The American media has discovered that Ron Paul has something to say, knows his facts, and is able to offer a cogent defense of his political positions. Most of the other candidates have had ample opportunities to respond to questions in an open interview format, but those have been rare and brief segments for Ron Paul. It seems that some media outlets have grown ears and are now ready to listen.
ABC News’ John Stossel has always had libertarian inclinations – they’re evident in his 20/20 segments and specials. This week, he sat down with Ron Paul to discuss a host of issues ... and allowed him to offer complete responses to each question. The interview is posted on the web and will likely be broadcast at an opportune moment. The chat between “Two Libertarians”, is offered in six segments:
Freedom of Choice Stossel: You would legalize marijuana, cocaine, heroin? Paul: I would get the government out of regulating all those substances and allow the states to deal with the problems: whether children should have them; whether children can buy cigarettes and alcohol, or hard drugs, marijuana, and different states would probably do different things. … Governments can't protect individuals from themselves, it’s just impossible. Otherwise, they become a tyrannical state.
The Role of Government Stossel: What should government do? Paul: Protect our freedoms; have a strong national defense; take care of our borders; have a sound currency. … These problems can be solved with a lot less government.
Foreign Policy Stossel: You say ‘we should have no world policeman.’ The world doesn’t need a policeman? Paul: It’s O.K. for us to have a responsibility personally to help other people. If we didn’t have an income tax, you would have more money, and you could help as many people as you wanted. … In defense, I don’t think there’s every a moral justification to start the war.
Immigration Stossel: You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico? Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence in it – to attack amnesty. I don’t like amnesty, so I voted for that bill to stop the amnesty, but I didn’t think the fence can solve our problems. … You subsidize illegal immigration, you’re going get more of it.
Health Care Stossel: Is the answer more government, more protection? Paul: Some people are arguing that, and of course, I take the position that government interferes too often, we become complacent and depend on the government to protect us, and they fail, and they don’t provide the services they claim. … I don't want to run your life. I don’t want to run the economy. I don’t want to police the world.
Constitutional Freedoms Stossel: You talk about freedom and tyranny. I seldom hear politicians use those words. Paul: That’s right. I think those are our only two choices and we’ve had a grand experiment in this country, where we emphasize freedom. If you read the constitution, the constitution was designed to protect individual liberty, to restrain the government. … Freedom is new. Tyranny is old … it’s ancient.
This is a fun interview. All of Stossel’s questions are “softballs” or tongue-in-cheek,but he leaves the time open for Paul to respond with full thoughts and explanations. That’s a welcome relief from the interviews that toss out spurious allegations or frivolous charges, giving Paul only a few meager seconds to answer. You get the impression that Ron Paul really is a serious candidate, who can win.
Paul has more time to talk here than in all of the broadcast “debates” combined. Rarely has he been granted more than two minutes out of a frivolous two-hour exchange where “plain talk” had better be a thirty second sound bite.
www.westmiller.com/comment/
Political commentary and activism for five decades.
National Chairman, Republican Liberty Caucus www.rlc.org
Previous: RLC Secretary, California Chairman
1998 Candidate for Congress, California 24th CD
Libertarian Party National Secretary, California Chairman
Co-Founder, Libertarian Party of Canada
ron paul is not a great choice as leader. his libertarianism is designed to support corporate laissez faire. he doesn't take stands against corporatism and its development in this country. he does take shots at social security, public education, labor and all human services. his politic is delusional because it denies the intentional inequity in our culture and wearing his blinders tightly wrapped, he would also deny the need for national positions against the abuses of racism, sexism, etc. evidence of this lies in his support of school vouchers including religious schools but totally ignores the unavailability of adequate funds for poorer and working people.
why isnt the same attention being given to dennis kucinich who is much more honest candidate.
by
tanya (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 26 comments)
on Saturday, December 15, 2007 at 10:26:02 AM
That may or may not be true, but you should decide what is or isn't "dangerous," not the media. Your description of Paul - ignoring the hyperbole - is essentially accurate. You're free to vote against him. But, you should be able to trust the media to give you the facts about his ideas and principles, rather than prejudicial and scurrilous characterizations.
Dennis should get the same treatment as I've urged for Paul.
by
William Westmiller (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Saturday, December 15, 2007 at 2:36:18 PM
This nation needs a recalibration or it will be so warped as to be of no use but only to those who can still manipulate it. No candidate, Kucinich included, offers to restore what has been so altered within the government regarding your and my freedoms and liberties. If Ron Paul fails to get the Presidency, it is my sincere belief that freedom will no longer be available to Americans.
by
Larry Wainwright (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Saturday, December 15, 2007 at 10:53:23 AM
From what I have seen and heard about Ron Paul ~ including what has come from his mouth ~ he wants to return this nation to the conditions under the Articles of Confederation (1781 to 1789). That is an insane idea.
The Articles were a dismal failure during a time in which the nation was simple and uncomplicated. If that simple system failed then, how is it to succeed in this modern complicated world? It wouldn't.
The Founders were aware of that failure and created the Constitution to create a POWERFUL central government capable of addressing the problems of society. Problems are much more severe now because of the size of the nation and the modernity of life. So Paul wants to return to the Articles of Confederation to solve our problems. That's nonsense.
This exchange:
"Stossel: What should government do? Paul: Protect our freedoms; have a strong national defense; take care of our borders; have a sound currency. ... These problems can be solved with a lot less government." is pure Articles of Confederation garbage.
To pine for a pre-Constitution America is anti-Constitution, so please don't try to tell us Paul is pro-Constitution; he is just the opposite.
And a few good ideas (that happen to coincide with liberal thought) doesn't make Paul a desirable alternative to what is in the White House now because most of what he thinks is clearly out of the conservative-libertarian playbook that has proven to be failures over and over again.
Have heard him say that he wants the national government to shrink so much that it becomes irrelevant and maybe even disappear. That too is insane.
It is better to learn what our Constitution was designed to do ~ and Paul hasn't done that ~ and use it correctly, which the political right hasn't learned to do because the political right has been an enemy of the Constitution from the time it was first proposed. Paul embraces that political-right legacy.
by
tabonsell (29 articles, 0 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 249 comments)
on Saturday, December 15, 2007 at 3:58:49 PM
You offer your impressions, which aren't based on any facts, nor anything Paul has said. He has never said he wants to "return to the Articles of Confederation," and calls himself a constitutionalist at every opportunity.
"... These problems can be solved with a lot less government." is pure Articles of Confederation garbage.
Listen to the interview. At "worst" he's talking about returning the federal government to the limits specified in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8. Read it here:
We all hear about Ron Paul's positions and we feel viscerally, 'Hey, that's a good idea!' but so far I haven't seen anyone actually dissect his policies with methematical rigor and government derived statisttics to see if the ideas are as good as they seem on paper. I'm starting a web site at http://RonPaulPositions.com to do just that. I've only had time so far to do one, 'The War on Drugs' but I'm hoping you'll take a look and email me with your opinion.
Thanks,
Louis Nardozi
by
Louis Nardozi (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments)
on Sunday, December 16, 2007 at 10:32:28 PM
Libertarian benign neglect and non-interference OR...
Malignant usurpation and supreme belligerance. I'll take a strict Constitutional Libertarian over the Neo-Cons any day, any way, right now thank you very much.
Of course I would prefer Dennis Kucinich as the best candidate money can't buy. He is one of the few Democrats that come without strings attached. Others get BIG money from the defense industry, pharmaceuticals, energy sector, insurance industry, and AIPAC. I want the corruption of big money out of our government.
by
Tim Riley (7 articles, 5 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 130 comments)
on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 at 4:49:58 PM
7 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
