The Rise of Ron Paul

Show: Rachel Maddow Show
Channel: MSNBC
Date: 5/5/2009


Rachel Maddow: What we’re seeing right now is a Republican party that is fragmented, and probably still fragmenting and it will probably be that way for a while. This is early days in their rebuilding. But one of the people who is seeing his stature rise in this somewhat chaotic power vacuum is a man who was essentially disowned by his party during this past election cycle: Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, who ran for President this past year. After being excluded from some of the Republican primary debates, Ron Paul held his own Ron Paul Convention at the same time as the Republican national convention which drew ten thousand supporters in Minneapolis. It was not an adjunct event for the Republican convention, it was a competing event.

The first sign that Congressman Paul might be brought back into the fold may have been the Republican embrace of the tax day tea parties last month. Tax day protests in the theme of a tea party are very much associated with Ron Paul supporters, some of whom who were slightly miffed to see that message being co-opted by national Republican figures.

And now, Dr. Paul himself seems to be getting more attention on the Hill personally, and in terms of policy. Consider his recent bill to audit the Federal Reserve. It’s called the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009. It now has 124 co-sponsors in Congress, and counting. By comparison, the Washington Independent notes today that Dr. Paul’s Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act just two years ago attracted a grand total of zero co-sponsors. What a difference political exile makes.

Joining us now is the man himself, Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, Dr. Paul, thank you so much for coming on the show tonight, it’s a real pleasure to have you here.

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

Rachel Maddow: First of all I should admit that my introductory remarks were not the most flattering portrait of your party, so I want to give you a chance to say what you think of the Republican Party’s fortunes right now. Do you think this is a rebuilding time?

Ron Paul: Well, something has to be done if they want to stay in existence. I don’t think they can continue to do what they’ve been doing. You know, they sort of didn’t accept what I was talking about during the campaign. I talked about and defended… I never voted for an unbalanced budget, never raised taxes.

But you know, I had this other silly idea that you shouldn’t fight wars unless the Congress declared them, and I had all this notion that you shouldn’t print money when you need it. And these ideas struck a chord with a lot of people, but so far not a whole lot in the leadership have come to me and said, “Lead the charge”. But hopefully some of these ideas will stick because all I know is that the campuses are very attuned to this and will listen and I can still get a large number of young people to listen to a different type of Republican party where they deal with civil liberties and they deal with a foreign policy that used to not be that strange to the Republicans. You know, where we had a strong national defense but we didn’t go warmongering. And it used to be the Democrats that always did that, but now it looks like both parties endorse these things.

If you truly want to be interested in protection of civil liberties, if you want a foreign policy built on common sense and not telling people what to do and bombing them if they don’t do what we want, and having come up with some common sense and say, “We just can’t print money when you need it”. All of a sudden these things do make a lot of sense. Whether they’re Republican or Democrat, I think there is a revolution going on in ideas. But a true revolution has to be pervasive enough to infiltrate into both political parties. And I feel very proud to have at least about 14 Democrats who are on that bill dealing with the Federal Reserve, and I think I’m going to get a lot more.

Rachel Maddow: Dr. Paul, in asking you about the Republican Party you are pointedly using the word “they” to talk about them, that’s not an accident. Do you think about… you obviously have been a part of the Libertarian movement in this country, you’ve run as a Libertarian for public office before. Do you think now about the prospect, the likelihood that a third party really could be having its moment right now. Something like only 20% of the people identify themselves as Republicans, the party does seem to be in chaos. Is this a time for even the Libertarian party or some other party to break off from the Republicans?

Ron Paul: Well, I think politically speaking in terms of the need for one, yes it exists. But the bias is so much against it, there is no competition. You know, we go and die overseas claiming we’re spreading democracy, but you know, if you come to the conclusion which I have and many others have in this country that you elect Republicans to balance the budget and it doesn’t happen. You elect Democrats to change foreign policy and it doesn’t happen. We only have one party and they write all the rules. So it’s very hard to get on the ballots, you spend most of your money trying to get on the ballots and do you think anybody would have noticed me last year if I had been running third party? No, I had to do it within a larger structure. But even though I used the word “they” I have been elected all these times as a Republican and I was out of the party for one year.

But nevertheless, it is very difficult, it’s not going to happen unless the laws get changed and unfortunately we don’t have a very good democratic process here in this country because of that.

Rachel Maddow: Dr. Paul, I want to ask you about one figure specifically who was trying to be part of the Republican rebuilding, rebranding effort right now, and that’s Newt Gingrich. And he is somebody who has actively worked against you in the past, he’s supported a challenge to you in your district in Texas. If he makes a bid to replace Michael Steele or even if he makes a bid to run for President, to run for the Republican nomination, would you support him? Do you two see eye to eye these days?

Ron Paul: No, not really. His policies are very much opposite of mine. I mean, he is very much of an internationalist when it comes to foreign policy. He believes in a lot of that, he’s never had an interest in monetary policy and I remember early in his career he took a more sensible approach about, you know, allowing medicinal use of marijuana and letting the states make these decisions. But now his attitude is not that way.

And these are the kind of issues that young people are interested in, and that’s why the Republican Party can’t reach the college kids with the current status quo of the party. They need to change their attitude about personal liberties. They talk about personal freedoms, but they have to believe in it, you know. And if they talk about not policing the world and no nation building, you just can’t get in office and do exactly the opposite.

But no, Newt and I are friendly, we talk to each other and I’d be pleased to debate him on foreign policy or something. But no, he wouldn’t be my candidate for the Presidency. It would more of the same. He’s had his chance and you know, there was no Republican revolution from 1994 on. There wasn’t any after the year 2000, so that is the shame. The Republicans have good rhetoric about limiting government. Nothing happened, and that’s how they lost their credibility.

But now they say, “Well, we didn’t act like Democrats enough, so we have to be like Democrats”. The Democrats get in and say, “We got to please the right wing of the Republican party”. So they start acting like Republicans. So I would say they ought to live up to their true beliefs, just believe in freedom and believe in the Constitution. Believe me, this country would be a lot better off if we just dealt with it in a simple fashion as that. Believe in freedom, that’s what built this country. We don’t have to decide which country to invade next. I mean, that’s preposterous, or which new welfare programs that we have to have. But, I just don’t think that either party right now offers a whole lot to the American people who want to see some really serious changes.

Rachel Maddow: Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, who more than any other sitting Republican politician right now has galvanized and inspired a broad based movement of young people. Congratulations on your success, sir, and thanks for your time tonight.

Ron Paul: Thank you very much.

  • Pingback: luxury nyc hotels()

  • Pingback: writer()

  • Pingback: Memory Foam Mattress Reviews()

  • Pingback: Wedding Decorations()

  • Pingback: kayak trolling motor()

  • Pingback: Offshore Fishing Boats()

  • Pingback: Desktop Computer()

  • Pingback: Potato And Leek Soup()

  • Pingback: Final Countdown()

  • Pingback: rewfarasfvmsdr()

  • longshotlouie

    To those that still believe in an unabridged Second Ammendment:
    Please help stop HR45, and tell everyone you know.

    The first anti-gun bill of the 111th Congress -– Chicago Congressman Bobby Rush’s H.R. 45 –- has caught the attention of many in the Second Amendment community as something we need to be worried about.

    This is because of the extremity of the bill:

    * H.R. 45 would require a federal license for all handguns and semiautomatics, including those you currently possess; and

    * It would require handgun and semi-auto owners to be thumbprinted at the police station and to sign a certificate that, effectively, the firearm will not be kept in a place where it would be available for the defense of the gun owner’s family.

    Make no mistake about it: Licensing is only a way-station to discouraging, arresting, or humiliating gun owners and outlawing guns. Under H.R. 45, for example, the applicant must also make available ALL of his psychiatric records, pass an exam, and pay a fee.

    So… are you a veteran who has ever consulted a psychologist or psychiatrist? Guess what? The FBI would soon be examining every confidential statement you have ever made during those consultations.

    Private sales of handguns and semi-autos would be outlawed, and reports to the attorney general of all transactions would be required, even when — as the bill allows — the AG determines that a state licensing system is sufficiently draconian to substitute for the federal license.

    But, you may be thinking, “I’m just a hunter with a deer rifle… surely, none of this is relevant to me”?

    Then you should know that, with virtually no exceptions, ALL firearms transactions (including person-to-person private sales of long guns, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc.) would be subject to the same paperwork hassles that are required when buying from a dealer.

    In addition, the bill would make it unlawful in virtually all cases to keep any loaded firearm for self-defense. A variety of “crimes by omission” (such as failure to report certain things to the government) would be created.

    Criminal penalties of up to ten years and virtually unlimited regulatory and inspection authority would be established.

    Combined with the Ammunition Accountability effort to outlaw ammunition in numerous states, this two-pronged attack would soon make gun ownership a thing of the past.

  • Oscar_DeGrouch

    With this kind of momentum building a mere 4 months after a new presidential administration, imagine how much it could snowball for the 2010 and 2012 elections!!!

    Great things are ahead.


  • you know what it is people and how its going to play out. scenario 1: after 50% of the population realizes ron paul is the best man for presidency next election, since you have followers and leaders in the world and its inevitable, the leading half will have to fight day in a day out to save the country they love until that threshold is hit when the followers will follow along. then you have everyone on the same side and understand they have the power to live the lifestyle they so choose. scenario 2: the government incrementally passes bills under the nose of the people, takes stimulus packages that will “help” the people, and basically turns paid slavery into plain old slavery. as you can see today, the government only needs a suspicion to take you in, so the time is ticking people and we need to either slow time or start recruiting people to study this and to wake people up.
    i get motivation when somone jus suddenly snaps out of it lol there just like ahhhhh i get it. thats the motivation we need and eventually the momentum will start gaining more speed… i honestly dont tihnk were going at a fast enoguh rate, and the gov is trying to take action to slow us down like the other day censoring the alex jones youtube channel, i mean theres a hell of alot worse channels on youtube then his… pc thx uncle paul!

  • San Antonio Steve

    During the last election my 20 yr old, political scientist son, tried to convince me that Ron Paul was the only one who spoke the truth and wasn’t content to “sell” himself as a unique Republican “brand.” He is, and always has been, his own man. I was so blinded by Socialist Bold and Socialist Mild that I failed to see that my son, 34 years younger than me, was actually much wiser than I. Ron Paul is one of a handful of the people’s representatives who has the courage to be straight with us–the People. I highly recommend his book “The Revolution–A Manifesto”. It will truly open your eyes.

    “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” –Ron Paul

  • Matt

    I have always been a Democrat, and have hated politics for the sheer corruption my whole life. But Ron Paul is always straight to the point, and very smart about his choices. He needs to start his own party, and call it The COMMON SENSE party, because he is the only politician I have seen with common sense. And conservatives and liberals alike young and old wouldn’t mind a little COMMON SENSE, as that is what is lacking in the world. Everyone is in everyone elses pockets, and things get passed for the wrong reasons due to rich lobbyists. What he needs is more MEDIA, as he tends to not get nearly enough, since they are owned by the same people paying lobbyists to keep him out of the mainstream, which is also why his grassroots action is working.

  • Art

    I for one am glad the great Dr. Paul is getting more time on the air. He continues to have me on his side.

    Limited government and non-interventionist foreign policy may be yet to come. Let freedom ring!

  • Mike

    I’ve heard Ron’s name now mentioned a few times on Fox and he is starting to really gain momentum. Congressmen are listening to him and there is nothing that the old GOP leaders can do about it. Ron will have the people on his side.

  • longshotlouie

    The embers of that freedom fire still burn.