still true today. Go to any low-wage work site and ask them about their on-the-job injuries. You may say "at least they have some government mandated recourse to mitigate their dangerous work conditions", but do genuine research and you'll find this does more harm than good on the whole. People who don't appreciate the importance of being well-educated will continue to suffer no matter how many government regulations are imposed to "protect" them.
Corporations would create substandard goods in the name of profit? Only ignorant people would continue to do business with such corporations. As I've said, there is a market demand for safe products; this demand will result in the creation of companies that would ensure consumer products' safety. Look at the bottom of a desk lamp and you'll see a "UL" sticker. Google UL -- see what I mean? "But they would collude with the corporations" you might say. There would be plenty of robust competition to preclude that occurrence. The market would demand it. Buy a good economics book.
"If the present fiat money system were abruptly replaced with the gold standard, no country in the world would sell us anything." Paul does not advocate an abrupt monetary change or any other shock to the economy. Paul advocates legalizing competitive currencies in the U.S.; the benefits of this idea take a while to explain. Please do some research about this. The U.S. did business abroad before 1933 (when fiat currency began here) and before 1971 (when Nixon ended the gold standard). There is no reason to believe your assertions regarding future overseas business, food riots, or oil/gas shortages.
Ron Paul most likely refuses to participate in the congressional health care plan, but I don't know this for a fact. If you have reputable source stating that he does, please post it here.
Stephen,
Dr. Paul does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension programs. Dr. Paul sent his 5 children to universities with his own money - not gov't loans, or grants, etc. Also, he gives a portion of his salary back to the US gov't every year. (Above regular taxes) I don't know if he participates in the medical system or not. He doen't participate in a lot of the benefits the other Congressmen do.
Angela
First I would like to say; I was not pleased with Miss Knoy's demeanor with Congressman Paul. In most of the questions that were asked, I felt a sense of skepticism or cynicism in how she asked them. She of course is welcome to her own opinion, but I felt a very biased candor in having Congressman Paul defend himself on every single question. However, Congressman Paul gave very solid answers regardless of how it was approached and stood where he has always stood (regardless of public opinion).
Many people question having a free-market running society and they have every right to. Regardless of government or free-market; there will be advantages and disadvantages. What Congressman Paul appears to be pushing is personal responsibility/freedom in decisions (our inalienable, Constitutional right) rather than government responsibility and I applaud him for that. Many will say he is trying to get rid of all federal government overnight and exaggerate his points; but he has answered time-and-time-again that he does not want to do it overnight - rather have a transition or give people the option to change in the future. The government provides a safety net for everything, but in turn takes freedom away to provide this safety net. Safety nets provide dependency and when/if the bottom ever falls out on the government, people will jump for the government to do something and all the government will be able to do is say, but we have nothing more to offer you because we have no more money. He may not have all the answers, but at least he opens the door to explore a world had proven itself in the past and could possibly be adopted again if people are once again freedom-driven.
Also Congressman Paul is not saying terrorism will end if we leave Iraq. He is saying a motivational factor will be cut-off, but it will not end. Which brings up a great point of why are we in Iraq if the terrorists that are suspected of instigating the attack on the US are in other countries?
The young lady from Durham who asked the first question lied. I was there and I have video, which I posted at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4291785359846025187
Ron Paul has refused the congressional retirement, I wonder if he has also rejected the medical benefit?
The United States is 9 TRILLION dollars in debt and has to borrow just to pay the interest on the debt. Unless we make significant changes in how our government runs, we are doomed to be owned by foreign countries if not total collapse.
Ron Paul does not promise a panacea and admits it is a long process and will be tough. But, I for one think it MUST be done to save our country and Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that can get it done.
Ron Paul cured my apathy as I refused to Vote for the "lesser of two evils" whose positons I disagreed with more than I agreed with for the past 15 years. I am NOW a Registered Rupublican and Voting for Ron Paul.