Texas Congressman Ron Paul feels much more optimistic about his 2012 presidential run than he did prior to his 2008 campaign, primarily because he knows that the establishment can no longer exclude him from debates and national polls.
The Congressman spoke exclusively to The Alex Jones show yesterday to give the inside track on the progress of the campaign, his thoughts on the ailing economy and to express his concerns over the precedent being set by US involvement in the military action in Libya.
Paul addressed those in the media, as well as political opponents, who have previously resorted to dirty tricks and smear in an attempt to discredit The Congressman’s campaign, noting:
“We have made progress, and that is because there are a growing number of people who are onto their tricks and are watching them rather closely, and they are going to hear from the supporters if they start doing that. So, in spite of the obstacles, our job is to keep doing what we’re doing and gain supporters.”
“The laughing and the ridicule so far has gone away,” The Congressman added. “I don’t know whether they’ll go back to that or not but it’s not like when there were just three major networks and hardly anybody on talk radio that would defend our position.”
“Last go around, the first two major debates, the one right before Iowa and one before New Hampshire, they excluded me. This year they’re not going to be able to do it.” Paul asserted.
“As bad as this system is, it still operates reasonably well. That is, over the years I’ve been able to run for Congress and get elected, and now I am still able to compete, even up against these odds and these tricks, because we can get in and organize and our numbers are growing.”
Paul specifically noted that many of his political opponents, even those that have sought to discredit him previously, are now emulating some of his views, because they recognize his growing popularity.
“I think they do have concerns. One place that we think they are revealing that we, our side, is making progress, is that they’re starting to support some of our positions. ” Paul said. “Whether it is backing off on some of this war mongering stuff and saying some things about auditing the Fed. What they believe is that if they just appease or neutralize that a little bit and they can get elected, they don’t have to follow through with the policies.”
Last week we reported on the fact that a long term Paul detractor, Newt Gingrich, has become extremely vocal about wishing to see an audit of the federal reserve, something Paul has been campaigning toward for years.
Paul also noted that he feels an overwhelming wave of support coming from younger people this time around.
“The young people are realizing how much they’re being dumped on… how they are getting ripped off because there’s no way, even if they could get a good job, they can’t pay off debt obligations. But they’re not getting good jobs.”
“We are really really facing a major problem, there has to be a dollar crisis coming.” Paul told listeners, warning that in his opinion the often repeated forecast of a slow twenty-five year decline for the dollar is being much overstated.
“The economy is sick and getting sicker… I would suggest that it’s going to come much sooner, I just don’t believe it will last for 25 years where the dollar will be the dominant reserve currency of the world.” Paul said.
“The big problem though is who’s going to pick up the pieces?” he continued “They’re getting together and trying to have another international paper currency put together, then they throw out a few tit bits, ‘well maybe we ought to put a little bit of gold into that as well’. But the problems we have are really very overwhelming, they cannot sustain this, so I would say it’s not going to be 25 years.. it could come sooner, a lot sooner, a year or two or who knows when, depends on what event might arise.”
“But the problem that they face is the one that we face in trying to figure it out. The dollar is a terrible currency, but when you compare it to the Euro that has to bail out the Greek economy, all of a sudden people look to us because traditionally we’ve ben so strong economically and militarily, they say at least we can park our money in treasury bills for another month or two or three. Some day they’re going to run out of this and the momentum will be against the dollar, and not too many years ago the dollar got in big trouble and we had to go begging to the IMF. That was in ’79 and ’80. But the time is coming, and that will be a much bigger event than we’ve just experienced.”
Switching gears to address the unconstitutional military action in Libya, the congressman noted:
“In a different age it would have been impeachable, but up until recent years, they have even gotten permission or token permission (from Congress).”
“The Congress is waking up and there is a pretty good coalition of liberals and conservatives, republicans and democrats, coming together and trying to slow this thing up and saying the president has no right to do this.” Paul said, adding “At the same time on this DoD budget authorization, they inserted in there an expansion of the power.”
” Actually, if that is passed by the Senate and put into law, we’ve literally legalized, we’ve put into the code that the president doesn’t have to come to us.”
“This to me was one of the most dangerous changes in our law, it has given legitimacy to our president and what he is doing, and of course there is not much resistance from Republicans or Democrats on this.” Paul said.
Listen to the full interview with Congressman Paul below:
——————————————————————
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, andPrisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, came down hard today against a House bill (HR 2278) that would have limited the use of funds for the U.S.’s involvement in the Libya War. The House also rejected the limited funding bill for the Libya War, while also striking down a resolution that would have authorized the limited use of U.S. Armed Forces in Libya.
Today, Paul told his colleagues that the limited funding bill was not what it appeared to be. Paul argued that the Libya bill “masquerades as a limitation of funds for the president’s war on Libya but is in fact an authorization for that very war.” The purpose of the Libya bill was to “limit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for United States Armed Forces in support of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya.”
Paul pointed out that if HR 2278 passes, “the president would be authorized to use US Armed Forces to engage in search and rescue; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; aerial refueling; and operational planning against Libya.” As of this time, without a declaration of war or congressional authorization, the president doesn’t have the authority to conduct these activities.
Paul also added that rejecting the Libya bill isn’t “necessary to prohibit the use of funds for US military attacks on Libya because those funds are already prohibited by the Constitution.” However, Paul acknowledged that, if given the opportunity, he would “support any straight and clean prohibition of funds.”
Earlier this week, Paul criticized President Obama’s explanation for the Libya War in a post titled “Strange Definitions of War and Peace.” Paul said that Obama’s reasoning for not seeking congressional approval before using the U.S. military in Libya was “laughable if not so horrific.”
Paul has always been candid about his opinion on the Libya War. On June 6, in a post titled “Holding the President Accountable on Libya,” Paul argued that “the president’s attack on Libya was unconstitutional and thus unlawful.” In the same column, Paul also said that “we are broke, and the American people know it. They expect Congress to focus on fixing America’s economic problems, rather than rubber stamping yet another open-ended military intervention in Libya.” In the same column, Paul also said that “the president’s attack on Libya was unconstitutional and thus unlawful. This policy must be reversed.” So far, Paul has done everything in his power to reverse the policy.
The White House conveyed Obama’s disappointment that HR 2278 failed to pass, saying “now is not the time to send the kind of mixed message that it sends when we are working with our allies to achieve the goals that we believe that are widely shared in Congress.”
Sponsored Link: Take a look at your 1099-Dividends form for 2010... How much interest did you collect this year? Incredibly, we’ve found a unique way to potentially boost that amount by as much as 5-20 times... This free video explains little-known program.
Paul has been called the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party movement.[4][5] He has gained prominence for his libertarian positions on many political issues, often clashing with both Republican and Democratic Party leaders. Paul has run for President of the United States twice before, first in 1988 as the nominee of the Libertarian Party and again in 2008 as a candidate for the Republican nomination. On May 13, 2011, he formally announced he would run again in 2012 for the Republican presidential nomination.
Paul has been married to Carol Wells since 1957.[11] They have five children, who were baptizedEpiscopalian:[12] Ronald, Lori, Rand, Robert, and Joy. Paul's son Rand is the junior senator from the state of Kentucky. Raised a Lutheran, Paul later became a Baptist.[13
Early congressional career
While still a medical resident in the 1960s, Paul was influenced by Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, which led him to read many works of Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises. He came to know economists Hans Sennholz and Murray Rothbard well, and credits to them his interest in the study of economics. He came to believe that what the Austrian school economists wrote was coming true on August 15, 1971, when President Richard Nixonclosed the "gold window" by implementing the U.S. dollar's complete departure from the gold standard.[14]That same day, the young physician decided to enter politics, saying later, "After that day, all money would be political money rather than money of real value. I was astounded."[15]
Paul was the first Republican representative from the area; he also led the Texas Reagan delegation at the national Republican convention.[19] His successful campaign against Gammage surprised local Democrats, who had expected to retain the seat easily in the wake of the Watergate scandal. Gammage underestimated Paul's support among local mothers: "I had real difficulty down in Brazoria County, where he practiced, because he'd delivered half the babies in the county. There were only two obstetricians in the county, and the other one was his partner."[20]
House of Representatives
Paul proposed term-limit legislation multiple times, at first in the 1970s in the House[21] where he also declined to attend junkets or register for a Congressional pension while serving four terms.[22] His chief of staff (1978–1982) was Lew Rockwell.[23] In 1980, when a majority of Republicans favored President Jimmy Carter's proposal to reinstate draft registration, Paul argued that their views were inconsistent, stating they were more interested in registering their children than they were their guns.[21] He also proposed legislation to decrease Congressional pay by the rate of inflation; he was a regular participant in the annual Congressional Baseball Game;[19] and he continued to deliver babies on Mondays and Saturdays during his entire 22nd district career.[15]
During his first term, Paul founded a think tank, the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (FREE).[24] Also in 1976, the foundation began publication of the first monthly newsletter connected with Paul, Dr. Ron Paul's Freedom Report[25] (or Special Report). It also publishes monographs, books, radio spots, and (since 1997) a new series of the monthly newsletter, Ron Paul's Freedom Report, which promote the principles of limited government.
On the House Banking Committee, Paul blamed the Federal Reserve for inflation,[26] and spoke against the banking mismanagement that led to the savings and loan crisis.[12] The U.S. Gold Commission created by Congress in 1982 was his and Jesse Helms's idea, and Paul's commission minority report was published by the Cato Institute in The Case for Gold;[14] it is now available from the Ludwig von Mises Institute, to which Paul is a distinguished counselor.[27]
In 1984, Paul chose to run for the U.S. Senate instead of re-election to the House, but lost the Republican primary to Phil Gramm.[28]Another candidate in the senatorial primary was Henry Grover, a conservative former state legislator who had lost the 1972 gubernatorial general election to the Democrat Dolph Briscoe, Jr. Paul then returned to full-time medical practice[26] and was succeeded by former state representative Tom DeLay.[29] In his House farewell address, Paul said, "Special interests have replaced the concern that the Founders had for general welfare. Vote trading is seen as good politics. The errand-boy mentality is ordinary, the defender of liberty is seen as bizarre. It's difficult for one who loves true liberty and utterly detests the power of the state to come to Washington for a period of time and not leave a true cynic."[30]
In the 1988 presidential election, Paul defeated Native American activist Russell Means to win the Libertarian Party nomination for president.[12] Paul criticized Ronald Reagan as a failure and cited high deficits as exhibit A.[22] On the ballot in 46 states and the District of Columbia,[32] Paul placed third in the popular vote with 432,179 votes (0.5%),[33] behind Republican winner George H. W. Bush and DemocratMichael Dukakis.[34] Paul was kept off the ballot in Missouri, and received votes there only when written in, due to what the St. Louis Post-Dispatch called a "technicality".[35]
As the "Libertarian standard bearer",[36][37] Paul gained supporters who agreed with his positions on gun rights, fiscal conservatism,homeschooling, and abortion, and won approval from many who thought the federal government was misdirected. This nationwide support base encouraged and donated to his later campaigns.[15] Kent Snyder, Paul's 2008 campaign chair, first worked for Paul on the 1988 campaign.[38][39]
According to Paul, his presidential run was about more than reaching office; he sought to spread his libertarian ideas, often to school and university groups regardless of vote eligibility. He said, "We're just as interested in the future generation as this election. These kids will vote eventually, and maybe, just maybe, they'll go home and talk to their parents."[32] He traveled the country for a year speaking about issues such as free market economics and the rising government deficits:[36] "That's why we talk to a lot of young people. They're the ones who are paying these bills, they're the ones who are inheriting this debt, so it's most likely these young people who will move into this next generation in government."[40]
After the election, Paul continued his medical practice until he returned to Congress.[12][41] He also co-owned a coin dealership, Ron Paul Coins, for twelve years with Burt Blumert, who continued to operate it after Paul returned to office.[42][43] He spoke multiple times at theAmerican Numismatic Association's 1988 convention.[42] He worked with FREE on such projects as establishing the National Endowment for Liberty, producing the At Issue public policy series that aired on Discovery Channel and CNBC,[24] and continuing publication of Dr. Ron Paul's Freedom Report.
Inter-congressional years
Ron Paul & Associates (RP&A), Inc. was founded in 1984 by Paul, who served as President. Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr. served as Vice President, Ron Paul's wife Carol served as Secretary and Lori Pyeatt as Treasurer. The corporation was dissolved in 2001.[44][45][46][47] In 1985 Ron Paul & Associates began publishing The Ron Paul Investment Letter[48] and The Ron Paul Survival Report;[15][49] it added the more controversial Ron Paul Political Report in 1987.[50] Many articles lacked a byline, yet often invoked Paul's name or persona.
After his unsuccessful presidential bid in 1988, Paul returned to private medical practice and continued to allow the newsletters to be published bearing his name. For 1992, RP&A earned $940,000 and employed Paul's family as well as Lew Rockwell (its vice-president[51]and occasional editor)[52] and seven other workers. Murray Rothbard and other libertarians believed Rockwell ghostwrote the newsletters for Paul;[51] Rockwell later acknowledged involvement in writing subscription letters, but attributed the newsletters to "seven or eight freelancers".[53]
Paul considered running for President in 1992,[54] but instead chose to support Pat Buchanan that year, and served as an adviser to his Republican presidential campaign against incumbent President George H. W. Bush.[55]
Paul, Ron (1983). Abortion and Liberty. Lake Jackson, Texas: Foundation for Rational Economics and Education. ISBN0912453028.OCLC9682249.
Paul, Ron (1983). Ten Myths About Paper Money: And One Myth About Paper Gold. Lake Jackson, Texas: Foundation for Rational Economics and Education. OCLC11765863.
Paul, Ron (1987). Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution After 200 Years. Lake Jackson, Texas: Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (2d ed. Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007). OCLC19697005.
Paul, Ron (1990). Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue. Lake Jackson, Texas: Ron Paul Enterprises.OCLC46960450.
Paul, Ron (1991). The Ron Paul Money Book. Plantation Publishing. ISBN052144733X.
Paul, Ron (2002). The Case for Defending America. Lake Jackson, Texas: Foundation for Rational Economics and Education.OCLC49744552.
Paul, Ron (2002). The Ron Paul – Liberty In Media Awards–2001. Jersey City, NJ: Palisade Business Press. ISBN1893958841.
Paul, Ron (2003). The Ron Paul – Liberty In Media Awards – Vol. 2–2002. Jersey City, NJ: Palisade Business Press.
Paul, Ron (2004). The Ron Paul – Liberty In Media Awards – Vol. 3–2003. Jersey City, NJ: Palisade Business Press. ISBN1893958248.
Upton, Fred; Paul, Ron (2005). Indecency in the Media: Rating and Restricting Entertainment Content: Should the House Pass H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act?. Washington, DC: Congressional Digest Corp. OCLC81150568.
Rangel, Charles B.; Paul, Ron (2006). Compulsory National Service: 2006–2007 Policy Debate Topic: Should the All-Volunteer Force be Replaced by Universal, Mandatory National Service?. Bethesda, Maryland: Congressional Digest Corp. OCLC84912971.
Fortman, Erik; Lavello, Randy (2004). Webs of Power. Paul, Ron (interview). Austin, Texas: Van Cleave Publishing. ISBN0975967002.OCLC61026033.
Haugen, David M.; Musser, Susan, eds. (2007). Human Embryo Experimentation. Paul, Ron (Chapter 9: No form of stem cell research should be federally funded). Detroit, Michigan: Greenhaven Press. ISBN0737732431. OCLC84152907.
Haugen, David M., ed. (2007). National Security. Paul, Ron (Chapter 1–7: The federal debt is a threat to national security). Detroit, Michigan: Greenhaven Press. ISBN0737737611. OCLC144227284.
Jaeger, James; Baehr, Theodore; Griffin, G. Edward; Paul, Ron; Vieira, Edwin. (2007). Fiat Empire: Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution. [DVD]. Beverly Hills, California: Cornerstone-Matrixx Entertainment. OCLC192133806.
Paul, Ron; Hayashi, Terry; Pardo, Victoriano; and Fisher, Edwin (August 1, 1969). "Evaluation of Renal Biopsy in Pregnancy Toxemia".Obstetrics and Gynecology (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) 34 (2): 235–241. PMID5798269.
Paul, Ron (1999). "Being Pro-Life is Necessary to Defend Liberty". International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy (MCB University Press, Ltd) 19 (3–4): 11. doi:10.1108/01443339910788712. ISSN0144-333X. OCLC89482648.
Pearl, Sandy; Beutel, Bill; Alis, Bob; Weingold, Dave; Paul, Ron; Bartsch, Ed. (1980). Born Again. [Videotape]. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Instructional Resources Center. OCLC7407395.
Skousen, Mark; Weber, Chris; Ketcher, Michael, eds. (1987). The Closing Door. Paul, Ron (introduction). Bethel, Connecticut: Institute for the Preservation of Wealth (2d ed. 1988). ISBN0938689037. OCLC17209571.
von NotHaus, Bernard, ed. (September 1, 2003). The Liberty Dollar Solution to the Federal Reserve. Paul, Ron (Chapter 21: Abolish the Fed). Evansville, Indiana: American Financial Press. ISBN0967102529.
^Nugent, Franklin (November 7, 1988). "If You Don't Like Bush Or Dukakis ... Libertarian Candidate Offers Common-Sense Policies For America". St. Louis Post-Dispatch (St. Louis, Missouri: St. Louis Post-Dispatch L.L.C.): 3C.
^No byline (1994-11-15). "Our 10th Year!" (PDF (reprint)). The Ron Paul Survival Report (Ron Paul & Associates) 10 (11).OCLC27301727. Archived from the original on 2008-02-16. Retrieved 2008-02-13.
^No byline (1990-03-15). "Poor Andy Roony!" (PDF (reprint)).Ron Paul Political Report (Ron Paul & Associates) 4 (3).OCLC31695178. Archived from the original on 2008-02-16. Retrieved 2008-02-13.
^No byline (1988-05-15). "Say Yes to Gary Allen" (PDF (reprint)). The Ron Paul Investment Letter (Ron Paul & Associates)4 (5). Archived from the original on 2008-04-14. Retrieved 2008-03-18. "Editor: Lew Rockwell. Publisher: Nadia Hayes. Subscription manager: Jean McIver.".
^"President's Corner". Liberator Online (Advocates for Self-Government) 9 (10). 2004-06-09. Archived from the original on 2007-03-19. Retrieved 2007-05-28.
^Blitzer, Wolf (2008-01-10). "Ron Paul Addresses Charges of Racism; F-15s Grounded Forever?". The Situation Room (CNN). Retrieved 2008-03-03. "I've got to tell you, congressman, you and I, we have talked a lot over these past several months. And when I saw these newsletters, I didn't know anything about them until I saw that article in 'The New Republic,' I was pretty shocked. Certainly didn't sound like the Ron Paul that I've come to know and our viewers have come to know all this time."
^ abcGouras, Matt (2008-09-11). "Ron Paul Wants Off Montana Ballot". Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-09-16. "Republican Ron Paul does not want to be on the Montana ballot as the Constitution Party presidential candidate, but state election officials said Thursday it may be too late to remove his name. [..] Paul also said the national Constitution Party candidate, Chuck Baldwin, should be on the ballot instead."
^Winger, Richard (2008-09-15). "Montana Verifies That Ron Paul Will Remain on Ballot". Ballot Access News. Retrieved 2008-09-16. "The Montana Secretary of State has told Ron Paul that his request to be removed from the ballot arrived too late"
^ abc Winger, Richard. Louisiana Asked to Print Ron Paul on Ballot as Presidential Candidate Ballot Access News, 2008-09-04. Accessed 2008-09-08. "On September 4, a slate of presidential electors was filed at the Louisiana Secretary of State's office, in person. The electors are pledged to Ron Paul for president, and former Congressman Barry Goldwater, Jr., for vice-president. The partisan label for this slate is "Louisiana Taxpayers Party." The filing, and the $500 was accepted"
Congressman Ron Paul appeared on CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley to discuss the upcoming debt limit vote, presidential politics, and political parties. The video and transcript are below:
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN ANCHOR, CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Joining me now, Republican Presidential candidate, Congressman Ron Paul. Congressman, thank you very much for joining us.
REP. RON PAUL (R) TEXAS: Thank you.
CROWLEY: Let’s talk about a couple of things that were out there this week. The debt ceiling and the House rejected raising the debt ceiling –
PAUL: Yes.
CROWLEY: — in what seemed like a pressure moved as opposed to a final move. Will there be a deal to raise the debt ceiling this month?
PAUL: Well, I don’t think anybody has an absolute answer to that but I have my suspicions and I would bet on that there will be.
CROWLEY: And, much to your unhappiness.
PAUL: Sure. I mean, I came into the Congress a good many years ago and my goal was to shrink the size of government and balance our budget, pay the bills, have sound money and live within our means and mind our own business. And I haven’t done a very good job. It seems like we’re going in a wrong direction.
CROWLEY: Well, how much of a House vote, the House rejecting any increase in the debt ceiling until there is a deal to cut something in spending — of government spending, how much of that is real and how much of it is a game of chicken? Because, what we’re told is the economy will implode if we don’t raise this debt ceiling. So, is this now in the gamesmanship stage rather than the serious stage?
PAUL: 100% gamesmanship. I mean, they’re not serious. If they thought there was a problem they would, you know, cut the spending and get down to business. But, no, they’re not serious. It’s who’s going to get the blame and who’s going to get the power and who’s going to get the political benefits and who won’t have to have their budget cut and that — that’s what it’s all about. But, it will come down to the wire and they’ll pass it because they will beat the drums of fear. That’s how we get things done in Washington, whether it’s on foreign policy, you know, they’re about to attack us and they’re going to bomb us with nuclear weapons and they get Congress to do things.
CROWLEY: And, in the end, what do you think would happen if it didn’t pass. Because, you’re — you’re right, we are told that economic recovery would be threatened. Do you believe that, if the debt ceiling was not raised?
PAUL: Well, it depends on how it’s done. If it was a sign that we were getting our house in order it might restore a lot of confidence. It might restore confidence in our dollar. Our dollar may go up because, hey, maybe they’re serious this time. But, if it’s — if it’s just sort of a mistake and they missed it a week or two and something like that it could be very negative. But, if it was part of a plan to change things, yes, I think it could be a very positive thing.
But, the big thing is, if we don’t — if we continue to do what we’re doing and we raise the debt limit, what they don’t want to think about is where we’re going because they say it could be bad and there could be some difficult circumstances on delaying payments. But, delaying payments is nothing like not paying with real money because we’ll — governments always pay their bills. They never default by not paying bills. They always default by paying off with junk money.
And, we’re already doing it. They’re worrying about a default? The default is on the average person today because their inflation rate is high. They’ve lost their jobs and so we’re defaulting all the time. The default is just who is going to get punished the most? The people who got bailed out on Wall Street and they — and somebody, you know, that owns our debt or will it, again, once again, be the middle class and default on them with just printing money?
CROWLEY: What about the argument, though, that if we should default it will drive up the interest rates and if you want a car, if you want to buy a house, you’d be paying double digit interest rates. Doesn’t it, in turn, affect the people you’re talking about on the ground on Main Street trying to just do their jobs if you don’t raise that debt ceiling?
PAUL: That’s what so difficult and after 30 or 40 years of having no restraint on spending and printing money, you don’t click a switch and — and correct that.
So, yes, interest rates may go up but you want the market to work. You don’t want a central economic planning. That’s our problem. Because the central economic planners, they get to fix the interest rates. Also monetizes all the debt that they (INAUDIBLE). So, people need to realize that if we’re serious about this, interest rates may go up but maybe we’ll go back to work too.
CROWLEY: The Vice President and a group he’s working with of Republicans and Democrats says that he’s going to find well above $1 trillion worth of cuts and his group is trying to find a way to go at this debt. How well above $1 trillion in cuts would it take for you to actually vote for an increase in the debt ceiling.
PAUL: I’m not going to vote to increase the debt.
CROWLEY: Ever?
PAUL: I didn’t vote for that and I don’t believe in it. But, what’s he talking about $1 trillion? In what period of time, one year or ten years? It — it — in this year’s –
CROWLEY: That’s peanuts?
PAUL: — What?
CROWLEY: Is what you’re trying to say?
PAUL: It means nothing. The only thing that counts is this year and our obligation, when you add up the deficit, the obligation to the barring of the trust funds, plus the entitlement obligation, $5 trillion dollars this year, $1 trillion over five years. People — people — markets shouldn’t believe this for a minute. That’s just a joke.
CROWLEY: Congressman Paul, want to you to stick with us, we’ll be right back after the break and talk a little politics.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CROWLEY: We are back with Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul.
Congressman, let me turn to Presidential politics here. This is your third time around and I think a lot of people know you — you engender great passion from your followers. You win a lot of those straw polls when Republicans come to me. You’ve proven that you can raise money and, yet, there are a lot of people that say, you know, it’s an interesting conversation but doesn’t have much of a chance to win. You’ve been around a long time. I know you know what the odds are. Why do you run?
PAUL: Well, I’m not so sure I do know what the odds are because I never thought I could ever get elected to Congress. You know, then I wouldn’t — well, if I vote the way I believe I’ll never get re-elected. So, you know, you never know what can happen and I know — I know what the odds are but the one thing is that’s very encouraging is I see a fantastic movement at the grass roots. You hear from supporters but the whole country is moving.
The attitude toward the endless undeclared silly wars that we fight that are bankrupting us, the silliness of the Federal Reserve, printing money when we need so-called wealth, the deficits that are uncontrolled. So, mainstream is now thinking about these things. Before, mainstream was deficits don’t matter, print money when you need it, endless wars, personal privacy didn’t mean anything. But, believe me, mainstream is moving in the direction that I have been talking about for a long time and, therefore, nobody knows what the outcome will be in this election.
During the last campaign I knew what was happening.
You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more. The people are coming over here. So, I would say whatever happens is going to be good because the people have woke up.
CROWLEY: I’m going to ask you to size up the Republican race for me a little bit. What do you think of Sarah Palin?
PAUL: Oh, I’m not much into — into sizing up anybody. I can size them up as a group. I think — I think, so far, most of them represent the status quo, you know, and not any — I think they’re shifting a little bit because of the political pressure but who — who’s saying bring all the troops home? Who’s saying that we need sound money and we ought to believe in the Constitution? Who wants to get rid of the Patriot Act? Who believes in property rights?
You know, they’re — they’re going to modify their position but they represent the status quo and this is what excites so many people now. They’re sick of the status quo.
CROWLEY: Let me try and put it to you this way. In ’08 you did not endorse your party’s ticket, Republican party ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin, you endorsed for others who were running on various platforms. Looking at this Republican field right now, is there anyone in it that you can already say, this person’s on the ticket, I am — there’s no way Ron Paul will support him or her?
PAUL: Well, if you ask me to promise that I would vote whoever the candidate is, no, I wouldn’t do — I wouldn’t do it because my supporters wouldn’t understand it because they want a change. If they represent the status quo and nothing I believe in but, who knows how things may evolve. Maybe a candidate will get up and — and since I’ve said, you know, they’re changing their language, maybe they would say that you’re right about this, the Federal Reserve should not be secret, we ought to know what they’re doing. And we do think — right now we’re winning some votes on the floor saying we ought to bring some troops home.
So, it depends on the candidate. If they’re starting to say we need sound money, we need balanced budgets, we need to cut, we need to bring our troops home, we need to deregulate this economy and we need to believe in personal freedom I would give it serious consideration if — if they’re serious on those matters.
CROWLEY: So, you could see Mitt Romney’s platform developing into something that you could support?
PAUL: Gee, I don’t know. I don’t know, I’d have to have a conversation with him. Maybe, hopefully, I have always high hopes.
CROWLEY: You’re quite the optimist, quite the optimist. And, finally, do you think, because, I mean, I think that to assume that they could sign onto a lot of the things, whether you’re talking about Tim Pawlenty or Ron — Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin or others who are in the race is a little far-fetched. Do you think there’s ever a time that you would say, you know what, thanks Republican party but time for a third party bid?
PAUL: Well, you know, I did that one time in a third party and we don’t have democracy in this country. It’s so biased. If you’re in a third party, you can’t — I can’t get in debates as a third party candidate. I can’t — when I did it as a third party I spent over half my money just trying to get on the ballots.
So, we don’t have a good democratic process. What happens if you come to the conclusion, as millions of Americans have, these parties aren’t different, they’re all the same. The monetary policy stays the same. The welfare system stays the same. The foreign policy stays the same. They get pretty disgusted. So, there is but one party so people who want to participate, has — they more or less have to get into one of the major parties.
A lot of our people have gotten into the Republican party and I’ve already noticed a difference in the appearance of Republicans. They say, will you come talk to the Republican party? I said, well, yes, you know, they didn’t invite me before. So I went and they’re very friendly, some of the old-timers are there but they’re twice the size they are because all our people come and they’re part of the Republican party. So, there is a transition going on right now.
CROWLEY: So, you see changing the Republican party rather than a third party?
PAUL: I think that’s what many of the supporters I have have opted out for and they see that I’ve worked in the Republican party but that doesn’t mean we join them, we get in the Republican party and hopefully using that as a vehicle to bring about the positive peaceful changes that we want.
CROWLEY: Presidential candidate Ron Paul, thank you so much for joining us, Congressman.
PAUL: Thank you.
CROWLEY: I appreciate it. Up next, how the unemployment rate may offer some insight into what to expect in the upcoming Presidential race.
