Thursday, May 31, 2007

Ron Paul Interview from 'The Dennis Miller Show'

Ron Paul was a guest on the regular Fox News pundit and former Saturday Night Live faux news anchor, Dennis Miller's, radio show yesterday (May 30th) for a brief interview with the master of obscure analogies and thunderous head ticks.

To stream the interview, or download it for free, click here for more information. Here is the transcript of the interview for those of us who have trouble listening to Dennis Miller's crippling voice:

Dennis Miller: This is Congressman Ron Paul, Republican from Texas, 2008 Presidential candidate. Congressman, welcome my friend.

Ron Paul: Thank you, good to be with you.

Dennis Miller: Pittsburgh boy, so am I!

Ron Paul: Oh! That's interesting!

Dennis Miller: So I know a little bit about the cut of your jib. I think I understand Pittsburgh guys to some degree, and I must say, I find that I agree with you on a lot of things, except for when we get to the war. But why don't we go through the other parts of the curriculum [indistinct] and we'll talk about war at the end. What do you believe? Why should you be the President Ron?

Ron Paul: I believe in limited government, I think the purpose of government is to protect liberty and not to run our lives, or run the economy, or police the world. I think you follow the Constitution; that is virtually what we were instructed to do.

Dennis Miller: Is it true that you only vote affirmative on things you can directly site from the Constitution; Is that true?

Ron Paul: That is true. That is my oath of office. Sometimes it bothers me because [chuckles] there are some things I'd like to do, and I can't do because I'm not authorized to do it. But I think you have to follow the rule of law. If you make exceptions for it, there's nothing left of the Constitution, and I'm afraid that's where we are today.

Dennis Miller: I see that in your life, even when you're in politics, you've delivered 4,000 babies! I always think a man who first presents life to the world, almost like a debutante thing with an umbilical cord [laughter]. When you bring life out like that, I always take people that's take on abortion seriously. I saw an interesting quote where you said 'if you abort a fetus on second beforehand it's legal, and one second after it's born it's murder'; and you find that strange right?

Ron Paul: Right. It's so inconsistent in that we're teaching our young people that, so the teenager that throws her baby away is doing something to her that's illogical, and she can be arrested. I think we have to resolve that. A lot of people don't think of abortion as being getting rid of a viable baby one second, or one minute, before birth, and yet afterwards it's considered murder.

Dennis Miller: I also saw an interesting thing that I liked where you said that government should protect property and not divide it up. Some of these eminent domain cases must be driving you up a wall, right?

Ron Paul: It's a bad trend, but I don't think we really own our property. We pay taxes, and it's sort of like paying rent. If you want to use it, you have to get a lot of permits from Washington on down to the local government. So, we don't really have control, yet it's been proven over many, many years that people who own property take a lot better care of the property than governments take care of it. If you look at Socialism, and the extremes of Communism, property wasn't taken care of.

Dennis Miller: Yeah, and it all goes to hell in a hand-basket because nobody has any personal pride.

Ron Paul: Right. And there's every reason to believe that the environment is better protected under private property rights, and you just have to recognize that we as property owners can't violate our neighbors property. We can't pollute their air, or their water, and we can't dump our garbage on their property, so private property rights is a very good way to protect the environment. Yet, too often conservatives and libertarians fall short on defending environmental concerns, and they resort to saying 'well, let's turn it over to the EPA; The EPA will take care of us. And then we can divide up the permits that allows you to pollute [laughter]'. So, I don't particularly like that method.

Dennis Miller: What about Hilary's quote the other day; send chills up your spine? The thing about the common good? Listen, I'm all for the common good, but that reeked of socialism to me.

Ron Paul: Yeah, the common good is what she wants, not what we want as property owners. She is to define what is the common good [chuckles].

Dennis Miller: Yeah, well you know the thing that bugs me about Hilary is her and Bill's been on the public's dime since day one. They've had all the trappings of wealth without any of the messy earnings that it takes actually. So, you know, whenever I hear her judging about wealth redistribution and that, I think 'well, can it get any more presumptuous than that?'.

Ron Paul: Yeah.

Dennis Miller: Alright, let's get to the war Ron; because here is where you and I go down to the same fork in the road and take the Virgin Pass. Gimmie your stance on it; I guess you just want us out of there tomorrow, right?

Ron Paul: Right, because I never wanted us to go in the first place. So, it's pretty easy to want to quit something that's not going well, when you didn't want it to happen in the first place.

Dennis Miller: What did you think was rotten in Denmark or in Iraq as they say? Why didn't you want to go? Didn't you think it was time to get it on with radical Islam?

Ron Paul: Well, no, not really. We had already been associated with radical Islam, because of the intervention that we had pursued before. We, at one time, were an ally of Osama Bin Laden; one time an ally of Suddam Hussein.

Dennis Miller: Yeah, but things can change in a millisecond, much less a decade.

Ron Paul: This on again, off again thing is what bothers me. It's a Constitutional issue as much as anything. The authority to go to war was transferred to the President; but only Congress should declare when we go to wars, so that bothered me a whole lot. And then the two reasons they gave, I thought, were not valid. One reason was Saddam Hussein was a threat to us, and I never believed that, and proved that he wasn't a threat; he didn't have an army or navy, and they were living in poverty. They couldn't even shoot down one of our airplanes.

Dennis Miller: What about bad intentions? I agree with you; like, we're not talking about looking down the way and seeing Roman Centurions coming at us, but I do think that to have, after 9/11, a sort of Damocles, a bad intention man, a possible expediter of terror. You know how Magic Johnson used to run the break and he was so great a dispersing the ball? I always thought this guy could help in that way. What about that we just had to take somebody who was not playing ball and smack him around to remind the world not to trifle with us. What about that? Isn't it important to look formidable again Ron?

Ron Paul: I think if he felt strongly about that you should go after the people who might have had something to do with 9/11.

Dennis Miller: Bush knows he had nothing. Play that clip, really quick, just to remind everybody. Bush knew there was no connection.

Bush Clip:
Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September 11th, uhhhh, were ordered by Iraq.

Dennis Miller: That's just the short of it. It had nothing to do with weapons; it just had, uh; America establishing that at some point there was a line that could not be crossed. That's the way I see it.

Ron Paul: Yes, and I understand the emotions, but the logic isn't there because I did support the authority to go in and go after Osama Bin Laden, who was in Afghanistan at that time, and yet we didn't pursue that, and we still aren't pursuing it, and he's in a so-called friendly country that we subsidize, who has nuclear weapons, and they're a military dictatorship, and that's in Pakistan. So, we ignore Pakistan, and we're over fighting a war that is going so poorly, and at the time there was no connection. Also, 15 out of the 19 (hijackers) came from Saudi Arabia; that government there is a protectorate of ours; we protect that government no matter what! So we went after the wrong people, and we've gotten ourselves really dug into a hole, which is about to spread into Iran. So those are the concerns I have. But the other reason, other than going after the weapons, the other reason given for this authority being given to the President, was the fact that we had to enforce UN resolutions. I don't think we should go to war for UN resolutions, and I don't think we should go to war unless it's declared. It turns out, that if you just look at history since World War 2, that when we go into wars carelessly, and we don't declare them, we do a very poor job in winning them. Here now we've been in Iraq longer than we were in World War 2, and I think it's because of our carelessness in how we go to war.

Dennis Miller: Ron, what if I told you that I believe we're going to be going to war for the next 50, 75, 100 years against radical Islam, and Iraq is the first tentative baby steps just inserting ourselves into the equation? I don't know what you think happens if we just come back here. Now paint the ideal scenario for me. The Mullah’s are mollified? Everything just goes away? Tell me what happens...

Ron Paul: If you understand what motivates suicide terrorism, you'll realize it's not radical Islam. The most motivating factor is that fact they are being occupied by a foreign force. They cannot mobilize, they cannot recruit. So we are serving the interests of Osama Bin Laden by him getting more recruits than ever before. Yes, there would be problems in the Middle East when we leave. Everybody knows we're gonna leave because we're gonna go broke; we won't be able to afford it! All empires end because they eventually go broke. But who knows, there may be a tremendous incentive for them to settle their disputes. Already there's a large number, it's not the majority of them, of the members serving in the Parliament, Sunni's and Shiites, that are talking to each other! And they're getting ready to vote to ask us to leave. The Arab League could fill the vacuum; and they offered some peace treaties with Israel that are very attractive; by recognizing Israel. All kinds of good things can happen.

Dennis Miller: I think it turns into a slaughterhouse.

Ron Paul: After Vietnam that did not happen, which what was predicted; we're trading partners and they're capitalistic now, more so than ever before! So, there's reason to be pessimistic.

Dennis Miller: What if I said that I think it turns into a slaughterhouse that's going to make the killing fields look like a glade in the forest? Let me ask you this; we pull out and within a month we notice that people are starting to be cleaved like a sie through wheat. How do you feel? Does it make you feel guilty, or...

Ron Paul: I would blame it on the people who wanted to go to war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally. They helped create the mess. AND (emphasis added) the people who predict that are the ones who predicted that he had weapons, that it was an easy target, that we'd get the oil, we'd pay all our bills and it'd be over in a couple months! And now, they were completely wrong on everything and now we're listening to them say "well, it's going to turn into a killing field!".

Dennis Miller: Alright, I've got 5 seconds here, I've gotta split. I appreciate your time and I wish you luck in your run.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Ron Paul Most Demanded Republican Presidential Candidate on

Yesterday on CNN's 'Situation Room w/Wolf Blitzer' a story was done about, an event listing website where users can "Demand" that bands, politicians, authors, etc come to their local cities. The story focused on the 2008 Presidential Race, and which of the candidates on both sides of the aisle are most in demand. While Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton are the top two candidates, Ron Paul is in 3rd place, making him the top GOP candidate in demand.

Here is the clip from CNN's 'Situation Room':

Saturday, May 26, 2007

Ron Paul on Real Time w/Bill Maher (Video - May 25th, 2007)

Last night Ron Paul made an appearance on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher. Screams of support came from the traditionally left leaning audience, proving once again Ron Paul is a Republican candidate even the left can love.

Friday, May 25, 2007

"Educating Rudy" - Ron Paul Holds Press Conference at National Press Club (Video - May 24th, 2007)

Yesterday (Thursday, May 24th, 2007), Ron Paul held a press conference at the National Press Club, joined by Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA 'Bin Laden Unit,' entitled "Educating Rudy," where they provided some suggested summer reading for Rudy Giulani in response to the squabble that took place at the May 15th GOP debate. Some of the reading material suggested by Dr. Paul included the 9/11 Commission Report, 'Imperial Hubris' by Michael Scheuer, 'Dying to Win' by Robert Pape, and 'Blowback' by Chalmers Johnson.

Here is the video from yesterday's event:

Here is an excellent interview with Ron Paul by DomeNation immediately following the press conference:

CNN viewers unanimously agree with Ron Paul on assigning Rudy Middle-East foreign policy homework assignment:

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Ron Paul Speaks on the House Floor Regarding US Foreign Policy (Video - May 22nd, 2007)

Video of C-Span's live coverage of Congressman Paul's foreign policy speech on the house floor, May 22nd, 2007. Transcript coming soon.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Ron Paul In-Studio Interview on Real Time w/Bill Maher

Ron Paul is scheduled to make an in-studio appearance this Friday night (May 25th, 11pm EST) on Real Time with Bill Maher. Congressman Paul will be a "panel" guest, which takes up the majority of the 1 hour show. Joining Dr. Paul will be Ben Affleck & PJ O'Rourke, which should make for some very interesting conversation.

Bill Maher will also interview Michael Moore via satellite, most likely to discuss his new film 'Sicko,' a documentary about the health care industry, and his legal problems in traveling to Cuba with extremely sick 9/11 rescue workers during the making of.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

United Republicans of California (UROC) Announce Ron Paul Endorsement

The Ron Paul campaign today announced that the United Republicans of California, or UROC, have thrown their unanimous support behind Ron Paul.

The UROC was founded back in 1963 to support "Mr. Conservative", Barry Goldwater's Presidential bid, and represents the traditional conservative wing of the California Republican Party.

Ron Paul's campaign chairman, Kent Snyder, said “The unanimous endorsement from the United Republicans of California proves what the campaign has been saying all along; Ron Paul is the only true conservative and real Republican in the race.”

In UROC's official endorsement, they refer to Congressman Paul as “the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital.”

UROC also acknowledged Ron Paul's voting record:

· has never voted to raise taxes;
· has always voted against unbalanced budgets;
· has always rejected federal restriction on gun ownership;
· has never voted to raise congressional pay; and
· has always voted down the increase of executive branch powers.

Further, the United Republicans of California recognized Ron Paul:

· voted against the unconstitutional Patriot Act
· voted against any government regulation of the internet
· voted against the unconstitutional War in Iraq

The official press release can be found here.

Ron Paul’s Web of Support

Article from The New York Times political blog 'The Caucus', pointing out the obvious; Ron Paul is, by far, the most popular candidate within the young, internet savvy demographic:

Representative Ron Paul, the Texas Republican who is running for president, may be barely registering in public opinion polls, but his supporters are making their presence known on the Internet. They were particularly energized after the second Republican debate, held last week in South Carolina.

There, Mr. Paul asserted that American foreign policy might have helped incite the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, swiftly rebuked him as holding a fringe view.

Mr. Paul’s followers responded with support, in all the ways by which success is measured in cyberspace: in online polls about who won the debate, in the numbers of friends on MySpace and viewings of videos on YouTube. His was the most-searched name on Technorati, ahead of Paris Hilton’s.

Mr. Paul, the only candidate in the field opposed to the Iraq war, is also its only adherent of Libertarianism, whose followers have found a home in the wild west of the Web.

To check out the comments this NY Times blog entry stirred up, click here.

Ron Paul Interview from CNN's 'Late Edition' (Video - May 20th)

Here is an interview (video followed by a complete transcript) with Ron Paul that aired Sunday, May 20th on CNN's 'Late Edition':

Interview transcript:

CNN: The 10 Republican Presidential candidates squared off in South Carolina this week, and although he's languishing in the polls, Texas Congressman Ron Paul managed to grab a big share of the attention. He joins us now live from Houston. Congressman Paul, thanks for joining us. Let's show our viewers right away the moment in that debate which captured so much attention and became such a flashpoint. You were speaking, and the former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani jumped in, let's listen.

*South Carolina GOP Debate Footage Plays*

CNN: Now, Congressman Paul, the mayor asked you to withdrawal that statement, and you did not. I wanna walk through that. You firmly believe, sir, that because of U.S. military involvement in the Middle East, including the first Persian-Gulf war, that we invited, would that be the word that you'd use, that we invited the 9/11 attacks?

Ron Paul: Well, it's not so much that it's a subjective belief; it's just an evaluation of the facts. If you study the people who understand the Middle-East, like Michael Scheuer, and others, and look at the 9/11 Commission Report, that's the evidence they provide, that that was one of the excuses. One of the strongest statements for the position I hold comes from, from no-other than Paul Wolfowitz, who said right after we invaded Iraq, that this was a major event because we could take our troops out of Saudi Arabia, recognizing that that was the motivation for recruiting for Al Qaeda, and the motivation for their hatred towards us. So there's a lot of evidence. I don't think we should deal with the subjective, I think we should deal with the objective position of whether or not those who really understand the Middle East support what I had said.

CNN: Well let me ask you more broadly about your views on foreign policy then. Obviously you believe the United States should have a limited role in the world, especially in terms of projecting military force. So, if Kim-Jong-Il rolled south, into South Korea today, should the Untied States intervene?

Ron Paul: Well, it depends on what the Congress says. We certainly shouldn't do what we did under the Truman administration, go in under a U.N. resolution, you go to the Congress and find out if it's a threat to our national security. I personally would think right now that it isn't a threat to our national security. I wanna make a point though, that if we weren't over there, I think Korea would be unified just like Vietnam is unified. They have railroads now open up between the two (North and South Vietnam), they wanna share information, *indistinct*

CNN: Let me jump in here. I don't wanna solve the problems of the Korean Peninsula today. I do wanna get your views on foreign policy. Let me give you another example: If China took back Taiwan, today, you say go to the Congress, or does the President not have the authority as commander and chief?

Ron Paul: Absolutely he does not have the authority, where does he get it? You can't go to war without Congressional approval, and that's not a threat to our national security, that's internal affairs. Why should we send hundreds of thousands of Americans to die in a civil war> I mean, are we over in Russia right now over Chechnya? I mean, it wouldn't make any sense. Did we go to war over Hong Kong? We should follow the Constitution and the advice of the Founders (Founding Fathers). Don't go looking for dragons to slay. Why should we go and provoke and look for trouble? We should talk to people, negotiate, be diplomatic and trade with people. We do much better trading with Vietnam than we did fighting them. We lost 60,000 men there. It makes so much common sense, and is so appealing to the majority of Americans; let me tell you, I really believe that.

CNN: You've received some criticism. Some say you're the person that doesn't belong at a Republican debate. You're a past Libertarian candidate for President of course. You have views that are out of, what many would think, in the mainstream, at least in today's Republican Party. I want to read some of the criticism that came out after this last debate, and ask you to respond to the politics of it. These are some comments made of your performance.

Here's Roger Simon writing in The Politico: "In terms of the presidency, nobody cares what Ron Paul says, perhaps not even Ron Paul."

Here's Gloria Borger writing in U.S. News & World Report: "Representative Ron Paul of Texas, who gives new meaning to the question asked by Ross Perot's former running mate, Admiral James Stockdale: 'Who am I? Why am I here?'"

And in The Daily News New York editorial: "...Ron Paul, whose performance Tuesday proved him the Sanjaya of the political arena."

What do make of the critics who say "Why is this guy in a Republican debate? If he wants to run, run as the Libertarian."

Ron Paul: (laughs) Well, I would ask you, why'd you pick out three, when I could find you probably a thousand that contradict exactly what you say. I would say that I'm more Republican than they are. The Republican tradition is always to win on the peace position. Democrats have always got us into war. We got of Korea with Eisenhower. We got out of Vietnam eventually with Nixon. We ran on a peace program in the year 2000. No world-policemen. No nation building. A humble foreign policy. Peace is a positive message, not a negative message. Politically you don't win. There is a strong tradition of non-intervention in the Republican Party. That is the American position. That is the Constitutional position. That is the very strong advice from the (founding) fathers. So, when they attack me and say "silence Ron Paul" they're saying "silence the Constitution", "silence the founders of the country", "silence our platform", "close down the big tent and make it very narrow. And as long as you agree with a foreign policy that is failing, then it's ok to be a Republican." I don't buy into that, and neither do the American people.

CNN: Let me jump into what comes next. You're about 1% in the poles and many people disagree with your views. There are many that say at some point you need to have fewer candidates on the stage for these debates to be meaningful. The chairman of the Michigan Republican Party says that he's going to try to get you, and perhaps others, but you specifically, pushed out of future debates. He said of you "I think he would have felt much more comfortable on the stage with the Democrats in what he said last night. And I think that he is a distraction in the Republican primary and he does not represent the base and he does not represent that party." That's Saul Anuzis the chairman of the Republican party in the state of Michigan, who says among other things, that you don't deserve a spot on the stage. Will you continue to be in the Republican debates, and at some point should they maybe winnow down to fewer candidates?

Ron Paul: Well, why do you pick that statement that's been discredited and removed? The chairman of the Michigan (Republican) party now has withdrawn that. He has given up on that. Why don't you let the people decide? Why do you want to eliminate democracy? Why stomp out the grassroots candidate and only reward those with 100 million dollars who get money from the special interests? That's not very democratic. I support the Republican platform better than any other candidate, I am convinced of. Take out the platform, they're for less government, they're for personal liberty. We ran on our program in 2000 for a humble foreign policy. How can anybody say I'm not Republican? I'm the most conservative member of the Congress. I vote for the least amount of spending and the least amount of taxes. Any they say I'm not Republican enough? I mean, why don't you challenge that side, rather than challenging me, and feed into the frenzy that say "get rid of the reporter. Get rid of the person delivering the information" rather than dealing with the information. Non-intervention is a real political victory. We cannot win as Republicans next year if we just continue to dig our heels in, send more men and women over there to die on a policy that has failed. That is the issue. Republicans are scared to death to face up to the truth, and my job is to make them face up to it, and show them that the majority Americans are with me, not with the current foreign policy that we're following.

CNN: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, Republican candidate for President, low in the polls, but certainly shaking and stirring things up in the Republican race. Congressman thanks for joining us today on Late Edition.

Sunday, May 20, 2007

Ron Paul Q & A - Austin, TX - May 19th

After a campaign fundraiser in Autin TX yesterday, Ron Paul took a couple questions from some of his supporters. Here is the video, along with a transcript immediately following:

Video Transcript:

Question #1: Is there a plan for a New World Order, a one world government, and how do we stop it?

Ron Paul: Well, I think, even the first President Bush said the New World Order was "in tune", and that's what they were working for. The UN (United Nations) is part of that government. They're working right now, very significantly, for a North American Union. That's why there's a lot of people in Washington who don't care too much about our borders. They have a philosophical belief that national sovereignty is not important. It's also the reason I have made very strong suggestions that we need not be in the United Nations for our national security.

Question #2: What do you think about our borders & immigration policy?

Ron Paul: Our borders have been totally neglected. We worry more about the borders between North and South Korea, and between Iraq and Syria, than we do about our own. Just recently a bunch of our border guards were picked up and sent, and enticed, to go over to Iraq! It's insane! We should have more border guards; and the only way you can afford it, and get the personnel, is bring our troops home. We don't even have the money to finance this world empire that we operate under. We have to borrow almost 3 billion dollars a day just to pay for the war, and our extravagance! And we borrow it from none other than China and Japan! We don't even have enough wealth to produce in this country to finance the amount of spending that we have. It will come to an end, and I think most Americans realize it. Middle class Americans, poor Americans, have already suffered the consequences; their standard of living has already started down. Those who are doing well know deep down in their heart know that their doing it on borrowed money, and that is going to come to an end. It's also the reason I'm emphasizing the importance of sound money. If you allow governments, any time throughout all of history, to print money, they always print too much and they destroy the economy. Our dollar is worth 4 cents of what it was when the Federal Reserve was created.

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Bill Maher says Ron Paul "My New Hero" on Real Time w/Bill Maher (May 18th - Video)

Last night on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, Bill Maher, in an interview with Democratic Presidential candidate Christopher Dodd, called Ron Paul "my new hero". Here is the video of the exchange that referenced Dr. Paul, with the transcript:

Transcript of Maher/Dodd exchange:

Bill Maher: A poll recently, this week, said the Congress has a lower approval rating than the President. This is really sad news for the country. I mean, as much as the country has lost patience with George Bush, what they're saying is; after November and after the elections that the Democratically elected Congress, that they expected big change, and what they're saying is, they don't see it. What do you say?

Christopher Dodd: Well, I'm a strong supporter of, and have been, of what's called the the Feingold-Reed proposal, which calls for beginning re-deployment of troops in Iraq immediately and terminating it by the end of March, the 1st of April, of next year. That gives us a year to begin to re-deploy; done it well, done it carefully. I happen to believe, that short of that, it's gonna be very difficult to change policy here. We need a total change of mission, or this is gonna get worse, the chaos is gonna grow, it's gonna be more and more difficult to the Iraqis to make a decision about the kind of country they want. A month and a half, two months ago Bill, there were only about three of us that were for the Feingold proposal. Today there are 30. The Republican proposal calls for benchmarks, very different. But I get a sense that they're moving in that direction. They realize as well the President's status-quo policy in Iraq is not gonna fly. So it's beginning to change. While I agree it's gonna take some time to get there. I it's very important to state very clearly where we stand on these issues. I happen to believe we oughtta be re-deploying, gotta begin that process. I think the idea that we can spend these kind of monies and expect the Iraqis to come together at a later date is unrealistic. It's getting better, it's not there yet. My view is we oughtta be rejecting supplemental proposals here that done have some clear definitions.

Bill Maher: So you're saying get out now?

Christopher Dodd: (*indistinct*)

Bill Maher: I wish it were. I watched the Republican debate, and I saw this guy Ron Paul, who has no chance of winning it, and therefore he was very honest, and he's my new hero. I used to think he was Rupaul (laughter). And then we had him on our show a few weeks ago and I realized he was a completely different person (laughter). And he spoke real truth about the war on terror, about 9/11, about Iraq. He said "you know what, they hate us because we're over there." They don't hate us because of our freedom, or any of those stupid slogans that the Bush people put out. I'm just wondering why a Democrat isn't saying things like that. Say, a Democrat that could use a bump in the polls (loud applause).

Christopher Dodd: Well, if you're talking about 9/11. 9/11 to me was a unprovoked attack on the Untied States, and I would disagree with Ron Paul on the assumption that we somehow provoked that decision by Al Qaeda to hit us in New York.

Bill Maher: No, no, no, excuse me Senator, but that's just what the Republicans did to Ron Paul in the debate, they twisted what he said. He wasn't saying that we were "asking for it". He was saying that we should listen to our enemies, and maybe the reason their mad at us is because we have been medaling in the Middle East. We were in Saudi Arabia, that's what Bin Laden was mad at us for, now we're in Iraq and we're screwing up that country. Maybe if we listen to them, instead of just saying "we're always the good people," we would actually make ourselves safer (loud applause). I mean, with all due respect, what do you have to lose?

Christopher Dodd: Well, if you're talking about that issue, I don't disagree on that point here. That's what I'm saying, supporting the Feingold proposal which calls for re-deploying our troops within the year. That's the strongest position out here. You're not gonna do it in a week, or a month, 140,000 troops; it's gonna take time to get it done over the next year. And clearly, I would advocate having direct negotiations with Syria, Iran, that you've gotta begin dealing with people you don't necessarily agree with all the time, to discover what other options there are are in resolving all these disputes. It isn't just military force; we oughtta be using diplomacy, politics, economic issues to reach out to people. And that I totally agree with. The idea that you're gonna contain, or sustain, the war in Iraq, and not end up radicalizing vast segments of the population, I think is unrealistic. That's happening today as you and I are talking here.

Thursday, May 17, 2007

What can Search Engines Tell Us About the 2008 Presidential Candidates?

According to Wordtracker, a tool that allows you to see how popular specific search engine "keywords" are, Hillary Clinton is the most searched for in the major search engines such as Google & Yahoo Search, with Barack Obama coming in at a close 2nd place.

Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama are searched for more than 3 times more often than any of the Republican candidates, Wordtracker reports.

The question is, what can these keyword stats tell us about the current political climate in regards to the 2008 race for the White House? Can it give us any insight into who each party may nominate to run for them in 2008, or possibly which candidates will pair up and run together?

It seems, at least today, that Hillary Clinton would easily win the election if search engine queries played a part in our electoral process. And, if Hillary were bold enough, she'd choose Barack Obama as her running mate based on these stats as well.

While there aren't really any suprises on the Democratic side, there is one striking suprise on the Republican side, with Ron Paul being the 3rd most searched for in the major search engines, ahead of Rudy Giuliani.

Here are the search engine stats according to Wordtracker:

*Represents candidates where two first names are common when speaking about them, so their respective keywords were added together (joe biden 411 + joseph biden 78 = 489) and (chris dodd 175 + christopher dodd 62 = 237) -- If a candidates' alternate first name did not have at least a '15' Predict number in Wordtracker, it was not added together with the more common first name.

To understand what the Wordtracker "Predict" number encompasses, click here.

Joy Behar from ABC's "The View" says Ron Paul "Right on The Money" (The View - May 17th - Video)

See the entire video here:

Ron Paul asks Giuliani for an Apology Regarding 9/11 Blowback (Video)

Citing the 9/11 Commission Report, Ron Paul asks Rudy Giuliani for an apology in his criticism that American foreign policy blowback was a large contributing factor for why we were attacked on 9/11.

May 16th, 2007 on CNN w/Wolf Blitzer

May 15th South Carolina GOP Debate Transcript

Below are the questions and answers posed to Ron Paul during the Presidential debate May 15th in South Carolina, follwed by video. If you'd like to check out the entire transcript, click here.

Question #1: MR. WALLACE: Congressman Paul, you're one of six House Republicans who back in 2002 voted against authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq.

REP. PAUL: Right.

MR. WALLACE: Now you say we should pull our troops out. A recent poll found that 77 percent of Republicans disapprove of the idea of setting a timetable for withdrawal. Are you running for the nomination of the wrong party? (Scattered laughter.)

REP. PAUL: But you have to realize that the base of the Republican Party shrunk last year because of the war issue. So that percentage represents less people. If you look at 65 to 70 percent of the American people, they want us out of there. They want the war over.

In 19- -- 2002, I offerer an amendment to International Relations to declare war, up or down, and it was -- nobody voted for the war. And my argument there was, if we want to go to war, and if we should go to war, the Congress should declare it. We don't go to war like we did in Vietnam and Korea, because the wars never end. And I argued the case and made the point that it would be a quagmire if we go in.

Ronald Reagan in 1983 sent Marines into Lebanon, and he said he would never turn tail and run. A few months later, the Marines were killed, 241 were killed, and the Marines were taken out. And Reagan addressed this subject in his memoirs. And he says, "I said I would never turn tail and run." He says, "But I never realized the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics," and he changed his policy there.

We need the courage of a Ronald Reagan.

Question #2: MR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, can you do better than that, sir?

REP. PAUL: I'd start with the departments -- the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security. We've started with -- we've just -- the Republicans put in the Department of Homeland -- it's a monstrous type of bureaucracy. It was supposed to be streamlining our security and it's unmanageable. I mean, just think of the efficiency of FEMA in its efforts to take care of the floods and the hurricanes.

So yes, there's a lot of things that we can cut, but we can't cut anything until we change our philosophy about what government should do. If you think that we can continue to police the world and spend hundreds of billions of dollars overseas, and spend hundreds of billions of dollars running a welfare state, an entitlement system that has accumulated $60 trillion worth of obligations, and think that we can run the economy this way; we spend so much money now that we have to borrow nearly $3 billion a day from foreigners to take care of our consumption, and we can't afford that.

We can't afford it in the government, we can't afford it as a nation.

So tax reform should come, but spending cuts have to come by changing our attitude what government ought to be doing for us.

MR. GOLER: You would eliminate the Department of Homeland Security in the midst of a war, sir?

REP. PAUL: Well, I think we should not go to more bureaucracy. It didn't work. We were spending $40 billion on security prior to 9/11, and they had all the information they needed there to deal with the threat, and it was inefficiency. So what do we do? We add a gigantic bureaucracy, which they're still working on trying to put it together, and a tremendous amount of increase in funds.

So I don't think that the Republican position ought to be more bureaucracy. I mean, why did we double the size of the Department of Education?

(Bell rings.)

Question #3: MR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as -- almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?

REP. PAUL: Well, I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy.

Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy -- no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.

Just think of the tremendous improvement -- relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution.

And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. (Bell rings.) When we do, the wars don't end.

MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?

REP. PAUL: What changed?

MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.

We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that 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." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Congressman?

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

MR. GIULIANI: Can I have 30 seconds, please?

MR. : No, no, no, wait a second. Let's -- we'll all get 30 seconds.

(Cross talk.)

MR. GIULIANI: They are coming --

Question #4: MR. HUME: Congressman Paul, one last question for you on this. The president believed after 9/11 that the tax cuts that he had put in place were helpful in softening the economic downturn that occurred, and allowing the United States economy to rise out of it. Would you propose -- what economic policies would you propose under this scenario to avert or soften a recession?

REP. PAUL: Well, the lower the taxes the better, and I think cutting taxes would be beneficial. But we should find places where we could cut spending as well, because eventually a deficit can be very, very harmful to us. But you know, I think it's interesting talking about torture here in that it's become enhanced interrogation technique. It sounds like Newspeak.

Nobody's for the torture, and I think that's important. But as far as taking care of a problem like this, the president has the authority to do that. If we're under imminent attack, the president can take that upon himself to do it.

But just think. We gave the president authority to go into Afghanistan, and here we have Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. They have nuclear weapons, and we're giving them money.

And we forgot about him, and now we're over in -- in Iraq in a war that's bogging us down, and we have forgotten against -- about dealing with the people that attacked us. (Bell rings.) And here you have a hypothetical attack that you're dealing with; we ought to be dealing with the one we have right now on our hands.

Watch the video here:

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

George Noory Asks Why Mainstream Media is Ignoring Ron Paul

Last night on the #1 rated late night radio show Coast to Coast AM, just after the conclusion of the 2nd GOP debate in South Carolina, host George Noory said:

"I don't know if you caught a glimpse of the GOP debate tonight, but I've gotta tell you, this is not an endorsement, I am just amazed at how Ron Paul continues to really, and effectively, out-maneuver the other candidates in these debates and he get's minimal national exposure and publicity. It is incredible. I mean you look at Fox News, Ron Paul on top, you look at MSNBC, Ron Paul on top. This is gonna be a very interesting election where it looks like Americans who are voting on the Republican end are picking Ron Paul, but I'm not so sure he'll get the nomination, unless he starts getting the exposure that he needs. But anyway, we've got the invite into Ron Paul to get him on a future program to talk about the issue of not getting the exposure, when it appears that America likes the guy! I mean, that's the story to me, America likes the guy!"

Ron Paul supporters should be extremely happy George Noory has invited him on the Coast to Coast AM, which boasts millions of nightly listeners.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

John Mclaughlin says Ron Paul was Best Performance @ 1st GOP Debate

At the very end of this video (the 5:50 mark) John Mclaughlin states "I would say the best performance last night was rendered, seriously, by Ron Paul" in speaking about the first GOP debate at the Reagan Library.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Ron Paul - Action Plan for Spreading the Word (Pt 1)

So, we know that Ron Paul, if elected President in 2008, would work to abolish the IRS and get rid of the Federal Income Tax.

Proposed Action: Ron Paul supporters locate public information about who in your local area has been, or is, getting audited by the IRS. Once list of people & businesses getting audited by the IRS has been compiled, send a personalized letter to that person or business, letting them know Ron Paul is running for President, and, if elected, would abolish the IRS.

I have a sneaking suspicion that these people are prime candidates of potential voters of Ron Paul.

What do you think?

Friday, May 4, 2007

MSNBC GOP Debate - Ron Paul Transcript

Here is a complete transcript of questions posed to Ron Paul in the debate last night. To view the entire debate transcript, click here.

Moderator: Congressman Paul, you voted against the war. Why are all your fellow Republicans up here wrong?

Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas): That's a very good question. And you might ask the question, why are 70 percent of the American people now wanting us out of there, and why did the Republicans do so poorly last year?

So I would suggest that we should look at foreign policy. I'm suggesting very strongly that we should have a foreign policy of non- intervention, the traditional American foreign policy and the Republican foreign policy.

Throughout the 20th century, the Republican Party benefited from a non-interventionist foreign policy. Think of how Eisenhower came in to stop the Korean War. Think of how Nixon was elected to stop the mess in Vietnam.

How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy: No nation-building; don't police the world. That's conservative, it's Republican, it's pro-American -- it follows the founding fathers. And, besides, it follows the Constitution.

I tried very hard to solve this problem before we went to war by saying, "Declare war if you want to go to war. Go to war, fight it and win it, but don't get into it for political reasons or to enforce U.N. resolutions or pretend the Iraqis were a national threat to us.

Moderator: OK. Let me ask you a question regarding immigration. One of our prized guests here today, Governor Schwarzenegger -- looking this man in the eye, answer this question -- I'm going to go down the line, starting with Governor Romney. Should we change our Constitution, which we believe is divinely inspired...


... to allow men like Mel Martinez, the chairman of your party, born in Cuba, great patriot, the senator from Florida, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, to stand here some night?

Paul: I'm a no, because I am a strong supporter of the original intent.

Moderator: Congressman Paul, Pete from Rochester Hills, Michigan wants to ask you this. If you were president, would you work to phase out the IRS?


Paul: Immediately.


Moderator: That's what they call a softball.

Paul: And you can only do that if you change our ideas about what the role of government ought to be.

If you think that government has to take care of us, from cradle to grave, and if you think our government should police the world and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a foreign policy that we cannot manage, you can't (ph) get rid of the IRS; but, if you want to lower taxes and if you want the government to quit printing the money to come up with shortfall and cause all the inflation, you have to change policy.

Moderator: OK, let me go to -- Dr. Paul, how do you reconcile this moral, moral leadership kind of role of conservatism with the very libertarian strain of conservatism -- the Barry Goldwater conservatism that you represent? How do you put together what he just said with what you believe in a unified national purpose?

Paul: Well, you do it by understanding of what the goal of government ought to be. If the goal of government is to be the policeman of the world, you lose liberty. And if the goal is to promote liberty, you can unify all segments. The freedom message brings us together; it doesn't divide us.

I believe that when we overdo our military aggressiveness, it actually weakens our national defense. I mean, we stood up to the Soviets. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Now we're fretting day in and day and night about third-world countries that have no army, navy or air force, and we're getting ready to go to war.

But the principle, the moral principle, is that of defending liberty and minimizing the scope of government.

Moderator: Congressman Paul, Bob Hussay (ph) from Minnesota writes that perhaps the most important skill a good president must have is the ability to make good, sound decisions, often in a crisis situation.

Please cite an example when you had to make a decision in crisis.

Paul: I wonder if he's referring to a political decision like running for office, or something like that.


I guess, in medicine, I made a lot of critical decisions. I mean, you're called upon all the time to make critical, life-saving decisions. But I can't think of any one particular event where I made a critical decision that affected a lot of other people. But I think all our decisions we make in politics are critical.

My major decision, political decision, which was a constitutional decision, was to urge for 5 years that this country not go to war in Iraq.

Moderator: We have to go down the line again. It's always fun to ask these questions down the line. We have Mr. Reagan here. The camera will not focus on her, but I will tell you, it will now focus on you.

Mrs. Reagan wants to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Will that progress under your administration, Governor?

Moderator: Dr. Paul, yes or no on federal funding?

Paul: Programs like this are not authorized under the Constitution. The trouble with issues like this is, in Washington we either prohibit it or subsidize it. And the market should deal with it, and the states should deal with it.

Moderator: OK. That's a no.

Moderator: OK. Let's start with an enjoyable down-the-line, OK? I want each candidate to mention a tax you'd like to cut, in addition to the Bush tax cuts, keeping them in effect.

Paul: Well, in my first week, I already got rid of the income tax.

In my second week, I would get rid of the inflation tax. It's a tax that nobody talks about.

We live way beyond our means, with a foreign policy we can't afford, and an entitlement system that we have encouraged. We print money for it. The value of the money goes down, and poor people pay higher prices.

That is a tax. That's a transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class to Wall Street. Wall Street's doing quite well, but the inflation tax is eating away at the middle class of this country. We need to get rid of the inflation tax with sound money.

Moderator: Congressman Paul, Carrie from Connecticut asks: Do you trust the mainstream media?


Paul: Some of them.


But I trust the Internet a lot more, and I trust the freedom of expression. And that's why we should never interfere with the Internet. That's why I've never voted to regulate the Internet. Even when there's the temptation to put bad things on the Internet, regulation of bad and good on the Internet should be done differently.

But, no, there's every reason to believe that we have enough freedom in this country to have freedom of expression. And that's what is important. And whether or not we trust the mainstream or not, I think you pick and choose. There are some friends, and some aren't so friendly.

Moderator: (What is your position on a national, tamper-proof ID Card?)

Paul: I am absolutely opposed to a national ID card. This is a total contradiction of what a free society is all about. The purpose of government is to protect the secrecy and the privacy of all individuals, not the secrecy of government. We don't need a national ID card.

1st GOP Debate - Ron Paul With a Strong Showing

The internet is a-buzz today with talk of the stong showing Ron Paul put on in the first Republican debate last night in the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. Sticking to his Constitutionalist guns, Ron Paul discussed such issues as the War in Iraq, the IRS/taxes and what the overall role of government should be.

Last night, at the very end of the first GOP debate at the Reagan Library, just before MSNBC cut to commercial, MSNBC announced the Ron Paul had won the online MSNBC poll asking people to rate the candidates based on their performance, with a 41% positive approval rating (note: as of Friday 4:20pm EST Ron Paul is still the highest rated candidate with 32% positive approval rating).

Ron Paul's campaign issued a press release early Friday, declaring Ron Paul the winner of the debate, based on the MSNBC poll results.

Thursday, May 3, 2007

GOP MSNBC Debate Tonight!

Tonight on MSNBC the first GOP debate featuring Ron Paul will be televised at 8pm EDT. For those of us without cable, will be streaming the debate in real time (click here for info).

For Ron Paul, this debate will be an excellent opportunity to stir things up, much like the former Senator from Alaska, Mike Gravel, did in the first Democratic debate last week.

Watch Mike Gravel tear sh*t up:

I think it's safe to say that in a the cream dream election, the Republican Party would elect Ron Paul as their candidate, and the Democratic Party would elect the spitfire Mike Gravel as their candidate. It's still legal to dream in America, isn't it?