Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Do Tell: Ron Paul On Babies, Prostitution, Marijuana and Chocolate Chip Cookies

In this week's installment of "Do Tell," we chat with Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) about his once-obscure presidential quest and newfound status as Internet rock star, thanks to Rudy Giuliani.

Ever since Paul declared in the last GOP presidential debate in South Carolina that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were invited by bad U.S. foreign policy - "They attack us because we've been over there; We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years" - and Giuliani angrily denounced Paul's "extraordinary statement," the name Ron Paul pops up everywhere in the blogosphere.

Not that you'd know by talking to him. Paul, a quirky, unpretentious libertarian, looks like everybody's grandpa. And he certainly knows a lot about grandchildren, having delivered countless numbers of babies as an obstetrician.

In a Paul administration, we could expect an end to the war and plenty of pot and hookers (or at least legalization of marijuana and prostitution). And for his vice presidential running mate - Paul might choose the mustachioed, controversial anchor of ABC News' "20/20" program.

And, as you can see in the video clip below, Congressman Paul has got a thing for chocolate chip cookies.



VIDEO | Presidential Candidate Shares His Vices


Sleuth: Why are you running for president?

Paul: I'd like to be president mainly because of the things I don't want to do. I don't want to run people's lives. I don't want to run the economy. And I don't want to police the world.

Sleuth: You're an OB-GYN. How many babies have you delivered?

Paul: Four thousand, or more, or less. That involves a lot of families, a lot of relatives. It was certainly, in my congressional district, a great benefit...The relatives of everybody I delivered become a political ally, you know.

Sleuth: What bugs you most about Rudy Giuliani?

Paul: I don't like him to make charges against me, like I'm less of an American than he is.

Sleuth: How did you feel when Rudy and other Republicans were piling on you, saying you were wrong, you were out of line, that you should amend what you said about 9/11?

Paul: I had a very normal reaction. It really wasn't anger, it was loneliness. I felt very lonely...But after about 20 or 30 minutes, when my staff came and told me what the reaction was on the Internet, all of a sudden there was a feeling that I was not so much alone.

Sleuth: How do feel about a huge Internet phenomenon?

Paul: Well I haven't quite realized that yet but if that's true, I guess that's good if you're in politics. I love the Internet. I'm not going to get $100 million...but we might get a lot of supporters and we might get a lot of small donations. And then, maybe we'll get a lot of votes.

Sleuth: Do you monitor how well you're doing with hits on the Internet compared with other presidential candidates?

Paul: Not on a daily or hourly basis. I do think my staff watches it closely. There for a while I thought they were just sort of trying to pump me up, encourage me...But they've about convinced me, maybe this is for real.

Sleuth: As a Libertarian, would you do away with Medicare?

Paul: If the circumstances in the world were rather stable and we weren't fighting a war and we didn't have economic problems I would [push] for Congress to do something...I think it's a flaw in the perfect society I would like to see where individuals take care of themselves.


Sleuth: What do you think about the issues of prostitution and marijuana. Where do you come down on that?

Paul: Well, I understand prostitution has been around for a few years. And they tried to legislate it out of existence and I don't think it's worked very well. I would essentially have no restrictions, certainly on the federal level. And marijuana - I think it's tragic what's happening today in the drug war. Since the early '70s we've spent maybe $200 to $300 billion on the drug war. That's not been any good. This whole effort on the drug war doesn't make any sense at all to me.

Sleuth: In a Ron Paul administration, who would we see as secretary of defense, or secretary of state or maybe as chief of staff?

Paul: Somebody I think should be in the administration would be somebody like Jim Grant, who is a good friend and he writes an investment type of newsletter and he understands economics in the same vain that I do. And people like Jonathan Turley would be good in the Justice Department. And somebody like this Michael Scheuer who knows something about foreign policy, in the State department.

Sleuth: If you were to defy the polls and the odds and win the nomination, who would be your running mate?

Paul: Well, I don't know, but if I won, you know, I'd want a recount. You know, lets be certain about what's going on here.

But a running mate. Somebody like Walter Williams. Walter Williams is a very good economist. John Stossel, John Stossel would be good.


Sleuth: What is your biggest vice?

Paul: Boy, you ask tough questions! (laughter.) I have a compulsion. And it's a mixed blessing, but I'm a compulsive exerciser. And I'm very annoyed when my staff calls me up and I have to do something in the morning, like an '08 press conference or interview. I like to walk and ride a bike. I get annoyed when I'm disturbed from my exercise, which is my tranquilizer.

Sleuth: Well, I heard that one of your vices is chocolate chip cookies.

Paul: Oooh. I'll confess to that. And I watch my diet pretty well. Like today I had a very big salad and a chocolate chip cookie. But I'm able to handle that. I figure, 'Well, I'll just make sure I make my exercises tonight.' But chocolate chip cookies are good! Did you ever have a homemade chocolate chip cookie?

Sleuth: Delicious.

Paul: Yes, they are.

Sleuth: Very good, if they're baked well.

Paul: That's right, you gotta know how to bake 'em.

Sleuth: Do you bake?

Paul: No, I've tried and it's a total failure. I mean one time I bought these, where you just slice 'em and put 'em together. I had one big cake. It didn't work. I tell my family, I said, 'You're going to have to bake me chocolate chip cookies. I can't do it.'

Sleuth: Who's the Best baker in your family?

Paul: My wife. She knows how, she knows how to do it.

By Mary Ann Akers  |  May 25, 2007; 3:25 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Paul Simon: a Chris Dodd Roadie
Next: Everybody Knows Nancy Pelosi

Comments

he doesn't bake, but does he GET BAKED? those libertarians like their weed ... maybe that explains the chocolate chip cookies ...

Posted by: capitol-hillbilly | May 25, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Please stop saying that he said that the United States invited the attacks. That is what the Fox news interlocutor and Mr. Giulliani said, not what Mr. Paul said.

Posted by: Mark L | May 25, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Funny thing with me being a Libertarian. I don't do drugs. Never have. All of my gung-ho, run-your-life, raise-your-taxes, sound-byte-sucking, lobotomy-sporting, history-illiterate Blue and Red fanatic friends have all smoked weed at some point in their lives.

But Libertarians always get the gaffs. I think it's because we're not pointing the big gun at anybody. That weakness is reserved for the Demuplicans.

This was a wonderfully off-the-wall article. And thanks, Mary Ann, for telling us all what to expect under a Ron Paul presidency. How about doing us all a favor and thrill us with your prescience concerning the winner of the next world series or super bowl. And when will we finally achieve that promised nirvana which only the great two-party system can bring us?

Posted by: Eric | May 25, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Again, please correct your factually incorrect statement. Congressman Paul has NEVER used the word "invited". This is an error and should be addressed immediately.

Posted by: Brad | May 25, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Once again another mainstream media type equates all marijuana smokers with vice ("pot and hookers"). Marijuana will never be legalized because reporters like Ms. Akers don't report on the millions of educated, successful professionals who enjoy marijuana. Instead, people just make snide comments about "pot smoking hippies." I just did a vaporizer hit and have no trouble writing in complete sentences.

Posted by: haze | May 25, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Great article on a wonderful personal level. Ron Paul is extremely factual, and I agree with his perception on multiple levels. The only thing I'd like to see more from him is *CONFIDENCE*. That will fully secure his presence on the mainstage. !!!!

Posted by: Nick AKA DjLoTi | May 25, 2007 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Akers,

Thanks for this article. Although I slightly agree with posters above me, I commend you for taking a different angle with a politician. Instead of solely focusing on political rhetoric, you presented a very personable, amiable human being.

I enjoyed the video very much! I can't say that I've ever seen anything like that from other candidates. Especially Rudy Giuliani; the only videos I've seen of him involve scandal and the contempt his own city holds for him.

For anyone who didn't see the video, please watch it.

Thanks!
Ryan Cain

Posted by: Ryan Cain | May 25, 2007 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Words do matter, and "invite" has a very specific meaning. Has any of the commentators thought that Paul would have meant "invite" even had he actually said it?
"Libertarian" as used in the media has become about as useless a word as conservative or liberal. A classical liberal philosophy runs much deeper than drugs and hookers.
But other than that, a nicely done portrait of a serious-thinking candidate. Thanks.

Posted by: Will | May 25, 2007 6:44 PM | Report abuse

I have not known about this Sleuth column up to now. I clicked on it because I too am a libertarian. I don't know why Paul is seeking the nomination on the Republican ticket. He is going no place like all other libertarian candidates. He is so right about why Osama bin Laden has attacked the US. People like Giuliani and all who applauded him are so stupid and stubborn to acknowledge that fact.

Now, about the column, it reminded me of what was said about the Seinfeld show a show about nothing a column about nothing. Sorry.

Posted by: R M Kraus | May 25, 2007 6:57 PM | Report abuse

I have not known about this Sleuth column up to now. I clicked on it because I too am a libertarian. I don't know why Paul is seeking the nomination on the Republican ticket. He is going no place like all other libertarian candidates. He is so right about why Osama bin Laden has attacked the US. People like Giuliani and all who applauded him are so stupid and stubborn to acknowledge that fact.

Now, about the column, it reminded me of what was said about the Seinfeld show a show about nothing a column about nothing. Sorry.

Posted by: R M Kraus | May 25, 2007 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who doubts that in part the 9/11 attack was the result of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East simply does not know the history of the western nations, U.S., U.K., and France, in the affairs of those peoples and in particular their interference, colonization, exploitation of hydrocarbons (how does 50 cent a barrel crude grab you?), along with blind and unfailing support of Israel, especially on the part of the U.S.

Now Giuliani is heavily dependent upon Jewish media and campaign contributions support in New York City and New York state so in his bid to prove his worth as their man, Mr. G. savages Cong. Paul. Q.E.D.

Posted by: wcg | May 25, 2007 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Libertarians need to learn from the establishment. How did they gain power? Through infiltration methods, changing the instution from the inside-out, and it works much better than taking it head on. Dr. Paul is on the national stage presenting many Libertarian beliefs. Has the Libertarian Party had their views heard at this level, nope! The Libertarians need to infiltrate both of these parties, and that's how this dog and pony show will be turned on its head. The bottom line is these parties are just a label, which creates a bias amongst Americans who watch these elementary "Liberal vs Conservative" arguments on T.V. every night., . It does great at accomplishing its designed objective, which is to distract us, and take power away from the people. We can't have a country that agrees on certain principles; we must split up over stupid reasons that don't make much of deference anyways. Lets be Americans, forget the party system, it doesn't serve you!

Posted by: justin wilson | May 25, 2007 8:50 PM | Report abuse

How delightful it is to have a genuine, spontaneous, and deeply convicted man running for president. It's the first time I've been excited about a candidate since "Clean" Gene McCarthy in '68. Stop the War, Honest Ron!

Posted by: Nicolas | May 25, 2007 8:53 PM | Report abuse


Mark, I think you make a good point. Too often, reporters or bloggers overstate (or understate) what was actually said.
-----------------------------------------------------
Please stop saying that he said that the United States invited the attacks. That is what the Fox news interlocutor and Mr. Giulliani said, not what Mr. Paul said.

Posted by: Mark L | May 25, 2007 04:40 PM
-----------------------------------------------------

I'm sure looking for an alternative to Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, who I think Ron Paul characterizes as seeking to access domestic power and maintain the status quo - an enriching and profitable status quo for people and organizations in power. Those are not precisely his words, but the ideas are attributed to him and the words ring true--esp. for neo-con Republicans.

I agree with him wrt the 9/11 terrorists attacks if "terrorist" is defined as someone who has a bomb but does not have an air plane. They'd be happy to bomb our military installations if they could. We have many military bases in the foreign countries (890) and many in the Middle East, some permanent ones built since our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Muslims do not want us running their countries and that is exactly what we try to do--thus their hatred of us.

I like the idea of a government that does not interfering with people's lives. But, he believes that the government should not interfere in people's lives except when _he_ thinks the government should interfere in peoples lives. He's anti-abortion, pro-family values, so it is clear he does believe in dictating an individual's behavior. Hypocrite!!!!

He wants to lower or abolish Fed. income taxes and replace funds with what???? No replacement means more Fed. debt. Replacement of income tax probably means starting some tax that is not at all progressive wrt to income or wealth. Those with higher incomes or wealth already get the most tax breaks. They should pay a higher percentage than lower income people. If lowering spending means cutting military expenditures (by at least 75%) so we can deal with our massive social, health, and infrastructure problems, I approve. We don't need to be as heavily militarized as we are. G. George Washington understood that and Eisenhower understood the dangers of a large standing military in bed with mega-businesses.I doubt that those are his plans. And let's face facts--some people _need_ financial help for health or housing issues. In short, he's just another conservative slightly camouflaged to look palatable to those of us that are really, really dissatisfied with Dems./Reps.

I'll keeep an eye on him, but he doesn't look like the right man for the job!!!!

Posted by: maddog56 | May 25, 2007 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Mary Anne Akers.

Posted by: J.T. Waldron | May 26, 2007 1:17 AM | Report abuse

"He's anti-abortion, pro-family values, so it is clear he does believe in dictating an individual's behavior. Hypocrite!!!!"

Well, Ron is a doctor! He's delivered a few thousand babies. How could he not be pro-life? If he believed otherwise, he'd be a hypocrite...but you are obviously misinformed if you think Ron believes in dictating an individual's behavior. Ron Paul has stated he believes it is up to each state to decide on abortion issues....as it should be!

Posted by: K | May 26, 2007 2:19 AM | Report abuse

I think it's sad that whenever people are urged to 'fend for themselves' and make their own decisions they shy away or make absurd generalities i.e. all Libertarians smoke pot and indulge in hookers. Let's grow up America and take on the responsibilities of our own lives without a Government watching over our shoulder, telling us what we should and shouldn't do. For many in this country apathy has become a religion, and now that someone is up for the Presidency who wants to do away with such mediocrity we call him names and trivialize his values? This isn't High School kiddies, it's time to be adults. We all should take a step back and look at that big picture, rather than filtering ourselves through preconceived notions fed to us by self-proclaimed pious authorities.

Posted by: Johnathan Rockwell Duncan | May 26, 2007 3:03 AM | Report abuse

Our great country has to humble itself and realize its crucial to deal with all nations with respect.We may never agree with different religions and cultures, but we must learn to agree to with mutual respect and the princible of the golden rule. Ron Paul was right about our policy of bombing their country for over ten years,whatever happened to wisdom and diplomacy?

Posted by: Greg | May 26, 2007 9:41 AM | Report abuse

I understand that Ron Paul is anti-abortion. Can someone explain to me how that is consistent with being a libertarian?

Posted by: va mom | May 26, 2007 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Ron Paul is the only candidate I can assure you has never visited a hooker or smoked a joint. He doesn't believe it ethical or healthy to do either. He just doesn't favor giving power to the federal government to police unwinnable battles. The author seems to imply that if Ron Paul is elected there will be pot and hookers. It has been illegal for years and 100s if not more than a trillion dollars have been spent trying to stop it. There is still pot and hookers. The only thing that has changed is the size of our prison population and the power and scope of our law enforcement to harass honest citizens. Ron Paul is not in favor of pot and hookers...never was...never will be. He is just not in favor of wasting resources and giving law enforcement more and more power to make confiscate private property and create a giant expensive prison system.

Posted by: Dennis | May 26, 2007 10:37 AM | Report abuse

As for a Ron Paul presidency...it will never happen. Every TV news person begins a Ron Paul story with his barely registering Poll numbers...and Rudy's with American's mayor. The media will make sure there are no more Ross Perot's. Ross had billions to fight the "crazy man" charge...and after a few months of beating it into the citizen's heads it finally took. The media won. The establishment would kill him if they had to anyways.

All he can do is make our rulers uncomfortable and educate the small number of Americans who are capable of learning.

Ron Paul is not a man for the masses. Hitler and the nazis were correct about human nature and our politcal leaders have learned that lesson well. They slowly have adopted Nazi practices over the years.

"The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!"
"How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.
The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.
The man who has no sense of history, is like a man who has no ears or eyes
I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.
What we have to fight for is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the creator
I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.
Who says I am not under the special protection of God?
By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise."
Adolf Hitler

Posted by: Dennis | May 26, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

I like Ron Paul and he hit the nail on the head about the U.S. and terroism. We HAVE made it worse all over the world since the invasion of IRAQ.

People want Ron Paul for his stand against illegal immigrants and amnesty. Well, Tancredo is too. Maybe what we need is a Tancredo/Paul ticket.

Posted by: Callie369 | May 26, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

He's got my vote.

Posted by: Daniel | May 26, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I understand that a LOT of people with a LOT of money want Ron Paul to shut up. And I understand that a LOT of people with a LOT of POWER feel the same way. But you are ALL asking for trouble and there WILL be a price to pay if things don't go the way THE PEOPLE want it to go.

We're TIRED of watching the power of WE THE PEOPLE go down the drain. We're TIRED of being given bad choices at our Presidential elections. We're TIRED of voting for the Lesser of the Evils.

OPEN your eyes. It's becoming more obvious EVERY day that the majority of the people on the Internet want Ron Paul as their next President...

Mark my words... If Ron Paul is dismissed unfairly, there will be a price to pay. WE THE PEOPLE will not let our thoughts, opinions and discontent go unrealized. We are FINISHED accepting what we're being given. We KNOW what we want - and if you PROVE to us that what WE WANT does NOT matter - you will see, hear and feel our wrath...

This is the END of things the way they were - and the BEGINNING of things the way they were meant to be... Whether Dr. Ron Paul is our next President or not. We have absolutely HAD IT with being ignored...

Mark my words...

Posted by: Zero Tolerance | May 26, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

To Zero Tolerance...

The only thing that would get their attention is armed revolt. I don't see that happening. The public eductated morons in this country have been completely dociled. 1776 was a very long time ago.

Posted by: Dennis | May 26, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the article.
But ,No one has proven him wrong (on the Rudy thing).

He has my vote.
Why ?
Because Hes for freedom and lower taxes and making sure America doesn't get a "super highway" with Canada and south America.
Hes for freedom of the individual
he has my vote even if I have to pencil it in.

Posted by: PFFF | May 26, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

"I understand that Ron Paul is anti-abortion. Can someone explain to me how that is consistent with being a libertarian?"

Abortion is an issue of contention among Libertarians, as is immigration. The Libertarian platform is a guideline and there are many Libertarians that differ that subscribe to the same basic philosophy. It is much more about a basic political philosophy than a set platform.

If somebody as in Paul's case, who has delivered thousands of babies believes that abortion is ending a life, then that falls under the victimless "crime" litmus test and even though the actual amount of federal regulation should be limited. It should be noted that Ron has had instances where he had to terminate pregnancies in the fallopian tube, so he does respect a woman's health.

Usually the only places that are under contention among libertarians are where sovereignty, defense, and life come into the equation. I hoped I helped answer your question.

Posted by: Re:Va Mom | May 26, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

I am in no way shape or form a Republican. Having said that, Ron Paul is the least offensive, most reasonable (by far) of the Republican candidates I have heard this year, maybe ever. That guarantees that he will not get the nod. Ron, go back to the Libertariann Party - the Jesus-freak Plutocrats don't want you.

And pass that along if you're done with it.

UFFFFFF-bubble bubble bubble bubble-AAAAHHH

Posted by: the bear | May 26, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

You mistakenly attributed what Wendall Goler said, that we "invited the attacks", to Paul.

"Ever since Paul declared in the last GOP presidential debate in South Carolina that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were invited..."

Paul never declared we "invited the attacks" so you might want to correct this. If you watch video of the debate you can confirm this.

Posted by: Andrew | May 26, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

to the person who answered my question re abortion: yes, thank you, that helps. I gather you are saying that some libertarians believe abortion is not a victimless crime, and that does make sense philosophically (though I don't agree with it.)

So, at least Ron Paul is not a hypocrite. That puts him in a minority of 1 among repub candidates.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 26, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Also, RE: Abortion

I'm a pro-choice Paul supporter. Even though Paul is personally against abortion, he understands the the federal government does not have the authority to dictate to the states whether abortion should be legal or illegal. So, people in Montana shouldn't be able to outlaw abortion in NY and vice-versa. The citizens of each particular state need to decide their own laws. Drug laws should be decided in this manner as well. It's the constitutional position.

Posted by: Andrew | May 26, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Thanks so much for being on the ball with this interview. You have demonstrated that all the Washington Post is willing to print about Dr. Paul is the most pathetic fluff imaginable. Thanks very much for asking Dr. Paul about taxes, the economy, foreign policy, privacy and security, his record as a 10-term Congressman, and his vision for the future. Too bad you couldn't find space in your nonsense article about hookers, pot and cookies to fit in all the relevant information that might help someone make an informed decision about a presidential candidate. Too bad you couldn't be bothered to quote Dr. Paul accurately. I do hope the Washington Post achieves its apparent goal to become the most expensive tabloid in history.

Posted by: Sam Marsh | May 27, 2007 4:50 AM | Report abuse

(bubble bubble bubble bubble-coughcoughcough)
Check it out! Ron, you could turn your name around, and it will still sound OK. Hee hee... "Ron Paul... Paul Ron." See what I'm saying? Hey, is there any pizza left?

Posted by: Goofus | May 28, 2007 12:48 AM | Report abuse

Ron Paul has done so much to restore the reputation and integrity of the United States of America and the Americans in the eyes of the world just by standing up and speaking.

Posted by: Peter McMahon | May 28, 2007 6:11 AM | Report abuse

This is the most I have seen written about Dr. Paul in one place, and it was interesting. However, I need to know something about the following paragraph:

Paul: Somebody I think should be in the administration would be somebody like Jim Grant, who is a good friend and he writes an investment type of newsletter and he understands economics in the same vain that I do. And people like Jonathan Turley would be good in the Justice Department. And somebody like this Michael Scheuer who knows something about foreign policy, in the State department.

Can you explain to me if the glaring error is attributable to Dr. Paul, or is it a Freudian slip on the part of the author?

I refer, of course, to the spelling of the word "vain."

Posted by: Grammar Police | May 29, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

I say that the whole thing, is hogwash.

Posted by: elysestabiner | May 29, 2007 11:14 AM | Report abuse

More and more Giuliani soounds like Dick Cheney. Do we want a Cheney clone in the White House?

Posted by: veehaann | May 29, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

(bubble bubble bubble bubble-coughcoughcough)

Elysestabiner, have you ever washed a hog? Did you know that they're actually clean animals, or they would be if we didn't make them live in mud? Whoa... what would it be like to be a pig, and live in mud... the world is just UNFAIR to PIGS. Pig rights now! Except not cops. Or bacon, yeah... mmmm, bacon. Let's get a pizza.

Posted by: Goofus | May 29, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul is a true conservative. I love to see his positions, and I agree with most of them -- although his history on racial issues is not good.

I just read an article by Michael Scheuer, whom Ron Paul mentions. I was impressed. Scheuer nails it, IMHO, on our failings in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need new thinking in politicos, and while Mr. Paul will never win the presidency, he is already having an effect, and I hope he gets more exposure.

Thanks for your interview

Posted by: timmuggs | May 29, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Pretty pathetic...more air-headed fare for the vacuous.

Posted by: DQuixote1 | May 30, 2007 10:52 AM | Report abuse

I have been following Ron Paul's remarkable career for several years. He is the ONLY one in Congress who has the guts to stand up for what is right for the American citizens. When the Clinton Administration tried to push through a Big-Brotherish Federal ID, Ron Paul was the one who succeeded in denying funding for it. Now that the Bush Administration is trying to push through the Big-Brotherish "Real ID" (Google it to find out what a nightmare this creates), Ron Paul is working hard to help defeat it and to raise public awareness of it.

I would have preferred to see this interviewer concentrate more on the substance of Ron Paul as a very successful Congressman and Presidential candidate, than to engage in just a "fluff" story filled with inaccuracies which is so dismissive of a great man and a genuinely concerned American who is fighting hard to protect American values against the "Big Brother" tendencies of both the Democrats (especially the Clintons) and the Republicans (especially the Bushes).

Be forewarned, people - if Hillary succeeds in getting into office, she has already declared that she is far more concerned with protecting the profitability of big corporations than she is with protecting the rights of American citizens. Her administration would simply be a continuation of what we've already been forced to endure under George W. Bush.

American citizens NEED Dr. Ron Paul to help protect us against the ravages being perpetrated on us by both the Democrats and the Republicans.

And I agree with the person who said that if Libertarians want to be genuinely successful, then they need to follow Dr. Ron Paul's example and switch to running as either a Republican or a Democrat, as this nation's citizenry has become far too conditioned to the two-party system and many people prefer to simply vote Party Lines regardless of the characters and values and platforms of the individual candidates.

If you truly want to succeed, work from within the system rather than trying to change it from outside the system. The system clearly needs changing, but it must be done from within.

Electing Dr. Ron Paul as President would be the best move this nation could possibly make at this time! We citizens need a genuine Citizen Advocate in the Presidential office who can help turn this nation around from its Big Brother tendencies and back to a genuine democratic republic as our Founding Fathers created it to be.

I have a great deal of respect for the Washington Post, but this article does a grave disservice to all who read it and reflects very badly on the high journalistic standards that the Washington Post has become famous for.

A new interview with Dr. Ron Paul needs to be done, and this time by someone who has genuine journalistic caliber and intelligence rather than a dimwit who only writes sensationalistic "fluff" with no concern about being accurate or providing a serious interview.

Posted by: Jake1 | May 30, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm quite saddened by the refusal of mainstream media, including this venerable organ, to include Ron Paul in their overwhelming '08 Race coverage. This fluff piece is a mere token effort to placate his most vociferous supporters in lieu of a more substantial interview. In contrast, back when Howard Dean was "harnassing the power of the internet" for his presidential run, the media couldn't stop fawning over him, until he alienated everyone with his infamous scream.

Of course, those of us who don't rely on the WP and CNN for our political coverage know exactly why this disparity exists: because Ron Paul is anti-War, which would attract moderate and lefty voters, but simultaneously advocates small government. This is confounding to America's lefty journalists, who also hate the war, but love big government too much to let a guy like Ron Paul get decent coverage. A candidate like him exposes the internal contradictions within the boilerplate Democratic anti-war but pro-big government stand. By filling what few pieces about RP with value-laden descriptions, mischaracterizations, and non sequiters, the journalists are pretending to be objectively covering the candidate, when in actuality they are sabotaging him using standard propaganda tactics.

Posted by: Christina | May 30, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I read your colum today for the first time. Great! As someone whose first born son (39yrs old) was in Operation Iraqi Freedom (his unit found Saadam Hussein), and Operation Iraqi Endurance (his unit was in the convoy where the ABC anchor was injured and they killed the insurgents responsible for the roadside bomb); you can imagine how I feel when he calls last night and says he's going back again in three to four weeks!!!!! I support thr troops there, but its time to get out. I wish I had some say so, but I live in Washington, DC and we do not have a voting congressperson nor Senator. What is Mr. Paul's position on the war? I totally agree with his position on weed and prostitutes.

Posted by: imani4to1 | May 30, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

I read your colum today for the first time. Great! As someone whose first born son (39yrs old) was in Operation Iraqi Freedom (his unit found Saadam Hussein), and Operation Iraqi Endurance (his unit was in the convoy where the ABC anchor was injured and they killed the insurgents responsible for the roadside bomb); you can imagine how I feel when he calls last night and says he's going back again in three to four weeks!!!!! I support thr troops there, but its time to get out. I wish I had some say so, but I live in Washington, DC and we do not have a voting congressperson nor Senator. What is Mr. Paul's position on the war? I totally agree with his position on weed and prostitutes.

Posted by: imani4to1 | May 30, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

My, that was just brimming with condescension!

Way to reinforce the stale status quo (Rudy McRomney) by omission. Between you guys and McCain Feingold, challengers don't have a chance.

Nice guys, nice.

Posted by: Jameson Penn | May 30, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

I've been supporting Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich because they're all stirring up trouble and rejecting the sedated sound-bite culture that passes for political discourse in this country.

Over on myspace there is a huge groundswell of very angry GOP voters rallying behind Ron Paul. Gravel and Kucinich would be getting more support if it weren't for Obama the distraction candidate (follow the money! Both Obama and Hilary would protect Wall Street and the military-industrial complex).

This puff piece was nice in terms of humanizing Ron Paul, and it is valuable if more people go to Ron's website to learn his actual platform. But it does a poor job distinguishing between Ron's personal opinions and how he would actually govern.

A VOTE FOR RON PAUL IS A VOTE FOR POT AND HOOKERS! Is that really what we're supposed to take away from this article? Shame on you, that's a complete distortion of his actual position on things.

Prig America needs to realize that vices have their place in society. The real problem is not the vice itself, but the social problems that abuse of the vice can create. Prohibition is a very good example of why outlawing the vice completely fails and in fact empowers criminal organizations. Wars on vices are tools of class warfare, since the poor are less able to defend themselves against prosecution than the rich, when they get caught.

Posted by: toddpw | May 30, 2007 7:45 PM | Report abuse

I thought that was Ross Perot doing Robert A. Taft out of Ayn Rand.

Posted by: Philip V. Riggio | May 30, 2007 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Just a coment backing the right-on analysis of this lame diversion from real journalism. Is this really what it takes to draw readers to read about "alternative" candidates? Is that what the WaPo thinks of its readers? I'm agnostic on Ron Paul until I learn more, but this sure isn't the way to learn anything. Pot and hookers? Really? That's what this "journalist" thinks libertarianism is about? Or is what the columnist (and by extension, the Post, which runs her weak work)think it takes to get our attention? Sheesh. Chocolate chip cookies! What is his position on malomars? Inquiring minds want to know!

Posted by: Peaceworker | May 31, 2007 1:14 AM | Report abuse

Ron Paul is going exactly nowhere unless his Internet popularity turns into votes. For this to happen, those who live in closed primary states must register as Republicans and vote for him in their state Republican primary. Anything less is just worthless talk.

As for the article, the author cannot hide her disdain for Ron Paul and his classical liberalist views of government. I cannot say that I am surprised considering she is a propaganda specialist working for one of the premiere propaganda outlets of the two-party fraud, whose goal is to consolidate all power within Washington, D.C. and control every aspect of our lives.

Posted by: Fibr_Dog | May 31, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Akers is overpaid. [quote] Jim Grant...understands economics in the same vain [sic] that I do.[unquote] It's vein, not vain. Maybe her Freudian slip is showing.

Posted by: spellchecker | May 31, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Paul is a breath of fresh air--though he is no Al Gore.

Posted by: Soonerthought dot com | May 31, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Will Ron Paul & Rudy Giuliani Debate Foreign Policy at Freedomfest?

The annual FreedomFest conference, has issued a debate invitation to GOP Presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul to use FreedomFest '07 as a debate venue to further explore their fundamental differences in foreign policy and the war in Iraq that were highlighted in the Columbia, SC debate. To review the debate invitation - www.freedomfest.com/debate.htm
For more information on the July 2007 FreedomFest Conference in Las Vegas, go to
www.freedomfest.com

Posted by: Ron Holland | June 1, 2007 5:44 AM | Report abuse

RON PAUL 2008!!!!!

Posted by: jwerner | June 2, 2007 3:06 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for this article on Ron Paul! I thought the answers he gave were good if not a little tongue-in-cheek. Can you just imagine a Vice President John Stossel?

Dr. Paul does not want to regulate personal behaviors. He wants to keep the federal government out of issues like abortion and gay marriage and let the states decide them as is fitting a republic such as ours.

LibertysLastStand.com

Posted by: Jason Elam | June 2, 2007 3:14 AM | Report abuse

The reason that Ron Paul has low pole numbers is; the corporate owned and controlled media don't want him to win. We all know that papers and networks support one Candidate and not the other. Being a news organization, they owe a duty not to take any position one way or another. Any news paper or network that does should be boycotted. Slanted reporting is not worth the paper it is printed on. And I will not support or respect any of those who do.

Posted by: thecount234 | June 2, 2007 4:40 AM | Report abuse

Keep it up WP, and you can count on one less subscriber to your paper. Do you think we are idiots. I expect to see a new interview with a real reporter, this time focusing on Ron Paul's excellent record as a 10-term Congressman, and his vision for Americas future. Low blow WP. Be part of the solution not the problem.

Posted by: thecount234 | June 2, 2007 5:12 AM | Report abuse

I think Ron paul is a special candidtae. He tells it like washington politicians don't. He did not say anything about legalizing any drugs as stated in the news headline. He is as good as any other candidtae that we have seen.

Posted by: midnightlady | June 4, 2007 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Ron Paul sound like a man I can vote for but for those citizens who are dependant on the government, those whom sell their votes, well.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 4, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Ms Akers...Is that all your inquiring mind could come up with to ask Rep Paul about? Have you asked the same questions of the other candidates or do you save your questions of substance for them? I am sorry he agreed to talk to you because it seemed that you were trying to make him appear ridiculous and without substance. I don't think you succeeded. What is wrong with telling people the truth about what goes on in government and believing in government by the Constitution? Isn't that the way it is supposed to be?

Posted by: Red Rose1 | June 4, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul Supporters: Where's Giuliani? From www.gambling911.com

http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-Giuliani-060307.html

Carrie Stroup with Gambling911 has requested the folks at Sportsbook.com - presently offering political betting odds on the 2008 US Presidential election - to offer odds on Giuliani attending and debating Ron Paul at FreedomFest.

Breaking News at 9:34 AM on 6/4/2007

Dr. Paul accepts the invitation to debate Mr. Giuliani. .

Lew Moore
Campaign Manager
Ron Paul 2008 PCC
850 North Randolph Street, Suite 122
Arlington, VA 22203
703-248-9115


For more information contact:
Ron Holland,
FreedomFest Marketing Coordinator
828 689 2148 ron@freedomfest.com

www.freedomfest.com/debate.htm Paul/Giuliani debate invitation

Posted by: Ron Holland | June 4, 2007 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Ron is anti abortion and does not want the federal government to tell us if it should be legal or not. The difference between Ron and other politicians is that others want to impose their beliefs on the rest of us and Ron wants the people in their individual states to decide what should be legal.

Posted by: Hyrum | June 10, 2007 2:13 AM | Report abuse

What a great perspective on Ron Paul. I wish he'd put on a national televised report about what his views are on the role of government, America's role in the world, and economics.

Posted by: Emily Ekins | June 17, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

This is just another maintream media hit piece. Ron Paul will have my support!!!

Posted by: AustinTX | June 17, 2007 6:40 PM | Report abuse


Read How Ron Paul Became President

A fictional case study about how a future terrorist attack against the US and the Bush administration response elects Ron Paul as President.

Learn what could happen when the United States is hit by another terrorist attack by Islamic extremists that creates an extreme response by Washington in The Final Presidential Executive Order at http://www.swissconfederationinstitute.org/swisspreserve14.htm

This is from new online book, "The Swiss Preserve Solution" & the excess reaction results in the election of Ron Paul as President, not in 2008 but in 2012.

Posted by: Ron Holland | June 22, 2007 6:47 AM | Report abuse

To all who claim to support Ron Paul on this thread: Put your money where your mouth is! We all know he is honest but no one can get elected without a large amount of cash.

Posted by: Craig Morris | June 27, 2007 3:10 AM | Report abuse

To all who claim to support Ron Paul on this thread: Put your money where your mouth is! We all know he is honest but no one can get elected without a large amount of cash.

Posted by: Craig Morris | June 27, 2007 3:10 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company