TRANSCRIPT: Ron Paul on Meet the Press

[Dig]

Dec. 23: Ron Paul - Representative Ron Paul (R-TX)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/print/1/displaymode/1098/
updated 12:51 p.m. CT, Sun., Dec. 23, 2007
MR. RUSSERT:  The very latest polls and strategies with John Harwood of CNBC and The New York Times, and Chuck Todd, political director for NBC News. But first we're joined by Dr. Ron Paul, Republican candidate for president. Dr. Paul, welcome to MEET THE PRESS.
REP. RON PAUL (R-TX):   Thank you.  Nice to be here.
MR. RUSSERT:  Let's start right at the very top, the issues.  This is what you have been saying on the campaign stump, "I'd like to get rid of the IRS. I want to get rid of the income tax." Abolish it.
REP. PAUL:  That's a good idea.  I like that idea.
MR. RUSSERT:  What would happen to all those lost revenues?  How would we fund our government?
REP. PAUL:  We have to cut spending.  You can't get rid of the income tax if you don't get rid of some spending.  But, you know, if you got rid of the income tax today you'd have about as much revenue as, as we had 10 years ago, and the size of government wasn't all that bad 10 years ago.  So there're sources of revenues other than the income tax.  You know, you have, you have tariff, excise taxes, user fees, highway fees.  So, so there's still a lot of money.  But the real problem is spending.  But, you know, we lived a long time in this country without an income tax.  Up until 1913 we didn't have it.
MR. RUSSERT: But, but you eliminate the income tax, do you know how much lost revenue that would be?
REP. PAUL:  A lot.  But... [cut off]
MR. RUSSERT:  Over a trillion dollars.
REP. PAUL:  That's good.  I mean, we--but we could save hundreds of billions of dollars if we had a sensible foreign policy.
MR. RUSSERT:  Well... [Tried to cut off]
REP. PAUL:  And if you go--if you're going to be the policeman of the world, you need that.  You need the income tax to police the world and run the welfare state.  I want a constitutional-size government.
MR. RUSSERT:  Would you replace the income tax with anything else?
REP. PAUL:  Not if I could help it.  You know, there are some proposals where probably almost anything would be better than income tax.  But there's a lot of shortcomings with the, with the sales tax.  But it would probably be slightly better than the income tax--it would be an improvement.  But the goal is to cut the spending, get back to a sensible-size government.
MR. RUSSERT:  But if you had a flat tax, 30 percent consumption tax, that would be very, very punishing to the poor and middle class.
REP. PAUL:  Well, I know.  That's why I don't want it.
MR. RUSSERT:  So you have nothing?
REP. PAUL:  I want to cut spending.  I want to get a--use the Constitution as our guide, and you wouldn't need the income tax.
MR. RUSSERT:  Let's talk about some of the ways you recommend.  "I'd start bringing our troops home, not only from the Middle East but from Korea, Japan and Europe and save enough money to slash the deficit." How much money would that save?
REP. PAUL:  To operate our total foreign policy, when you add up everything, there's been a good study on this, it's nearly a trillion dollars a year.  So I would think if you brought our troops home, you could save hundreds of billions of dollars.  It's, you know, it's six months or one year or two year, but you can start saving immediately by changing the foreign policy and not be the policeman over the world.  We should have the foreign policy that George Bush ran on.  You know, no nation building, no policing of the world, a humble foreign policy.  We don't need to be starting wars.  That's my argument.
MR. RUSSERT:  How many troops do we have overseas right now?
REP. PAUL:  I don't know the exact number, but more than we need.  We don't need any.
MR. RUSSERT:  It's 572,000.  And you'd bring them all home?
REP. PAUL:  As quickly as possible.  We--they will not serve our interests to be overseas.  They get us into trouble.  And we can defend this country without troops in Germany, troops in Japan.  How do they help our national defense?  Doesn't make any sense to me.  Troops in Korea since I've been in high school?
MR. RUSSERT:  What... [Tried to cut off]
REP. PAUL:  You know, it doesn't make any sense.
MR. RUSSERT:  Under President Paul, if North Korea invaded South Korea, would we respond?
REP. PAUL:  I don't--why should we unless the Congress declared war?  I mean, why are we there?  Could--South Korea, they're begging and pleading to unify their country, and we get in their way.  They want to build bridges and go back and forth.  Vietnam, we left under the worst of circumstances.  The country is unified.  They have become Westernized.  We trade with them.  Their president comes here.  And Korea, we stayed there and look at the mess.  I mean, the problem still exists, and it's drained trillion dollars over these last, you know, 50 years.  So stop--we can't afford it anymore.  We're going bankrupt.  All empires end because the countries go bankrupt, and the, and the currency crashes.  That's what happening.  And we need to come out of this sensibly rather than waiting for a financial crisis.
MR. RUSSERT:  So if Iran invaded Israel, what do we do?
REP. PAUL:  Well, they're not going to.  That is like saying "Iran is about to invade Mars." I mean, they have nothing.  They don't have an army or navy or air force.  And Israelis have 300 nuclear weapons.  Nobody would touch them.  But, no, if, if it were in our national security interests and Congress says, "You know, this is very, very important, we have to declare war." But presidents don't have the authority to go to war.
MR. RUSSERT:  You... [Tried to cut off]
REP. PAUL:  You go to the Congress and find out if they want a war, do the people want the war.  But it's totally unnecessary.  I mean, that, that, to me, is an impossible situation...
MR. RUSSERT:  If... [Tried to cut off]
REP. PAUL:  ...for the Iranians to invade Israel.
MR. RUSSERT:  This is what you said about Israel.  "Israel's dependent on us, you know, for economic means.  We send them" "billions of dollars and they," then they "depend on us.  They say, `Well, you know, we don't like Iran.  You go fight our battles.  You bomb Iran for us.' And they become dependent on us." Who in Israel is saying "Go bomb Iran for us"?
REP. PAUL:  Well, I don't know the individuals, but we know that their leaderships--you read it in the papers on a daily--a daily, you know, about Israel, the government of Israel encourages Americans to go into Iran, and the people--I don't think that's a--I don't think that's top secret that the government of Israel...
MR. RUSSERT:  That the government of Israel wants us to bomb Iran?
REP. PAUL:  I, I don't think there's a doubt about that, that they've encouraged us to do that.  And of course the neoconservatives have been anxious to do that for a long time.
MR. RUSSERT:  Would you cut off all foreign aid to Israel?
REP. PAUL:  Absolutely.  But remember, the Arabs would get cut off, too, and the Arabs get three times as much aid altogether than Israel.  But why, why make Israel so dependent?  Why do we--they give up their sovereignty.  They can't defend their borders without coming to us.  If they want a peace treaty, they have to ask us permission.  They can't--we interfere when the Arab leagues make overtures to them.  So I would say that we've made them second class citizens.  I, I think they would take much better care of themselves. They would have their national sovereignty back, and I think they would be required then to have a stronger economy because they would have to pay their own bills.
MR. RUSSERT:  You talked about September 11th in one of the Republican debates back in May, and this is what you said.
(Videotape) REP. PAUL:  They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free.  They come and they, and they attack us because we're over there. (End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT:  "Because we're over there." And then you added this on Tuesday: "But" al-Qaeda has "determination.  The determination comes from being provoked." How have we, the United States, provoked al-Qaeda?
REP. PAUL:  Well, read what the lead--the ringleader says.  Read what Osama bin Laden said.  We had, we had a base, you know, in Saudi Arabia that was an affront to their religion, that was blasphemy as far as they were concerned. We were bombing Iraq for 10 years, we were--we've interfered in Iran since 1953.  Our CIA's been involved in the overthrow of their governments.  We're bought right now in the process of overthrowing that nation.  We side more with Israel and Pakistan, and, and they get annoyed with this.  How would we react if we were on their land--if they were on our land?  We would be very annoyed, and we'd be fighting mad.
MR. RUSSERT:  So under your doctrine, if we had--did not have troops in the Middle East, they would leave us alone.
REP. PAUL:  Not, not immediately, because they'd have to believe us.  But what would happen is the incentive for Osama bin Laden to recruit suicide terrorists would disappear.  Once we left Lebanon in the early '80s, the French and the Americans and Israelis left Lebanon, suicide terrorism virtually stopped, just like that.  But while we were there, that was suicide terrorism killed our Marines, because we were in Lebanon.  So we have to understand that.  We have to understand how we would react if some country did to us exactly what we do to them, and then we might have a better understanding of their motivation, why somebody would join the al-Qaeda. Since we've been over there al-Qaeda has more members now than they did before 9/11.  They probably had a couple hundred before 9/11.
MR. RUSSERT:  It sounds like you think that the problem is al-Qaeda--the problem is the United States, not al-Qaeda.
REP. PAUL:  No, it's both.  It's both--al-Qaeda becomes the violent.  It's sort of like if you step in a snake pit and you get bit, you know, who caused the trouble? Because you stepped in the snake pit or because snakes bite you? So I think you have to understand both.  But why, why produce the incentive for these violent, vicious thugs to want to come here and kill us.
MR. RUSSERT:  Do you think there's an ideological struggle that Islamic fascists want to take over the world?
REP. PAUL:  Oh, I think some, just like the West is wanting to do that all the time.  Look at the way they look at us.  I mean, we're in a, we're in a 130 countries.  We have 700 bases.  How do you think they proposed that to their people, saying "What does America want to do?  Are they over here to be nice to us and teach us how to be good Democrats?"
MR. RUSSERT:  So you see a moral equivalency between the West and Islamic fascism.
REP. PAUL:  For some people, some radicals on each side that when we impose our will with force by a few number of people--not the American people--I'm talking the people who have hijacked our foreign policy, the people who took George Bush's foreign policy of a humble foreign policy and turned it into one of nation-building which he complained about.
MR. RUSSERT:  The president himself?
REP. PAUL:  The president himself has changed the policy.  You know, I mean, he ran--I liked the program he ran on.  That's what I defend.  And--but all of a sudden--and it didn't change after 9/11, it changed the first meeting of the Cabinet according to Paul O'Neal.  He says immediately it was on the table. When, when were we going to attack Iraq?
MR. RUSSERT:  You mentioned September 11th, a former aide of yours, Eric Dondero said this.  "When September 11th happened, he just completely changed," talking about you.  "One of the first things he said was not how awful the tragedy was, it was, `Now we're going to get big government.'" Was that your reaction?
REP. PAUL:  Well, I'm, I'm surprised somebody like that who's a disgruntled former employee who literally was put out.  But, yes, thought... [Cut off]
MR. RUSSERT:  He said he quit because he disagreed with you.
REP. PAUL:  Yeah, no.  The point is, Randolph Bourne says war is a helpless [the health of the] state**.  I believe that statement.  When you have war, whether it's a war against drugs, war against terrorism, war, war overseas, war--the mentality of the people change and they're more willing to sacrifice their liberties in order to be safe and secure.  So, yes, right after 9/11 my reaction was, you know, it's going to be a lot tougher selling liberty.  But I'm pleasantly surprised that I'm still in the business of selling liberty and the Constitution and there's still a lot of enthusiasm for it.  So all the American people don't agree that we have to have the nanny state and have the government taking care of us.  So I have been encouraged.  I might have been too pessimistic immediately after 9/11 because, in a way, it has caused this reaction and this uprising in this country to say, "Enough is enough.  We don't need more Patriot Acts, we don't need more surveillance of our people. We don't need national ID cards.  We don't need the suspension of habeas corpus.  What we need is more freedom." So in one way I was pessimistic, but in another way, now, I'm more encouraged with the reception I'm getting with this message. **[MSNBC Transcript says the stike out words "a helpless."  They most likely could not follow the complexity of the argument and put in what they thought made sense. Dr. Paul actually said, *war is the health of the state*, it is a well known Randolph Bourne quote, but obviously not to the transcriber.]
MR. RUSSERT:  And you actually go further.  You said this.  "Abolish the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency and dismantle every other agency except the Justice and Defense Departments." And then you went on.  "If elected president, Paul says he would abolish public schools, welfare, Social Security and farm subsidies."
REP. PAUL:  OK, you may have picked that up 20 or 30 years ago, it's not part of my platform.  As a matter of fact, I'm the only one that really has an interim program.  Technically, a lot of those functions aren't constitutional. But the point is I'm not against the FBI investigation in doing a proper role, but I'm against the FBI spying on people like Martin Luther King.  I'm against the CIA fighting secret wars and overthrowing government and interfering... [Cut off]
MR. RUSSERT:  Would you abolish them?
REP. PAUL:  I would, I would not abolish all their functions, but I--the, the, the... [Cut off]
MR. RUSSERT:  What about public schools?  Are you still...
REP. PAUL:  OK, but let's go, let's go with the CIA.  They're, they're involved in, in, in torture.  I would abolish that, yes.  But I wouldn't abolish their right and our, our requirement to accumulate intelligence for national defense purposes.
MR. RUSSERT:  But if you...
REP. PAUL:  That's quite different.
MR. RUSSERT:  But if you eliminate the income tax, you take away half the revenues for the federal government.  What you're left with is the Defense Department, Social Security, Medicare and pensions.  Everything else is gone. So you have to start making choices if you're going to keep...
REP. PAUL:  All right.  We can.  The big one is overseas expenditure.  You have to develop a transition.  You have to start paying down the deficit, balance the budget.  But you have to say I believe the most reasonable place to save is in foreign policy, hundreds of billions of dollars.  Because it gets us into trouble, it ruins our national--our defense is poor now.  Then the Department of Education, who--we elect conservatives to get rid of the Department of Education.  We used to campaign on that.  And what did we do? We doubled the size.  I want to reverse that trend.
MR. RUSSERT:  What about public schools?
REP. PAUL:  That's what I'm trying to... [Cut off]
MR. RUSSERT:  Are you still for...
REP. PAUL:  No, I'm not--I've never, I've never taken the position--is it in my platform?  And...
MR. RUSSERT:  It was--when you ran for president in 1988, you called for the abolition of public schools.
REP. PAUL:  I, I bet that's a misquote.  I, I do not recall that.  I'd like to know where that came from, because I went...
MR. RUSSERT:  And Social Security?  You're OK with Social Security now?
REP. PAUL:  I think we need to get--give--offer the kids the chance to get out.  But right now, if I don't--if we don't save the money, we can't take care of the other.  For instance, Social Security, I never voted to spend one penny of Social Security money.  So I'm the one that has saved it.  Now, if I save the money in this military operation overseas, I say take that money--and, and I say this constantly--don't turn anybody out on the streets. People we have conditioned--yes, technically we shouldn't have them, and it'd be nice to get rid of them, but I would say take care of the people that are dependent on us.  Let them--and the only way you can do that is cut spending. If we don't, they're all going to be out in the street.  Because right now Social Security beneficiaries are getting 2 percent raises, their cost of living is going up 10 percent.  A dollar crisis is going to wipe them all out. That's my point.

[Dig]

MR. RUSSERT:  When I looked at your record, you talked about big government and how opposed you are to it, but you seem to have a different attitude about your own congressional district.  For example, "Congress decided to send billions of dollars to victims of Hurricane Katrina.  Guess how Ron Paul voted.  `Is bailing out people" that choose--"that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?' he asks." And you said no.  And yet, this:  "Paul's current district, which includes Galveston and reaches into" the "Brazoria County, draws a substantial amount of federal flood insurance payments." For your own congressional district.  This is the Houston Chronicle:  "Representative Ron Paul has long crusaded against a big central government.  But he also" "represented a congressional district that's consistently among the top in Texas in its reliance on dollars from Washington.  In the first nine months of the federal government's" fiscal "2006 fiscal year," "it received more than $4 billion." And they report, The Wall Street Journal, 65 earmark-targeted projects, $400 million that you have put into congressional bills for your district, which leads us to the Congressional Quarterly.  "The Earmark Dossier of `Dr. No.' There isn't much that" Ron--Dr. "Ron Paul thinks the federal government should do. Apparently, though, earmarks" for his district "are OK.  Paul is the sponsor of no fewer than 10 earmarks in the water resources bill," all benefiting his district.  The Gulf Intercoastal Waterway:  $32 million.  The sunken ship you want to be moved from Freeport Harbor.  The Bayou Navigation Channel.  They talk about $8 million for shrimp fishermen.
REP. PAUL:  You, you know... [Cut off]
MR. RUSSERT:  Why, why would you load up...
REP. PAUL:  You got it completely wrong.  I've never voted for an earmark in my life.
MR. RUSSERT:  No, but you put them in the bill.
REP. PAUL:  I put it in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back.  But it doesn't cut any spending to vote against an earmark. And the Congress has the responsibility to spend the money.  Why leave the money in the executive branch and let them spend the money?
MR. RUSSERT:  Well, that's like, that's like saying you voted for it before you voted against it. [Tim thinks he can catch the good doctor flip-flopping.  Well Tim, listen to the doctor 20 years ago and see how much his opinions have been swayed.]
REP. PAUL:  Nah!  Come on, Tim.  That has nothing to do with that.
MR. RUSSERT:  If, if, if you put it in the bill and get the headlight back home...
REP. PAUL:  No, I, I make the request.  They're not in the bills.
MR. RUSSERT:  ...and then you, then you know it's going to pass Congress and so you, you don't refuse the money.
REP. PAUL:  Well, no, of course not.  It's like taking a tax credit.  If you have a tax credit, I'm against the taxes but I take all my tax credits.  I want to get...
MR. RUSSERT:  But if you were true... [Tried to cut off]
REP. PAUL:  ...the money back for the people.
MR. RUSSERT:  If you were true to your philosophy, you would say no pork spending in my district.
REP. PAUL:  No, no, that's not it.  They steal our money, that's like saying that people shouldn't take Social Security money. [Tried to cut off]
MR. RUSSERT:  For...
REP. PAUL:  I don't advocate that.
MR. RUSSERT:  All right, let me ask you this... [Tried to cut off]
REP. PAUL:  I'm trying to save the system, make the system work.
MR. RUSSERT:  Let me ask you this... [Tried to cut off]
REP. PAUL:  But no, I think you have it all mixed up.  Now, you're confused.
MR. RUSSERT:  All right.  It's all facts. [Tried to cut off]
REP. PAUL:  You're confused.
MR. RUSSERT:  This is The Wall Street Journal.  You load up the bills with special projects...
REP. PAUL:  I--no, no, no.  No, you don't.
MR. RUSSERT:  You do.  You do.  You deny that you have, you have... [Tried to cut off]
REP. PAUL:  How many of them ever got passed?  But the whole point is, we have a right and an... [Cut off]
MR. RUSSERT:  They pass.  You vote against them, but you take the money.
REP. PAUL:  You don't quite understand. [Russert thought he was with Hillary, Mitt, Huck, or Obama.  Sorry Tim, Paul is a true statesman and your baseless fraudulent accusations just show how much of a Neo-Con pet you really are.]
MR. RUSSERT:  OK. [Russert says OK, do you think he will stop with the distortion of the way the system works? NOT!]
REP. PAUL:  They take our money from us, and the Congress has the authority to appropriate, not the executive branch.  And I'm saying that I represent my people.  They have a request, it's like taking a tax credit, and I put it in--the whole process is corrupt so that I vote against everything.
MR. RUSSERT:  All right, let me ask you this.  But if... [Tried to cut off]
REP. PAUL:  I vote against it, so I don't endorse the system.
MR. RUSSERT:  But when it passes overwhelmingly, you take the money back home.
REP. PAUL:  I don't take it.  That's the system.
MR. RUSSERT:  The system.
REP. PAUL:  I'm trying to change that system.  To turn it around and say I'm supporting this system, I find it...
MR. RUSSERT:  Well.  Well... [Tried to cut off]
REP. PAUL:  ...rather ironic and entertaining. [Again Tim you fail miserabley as you only show how little information actually gets to the public.  Dr. Paul has consistently fought for our rights.You continually try to confuse and distort the facts to cater to your Neo-Con buddies.]
MR. RUSSERT:  Well, when you stop taking earmarks or putting earmarks in the, in the spending bills, then I think you'll be consistent.
Let me ask you about this...
REP. PAUL:  Turn--you... [Cut off]
MR. RUSSERT:  Let me ask this.  Term limits.  You ran on term limits.  "I think we should have term limits for our elected leaders." You've been in Congress 18 years. [In actuality, Paul self-imposed a term limit and went back to private practice.  He then saw how the country was still falling short of the dreams of the founding fathers; that is when he got back in.  Ron Paul is too modest to say such things but we will.  You can find out more of this information from this 18 year old 45 minute interview with Dr. Ron Paul where you will find amazing consistency.]
REP. PAUL:  But I never ran on voluntary term limits.  There's a big difference.  I didn't sign a pledge for a voluntary term limit.  Matter of fact, some of the best people that I worked with, who were the most principled, came in on voluntary term limits.  Some of them broke their promises, and some didn't, and they were very good people.  So some of the good people left.  And it's true, I, I didn't run on that, Tim, you're wrong on that.  I support term limits.  You know, I, I, and I voted all--we had 16 votes one time on term limits, and I voted yes for them.
MR. RUSSERT:  Yeah.
REP. PAUL:  But voluntary term limits is a lot different than compulsory term limits.  It's good to have a turnover, but that isn't the solution either. It's the philosophy of government that counts.  It's only...
MR. RUSSERT:  But if you believe in the philosophy of term limits, why wouldn't you voluntarily... [Tim runs out of steam, now he wants Dr. Paul to stop serving his people because Tim's buddies abuse the system.  What a complete shill.  It is amazing how little stuff they actually have on the good Doctor.  Everything is either a misquote from 20 years ago or an attempt to confuse the viewers about how the system works.]
REP. PAUL:  Well, it's, it's one of those, it's one of those things that's not on--I mean, you don't see that out I'm campaigning on that.  I mean, I don't think it's--I don't think it's the solution.  Philosophy is the solution.  What the role of government ought to be, so if you have a turnover and the same people come in and they believe in big government, nothing good is going to come of it.
MR. RUSSERT:  Let me ask you about immigration because that's a big issue here, and there has been a profound change.  Back when you ran for president, 1988, libertarian, you said, "As in our country's first 150 years, there shouldn't be any immigration policy at all.  We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work." You've changed your view.
REP. PAUL:  And, and during that campaign, I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently.  And I think, in one sense, with the welfare state out of control--see, my approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others.  Mine is you deal with it economically. We're in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration.  We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty.  So you subsidize it, and you have a mess.  Our hospitals are being closed. Conditions have changed.  And I think that we should have--and, and 9/11 has occurred.  Why shouldn't we be looking at people coming in?  So there's--this, this means that we should look at immigration differently.  It's an economic issue more than anything.  If our economy was in good health, I--believe me, I don't think there'd be an immigration problem.  We'd be looking for workers and we would be very generous.
MR. RUSSERT:  You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.
REP. PAUL:  Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional.  What's a--what's the contradiction there?
MR. RUSSERT:  So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
REP. PAUL:  Well, that's constitutional, to do it.  Besides, it was the 14th Amendment.  It wasn't in the original Constitution.  And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation.  In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government.  And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.
MR. RUSSERT:  Let me ask you about drugs and go back again to your '90--'88 campaign and see where you stand today.  "All drugs should be decriminalized. Drugs should be distributed by any adult to other adults.  There should be no controls on production, supply or purchase for adults." Is that still your position?
REP. PAUL:  Yeah.  It's sort of like alcohol.  Alcohol's a deadly drug, kills more people than anything else.  And today the absurdity on this war on drugs, Tim, has just been horrible.  We now, the federal government, takes over and rules--overrules state laws where state laws permit medicinal marijuana for people dying of cancer.  The federal government goes in and arrests these people, put them in prison with mandatory, sometimes life sentences.  This war on drugs is totally out of control.  If you want to regulate cigarettes and alcohol and drugs, it should be at the state level.  That's been my position, and that's where I stand on it.  But the federal government has no, no prerogatives on this.  They--when they wanted to outlaw alcohol, they had enough respect for the Constitution to amend the Constitution.  Today we have all these laws and abuse, and they don't even care about the Constitution. I'm defending the Constitution on this issue.  I think drugs are horrible.  I teach my kids not to use them, my grandchildren, in my medical practice. Prescription drugs are a greater danger than, than hard drugs.
MR. RUSSERT:  But you would decriminalize it?
REP. PAUL:  I, I, I would, at the federal level.  I don't have control over the states.  And that's what the Constitution's there.
MR. RUSSERT:  Let me ask you about race, because I, I read a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act.  And you said this: "Contrary to the claims of" "supporters of the Civil Rights Act of" '64, "the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom.  Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of" '64 "increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.
REP. PAUL:  Well, we should do, we should do this at a federal level, at a federal lunch counter it'd be OK or for the military.  Just think of how the government, you know, caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II.  But when it comes, Tim, you're, you're, you're not compelled in your house to invade strangers that you don't like.  So it's a property rights issue.  And this idea that all private property is under the domain of the federal government I think is wrong.  So this--I think even Barry Goldwater opposed that bill on the same property rights position, and that--and now this thing is totally out of control.  If you happen to like to smoke a cigar, you know, the federal government's going to come down and say you're not allowed to do this. [You know who else was against the Civil Rights Act?  Malcolm X.  Malcolm X said there is no reason to make new laws when we live in a racist society to begin with.  The laws will end up preventing true maturity to the issues of racial injustice becasue they artificially influence the natural process of inter-racial growth.  By artificially influencing it, the government also becomes the owner of what is and what is not acceptable.  This is where everyone becomes slaves again because free will is no longer deciding the results. You know what, Malcolm X and Barry Goldwater have proved to be right and the "Dixicrats," (that is what X called them) were proved to be cunning thieves.]
MR. RUSSERT:  But you would vote against... [Cut off]
REP. PAUL:  So it's...

[Dig]

MR. RUSSERT:  You would vote against the Civil Rights Act if, if it was today? [Cut off]
REP. PAUL:  If it were written the same way, where the federal government's taken over property--has nothing to do with race relations.  It just happens, Tim, that I get more support from black people today than any other Republican candidate, according to some statistics.  And I have a great appeal to people who care about personal liberties and to those individuals who would like to get us out of wars.  So it has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.
MR. RUSSERT:  I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln.  "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."
REP. PAUL:  Absolutely.  Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war.  No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war.  He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic.  I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist.. [Cut off]
MR. RUSSERT:  We'd still have slavery. [Tim knows this is a total lie.  Russert tries to insinuate that Paul and African Americans do not see eye to eye as American Citizens.  How come Tim does not mention that Dr. Paul gets the most donations from African Americans or that Dr. Paul went to Tavis Smiley's Debate when Romney, Giuliani, McCain opted out?]
REP. PAUL:  Oh, come on, Tim.  Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world.  And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did.  You, you buy the slaves and release them.  How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years?  I mean, the hatred and all that existed.  So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war.  I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me.  That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.
MR. RUSSERT:  You're running as a Republican.  In your--on your Web site, in your brochures, you make this claim:  "Principled Leadership.  Ron was also one of only four Republican Congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president against Gerald Ford in" '76.  There's a photograph of you, Ronald Reagan on the right, heralding your support of Ronald Reagan.  And yet you divorced yourself from Ronald Reagan.  You said this:  "Although he was once an ardent supporter of President Reagan, Paul now speaks of him as a traitor leading the country into debt and conflicts around the world.  "I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration." And you go on to The Dallas Morning News:  "Paul now calls Reagan a `dramatic failure.'" [All of these quotes do not exist in reality.  They only exist in Tim's bubble.  They actually do not even make any sense.  Russert, what the hell are you doing? I mean this is downright evil.]
REP. PAUL:  Well, I'll bet you any money I didn't use the word traitor.  I'll bet you that's somebody else, so I think that's misleading.  But a failure, yes, in, in many ways.  The government didn't shrink.  Ultimately, after he got in office, he said, "All I want to do is reduce the rate of increase in size of government." That's not my goal.  My goal is to reduce our government to a constitutional size.  Completely different.  I think that--matter of fact, he admitted in his memoirs that he had a total failure in Lebanon, and he said he relearned the Middle East because of that failure.  And so there--he--you know, he... [Cut off]
MR. RUSSERT:  But if he's a total failure, why are you using, using his picture in your brochure?
REP. PAUL:  Well, because he, he ran on a good program, and his, his idea was a limited government.  Get rid of the Department of Education, a strong national defense.
MR. RUSSERT:  George Herbert Walker Bush, this is according to Ron Paul: "`Bush is a bum,' Paul wrote in" "November" 15th, "1992 issue of his newsletter, the `Ron Paul Political Report.'" And asked about the current President Bush, whether he voted for him in 2004:  "Paul says no:  `He misled us in 2000.'" Asked if he voted for Bush in 2000.  No, "`I didn't vote for him then, either.  I wasn't convinced he was a conservative.'" And actually, in 1987, you submitted a letter of resignation to the Republican Party:  "I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card." If Reagan's a failure, Bush 41 is a bum, and you didn't vote for Bush 41--41's a bum and 43 you didn't vote for, and you resigned from the Republican Party, why you running as a Republican candidate for president?
REP. PAUL:  Because I represent what Republicanism used to be.  I represent the group that wanted to get rid of the Department of Education, the part, that part of the Republican Party that used to be non-interventionists overseas.  That was the tradition, the Robert/Taft wing of the party.  There was a time when the Republicans defended individual liberty and the Constitution and decreased spending.  So the radicals, the ones who really don't belong in the Republican Party and why the Republican Party is shrinking, why the base is so small, is because they don't stand for these ideals any more.  So I stand for the ideals of the Republican Party.  I've been elected 10 times as Republican.  I've been a Republican all my life except for that one year that I ran as a Libertarian.  But, no, I represent the Republican ideals, I think, much more so that the individuals running for the party right now.
MR. RUSSERT:  If, if you do not win the Republican nomination for president, will you run as an independent in 2008?
REP. PAUL:  I have no intention to do that.
MR. RUSSERT:  Absolute promise.
REP. PAUL:  I have no intention of doing that.
MR. RUSSERT:  Well, but no intention's a wiggle word.
REP. PAUL:  Well, OK, I deserve one wiggle now and then, Tim.  I mean, what the devil... [Cut off]
MR. RUSSERT:  So no--so no Shermanesque statement.
REP. PAUL:  You know, I... [Cut off]
MR. RUSSERT:  "I will not run as an independent."
REP. PAUL:  Well, I can be pretty darned sure that I have no intention, no plans of doing it, and that's about 99.9 percent.  I don't like people who are such absolutists, "I will never do this, or I will win, I'm going to come in first." I don't like those absolutists terms in politics.
MR. RUSSERT:  But the door's open a little bit.
REP. PAUL:  Not very much.  It really isn't.  I, I don't--Tim, we just raised $10 million in two days.  We haven't even had a race, we have February 5th coming up.  We have a campaign to run.  Why--do you ask all the other--how many other candidates have you asked, "Are you going to run as a third party candidate if you don't win?" Have you asked John McCain that?
MR. RUSSERT:  Well, if someone has a history of running as a third party candidate, sure.  You ran in '88 as a Libertarian.
REP. PAUL:  Yeah, well, I know... [Cut off]
MR. RUSSERT:  It's a logical question.
REP. PAUL:  ...but there are independents.  So I--ask them, too.
MR. RUSSERT:  I will.
Before you go, Mike Huckabee, Republican candidate for president, ran this commercial for Christmas and many thought that the shelf in the back looked like a cross.  You were asked about it on CNN and this is what you said.
REP. PAUL:  It reminds me of what Sinclair Lewis once says.  He said when fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.
MR. RUSSERT:  What does that mean?
REP. PAUL:  What?  Fascism or the definition of fascism? [Cut off]
MR. RUSSERT:  Do you believe that Mike Huckabee is...
REP. PAUL:  Oh, I didn't say that.  I said it reminded me--as a matter of fact they caught me completely cold on that.  I had not seen the ad, and they just said there was a cross there.  And, you know, it was an instantaneous reflex because I knew of Sinclair Lewis about being cautious, because, you know, I--what prompts this is things like the Patriot Act.  You know... [Attempted to cut off]
MR. RUSSERT:  Let me go back...
REP. PAUL:  No, no.  If you're not a patriot... [Cut off]
MR. RUSSERT:  But let me go back to this ad.  You do not believe that Mike Huckabee, that ad commercial represents the potential of fascism in the form of a cross.
REP. PAUL:  No.  But I think this country, a movement in the last 100 years, is moving toward fascism.  Fascism today, the softer term, because people have different definition of fascism, is corporatism when the military industrial complex runs the show, when the--in the name of security pay--pass the Patriot Act.  You don't vote for it, you know, you're not patriotic America.  If you don't support the troops and you don't support--if you don't support the war you don't support the troops.  It's that kind of antagonism.  But we have more corporatism and more abuse of our civil liberties, more loss of our privacy, national ID cards, all this stuff coming has a fascist tone to it.  And the country's moving in that direction.  That's what I'm thinking about.  This was not personalized.  I never even used my opponents names if you, if you notice.
MR. RUSSERT:  So you think we're close to fascism?
REP. PAUL:  I think we're approaching it very close.  One--there's one, there's one documentary that's been put out recently that has generated a lot of interest called

"Freedom to Fascism." [Yeah baby!!!!!!!!!!!!]

And we're moving in that direction. Were not moving toward Hitler-type fascism, but we're moving toward a softer fascism.  Loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business.  So you have the military industrial complex, you have the medical industrial complex, you have the financial industry, you have the communications industry.  They go to Washington and spend hundreds of millions of dollars.  That's where the control is.  I call that a soft form of fascism, something that is very dangerous.
MR. RUSSERT:  For the record, the Sinclair Lewis Society said that Mr. Lewis never uttered that quote.
REP. PAUL:  But others refuted that and put them down and said that--and they found the exact quote where it came from. [I believe it was a comment/letter in response to concerns about his short story called "It Can't Happen Here" (1935).  I am still looking for the quote but in the meantime, it is every American's responsibility to read this entire short story.  We need to fully understand how close we have been to fascism over the past 70 years. In addition, Dr. Ron Paul wrote an essay about those words and how relevant they are today.]
MR. RUSSERT:  To be continued.  Dr. Ron Paul, be safe on the campaign trail. Thanks for sharing your views. [Be safe from what, what is this some kind of Neo-Con psyop?]
REP. PAUL:  Thank you.  Nice to be here.

[Dig]

Russert either Cut off or tried to cut off Dr. Ron Paul on 20 seperate occassions.

Tim Russert gets today's award for...

NEO-CON SHILL OF THE WEEK!

You will see hundreds of spin articles, make sure you have the facts.

Here are the other candidates' transcripts :
[NOTE: all members of the CFR.  Ron Paul is the only non-member of the CFR that Russert was forced to interview.]

• Dec. 16: Mitt Romney (R) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924/print/1/displaymode/1098/
• Dec. 9: Rudy Giuliani (R) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22170668/print/1/displaymode/1098/
• Nov. 11: Barack Obama (D) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738432/print/1/displaymode/1098/
• Nov. 4: Fred Thompson (R) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21623208/print/1/displaymode/1098/
• Oct. 28: Chris Dodd (D) [Still trying to find it]
• Sept. 23: Hillary Clinton (D) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20941413/print/1/displaymode/1098/ [This interview was a complete joke, it was only 1/4 as long and they are pitched questions with Billary having all day to answer.  There were only 16 times that Tim spoke including that farewell.  He spoke 85 seperate times when interviewing RP.  You have got to see the differences in the transcripts.]
• May 27: Bill Richardson (D) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18818527/print/1/displaymode/1098/
• May 13: John McCain (R) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18573163/print/1/displaymode/1098/
• April 29: Joe Biden (D) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18381961/print/1/displaymode/1098/
• Feb. 4: John Edwards (D) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/print/1/displaymode/1098/
• Jan. 28: Mike Huckabee (R) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16785556/print/1/displaymode/1098/

[Dig]

Mitt Romney (R) LAST LINE: MR. RUSSERT:   Thanks, governor.
Rudy Giuliani (R) LAST LINE: MR. RUSSERT:   I won’t show you the pictures from the Inner Circle dinner with the wig on. Mayor Rudy Giuliani, we’re out of time.  Be safe on the campaign trail. [Is this when he had a supposed hit on him?  Actually it was only two weeks ago, interesting.]
Barack Obama (D) LAST LINE: MR. RUSSERT:   We will be watching.  We thank you for joining us and sharing your views.
Fred Thompson (R) LAST LINE: MR. RUSSERT: We hope you’ll come back and talk about some more issues in the future.
Chris Dodd (D) [Still trying to find it]
Hillary Clinton (D) LAST LINE: MR. RUSSERT:   Senator Hillary Clinton, thank you very much for sharing your views.
Bill Richardson (D) LAST LINE: MR. RUSSERT:     Governor Bill Richardson, we thank you for joining us and sharing your views for the full hour.
John McCain (R) LAST LINE: MR. RUSSERT:   Thank you for sharing your views.
Joe Biden (D) LAST LINE: MR. RUSSERT:   Senator Joe Biden, we thank you for joining us...for this in depth interview.
John Edwards (D) LAST LINE: MR. RUSSERT:   Senator John Edwards, we thank you very much for coming on here and sharing your views.
Mike Huckabee (R) LAST LINE: MR. RUSSERT: Governor Mike Huckabee, he’s announced for president. Thank you for sharing your views, and we’ll be following your campaign.

[rick reuben]

Great breakdown, thanks.