Related: Former Head of CIA’s Bin Laden Unit Endorses Ron Paul

Transcript

Ron Paul: I hope you come out on January 3rd. But there’s no reason to be despondent about how this country is going right now, if we do the right thing. And I believe that most people in this country know what the right thing to do is. The country has to live within its means, and therefore, I propose, in the first year, to cut federal government spending by 1 trillion dollars.

Gregg Jarrett: Well, that was Ron Paul on the campaign trail in Iowa yesterday. Polls are showing he’s popular there, but the Texas Congressman is responding to harsh words from his rivals, Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann and others saying Paul will not be the nominee. Newt Gingrich says he wouldn’t even vote for him. Dough Wead is the senior advisor to Ron Paul, he’s been with him in Iowa but happens to be in DC today.

Doug, thanks for being with us. Congressman Paul is being criticized by his rivals and others for, among other things, claiming that America is to blame for 9/11, condemning the killings of Bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki and blaming the U.S. for provoking Iran’s nuclear program. Aren’t those foreign policy views of Mr. Paul contrary to what most Americans think?

Doug Wead: I think they would be if those were truly his sentiments, but a lot of what he says and believes is misrepresented. He believes strongly in the constitution, and that if we want to go to war, let’s go to war. He voted in favor of going after Osama Bin Laden and he supported Israel in 1981 almost alone.

Gregg Jarrett: He opposed the assassination, though.

Doug Wead: He opposed the way the assassination was conducted, he felt it should have been done immediately when we went in.

Gregg Jarrett: Didn’t he say America was to blame for 9/11 because we had troops in Saudi Arabia?

Doug Wead: No, he hasn’t said that, he said that that is the reason that is what many Islamic fundamentalist believe.

Gregg Jarrett: That’s what motivated them, he said.

Doug Wead: Yes, he believes that they believe that. And many observers including our own defense department, Wolfowitz and others say that.

Gregg Jarrett: Most Americans don’t buy that.

Doug Wead: They may not, Ron Paul is incorruptible, he’s honest, he’s a good example of our foreign policy now. As just in the last few weeks we have troops on the ground, boots on the ground in Australia for purposes of defending us against China. So we borrow money from China, to have American troops in Australia to defend us against China. He believes we need a little more sanity.

Doug Wead: That does seem to resonate with a lot of folks, just anecdotally based on all the emails we get. Here’s what Congressman Paul’s rivals, though, are saying. I want to quote them, we’ll put it up on the screen. “Ron Paul’s views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American”, that’s Newt Gingrich.
“Ron Paul is to the left of Barack Obama on national security. He’s even on the left of Dennis Kucinich. Don’t Laugh”, that was rick Santorum.
“Ron Paul would be dangerous as President”, that’s Michele Bachmann.
Your response to that, Doug?

Doug Wead: There’s nothing dangerous about the U.S. constitution. If blocking the Strait of Hormuz or some other action by Iran was deemed as an act of war, or we decided we needed to react, as a President, he would take it to the U.S. Congress, we would decide, declare a war, we’d win it and then we’d get out. That’s what he believes, and the U.S. constitution is not dangerous. It’s dangerous to take these risks of avoiding.

Gregg Jarrett: I’m trying to run through a bunch of subjects here, I want to put his economic ideas up on the screen. We heard one of them in the introduction: cutting 1 trillion dollars of spending in the first year alone, terminate 5 cabinet agencies, lower the corporate tax rate to 15%, eliminate capital gains taxes, “narrow” the new healthcare law, repeal Sarbanes-Oxley, the corporate financial reporting.

Look, Doug, Rick Santorum took a look at that and he said, “You know what, Ron Paul couldn’t get Congress to cut or eliminate anything since he’s only passed one bill in 20 years in Congress”. I double checked that with a library of Congress, Ron Paul sponsored 620 bills, he passed 1, and it was fairly insignificant. Doesn’t Congressman Paul have a history of failure when it comes to getting his proposals passed?

Doug Wead: You know, the greatest contribution he’s made, which he doesn’t get a lot of credit for because he doesn’t put his name on everything, was pulling back the curtain on the Federal Reserve. 4 years ago, Greg, 74% of this country didn’t even know what the Federal Reserve is. Today, 78% of the nation wants it audited. Obama, Romney, would audit a waitress to make sure she pays taxes on her tip money, but won’t audit the Federal Reserve. But thanks to Ron Paul, we got a partial audit, it showed in 2008 that 16 trillion dollars (the national debt was 14 trillion dollars) was loaned out in interest-free money to major banks in this country. We’ve always had corruption in Washington, but people are really angry because the corruption has reached a level that they’re losing the value of their homes, the value of their IRAs, and Ron Paul is the only person with the guts to take this on.

Gregg Jarrett: Dough, let me squeeze one more in about the polls, and we don’t sneeze to the fact that he has a strong organization in Iowa. As we said in the introduction, he’s very popular, the polls demonstrate that. He’s at or near to the top, but there’s a different poll I want to ask you about, it’s a recent Washington Post poll. Of the 25% of voters who view him favorably, nearly 2/3rds do not identify themselves as Republicans. And among conservatives, only 8% view him favorably. Dough, how do you win the GOP nomination with numbers like that?

Doug Wead: Well, I’ll give you some more numbers from that very same poll, and from the recent poll last night that was released by NBC. They show the perception is that Ron Paul can’t win a general election, they show in the NBC poll 8% of registered Republicans don’t think he can win. The ABC poll which shows that 9% think he can’t win. But the same poll asked them to choose between Barack Obama and Ron Paul, and Ron Paul did better than Newt Gingrich and was with a statistical tie with Mitt Romney. So we have a candidate who can win, and the best evidence of that, Greg, is you don’t see any Democrat pundits on TV puffing Ron Paul, because they know he can win.

Gregg Jarrett: Alright, and as we mentioned, he can win in Iowa, he’s very strong there, and he’s some pretty strong in some other states as well. You’re a very eloquent spokesperson, so, Dough Wead, thanks for being with us. We appreciate it.

Doug Wead: Thank you, Greg.

—

This is a rush transcript. If you notice any errors please report them using the “Help improve this post” link at the bottom of this post.

Transcript

Megyn Kelly: Well, there is a new leader of the Republican pack in Iowa, folks, as we count down to the caucuses. A week from yesterday, Ron Paul maintains a first place position against his rivals in the Hawkeye State ahead of next Tuesday’s contest. With all the last minute jockeying for votes, Congressman Paul, leads the Nominee Preference Public Policy Poll with 24%; Mitt Romney is in second with 20%; Newt Gingrich is now third at 13%.

Doug Wead is senior advisor to the presidential candidate, Ron Paul, and he is with me now. Doug, welcome to the program, it’s great to have you.

Doug Wead: Thanks, Megyn.

Megyn Kelly: Alright, so this has come as good news to you, but now you’ve got all these folks – as Ron Paul continues to be first in a lot of polls, And I think under the RealClearPolitics average he’s up there as well – suggesting he could win Iowa, and it’s not going to go any further than that. And to those folks you say what?

Doug Wead: Well, winning Iowa is a big deal. The last two presidents of the United States, Barack Obama and George W. Bush, won Iowa and lost New Hampshire and went on to win the nomination and then the presidency. So if your template works in Iowa; if your advertising your coalitions, your ground game, your message resonates in Iowa, it’s a good example of how it will resonate in other places, of course, tweaked for regions. So it’s a good sign, it’s not a bad sign.

Megyn Kelly: But what’s the plan to parlay a victory, or even a second place or a third place finish in Iowa? How do you parley that into success in later states where Congressman Paul may not be polling as well?

Doug Wead: With the same template. The people of Iowa have focused on this race, the people in California that are voting in the national poll of Gallup or Rasmussen, aren’t focused on who they’re actually going to vote for. Last night, we had a very well dressed business women come to us for caucus practices in Iowa, and someone pulled her aside and asked, “Why are you supporting Ron Paul?” She said, “He’s the purest protest I can make against the corruption in Washington DC. Ron Paul has kind of pulled the curtain back on that. There’s always been corruption, but the scale of corruption in Washington DC is now so bad, he’s the purest vote. He’s always voted against tax increases, unbalanced budgets, he gave back a $100,000 of his own congressional allowance. If you want a pure protest vote, it is Ron Paul”. And we think when the people of New Hampshire, as the polls are already beginning to show there, and the people in South Carolina, focus and make their decision, we’re going to do very well. When they see our commercials, we’re going to do very well.

Megyn Kelly: Yea, I was in Iowa for the debate on December 15, and I can say, you guys have certainly peppered the airwaves with ads against Gingrich and Romney and others. I want to ask you about the news today that Gary Johnson, who had been a Republican candidate for president, is now going to run on a Libertarian ticket. That’s you guys thing: libertarian ideals, although Gary Johnson shares them as well. Ron Paul has not closed the door to a possible third-party ticket run if he doesn’t wind up as the GOP nominee. Your thoughts on the announcement from Gary Johnson today?

Doug Wead: Well, Ron Paul is not an absolutist, and that’s the only reason that he leaves a little bit of the door open. The last time around, the Republican Party didn’t treat him very well, and the fact that he’s a contender and a player and is going to win the nominee, is a mute point. The PPP poll last night you referred to, showed a remarkable thing, it showed Ron Paul leading among evangelical Christians in Iowa, over Perry, Bachman, and Gingrich. That bodes well for South Carolina, it bodes well for him winning the nomination, and the presidency. And just three days ago, the Washington Post Poll showed him doing better than Gingrich against Barack Obama, and at a statistical tie with Mitt Romney within the margin of error against Barack Obama. So who’s talking about third party, we’re talking about winning in Iowa and making a run for it, if not winning in New Hampshire, and winning the nomination.

Megyn Kelly: You know, one of the issues, obviously, you know that Congressman Paul is most controversial on it, is his foreign policy stance. And in particular, Israel and Iran, and whether he would allow Iran to get the bomb. He said he doesn’t want it, but he doesn’t want it because he’s worried that the United States will then go to war with Iran. And he doesn’t want that, just as he didn’t want the Iraq war, because he thinks we’re too prone to attacking other countries and injecting ourselves militarily. Newt Gingrich came out and said, given that kind of attitude and policy stance, it would be a tough choice for Americans if the choice came down to Barack Obama versus Ron Paul. And Ron Paul is to the left of Barack Obama on certain issues, including foreign policy with respect to Iran. To Newt Gingrich, what do you say?

Doug Wead: Yea, I totally disagree with that idea that he’s to the left or the right. He’s pro-constitution, he’s in favor of taking the idea of war – he’s not against war, he was the only public figure in 1981 to stand up and defend Israel’s right to defend herself and take out those Iraqi nuclear facilities. He’s not as war, he’s in favor of going to the U.S. Congress, as the constitution says, debating it, committing to war, getting in, winning it, and then getting out. He’s against these endless wars that just happen out of whim because somebody believes that someone’s a threat to the United States. If there is serious threat to the United States and/or our allies, then let’s take it to Congress, let’s discuss it, let’s commit, and let’s get in and win it and get out.

Megyn Kelly: Dogh, last question for you, and forgive me if this is impolitic, but Ron Paul is 76 years old. Is there a concern that his age might be an issue for him in going after this nomination?

Doug Wead: You know, the real problem is getting right on issues, not having the right age. Barack Obama has got the right age, but he’s totally wrong on the issues. And the people who are voting for us in Iowa and who support us in Iowa are people who have lost the value of their homes, they’ve lost the value of their IRAs. They’re students who are paying 8% interest on a student loan, while billionaires are getting 0% interest free loans to stimulate the economy. And they’re fed up with that corruption. And his message resonates regardless of his age. The hard part is getting right on the issues, and Ron Paul has been able to do that in this cycle.

Megyn Kelly: Alright, I know you’re much more focused right now on that number 24% that puts him in first place in the latest PPP Iowa poll. The numbers “24% over Romney’s 20%” than you are on the number “76 years”. Doug, all the best, thanks so much for being here.

Doug Wead: Thank you, Megyn.

—

This is a rush transcript. If you notice any errors please report them using the “Help improve this post” link at the bottom of this post.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. If you notice any errors please report them using the “Help improve this post” link at the bottom of this post.

Ben Swann: The latest poll out of Iowa shows the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and Texas Congressman Ron Paul are tied for first place. Mitt Romney is now a clear third. And while the media is still not covering Congressman Paul fairly, the Republican establishment seems to run from the man. One of the most commonly stated reasons is that many on the right say they are uncomfortable with what they call Congressman Paul’s clear anti-Israel stance. But is Ron Paul really anti-Israel? Tonight, the facts and reality check you won’t see anywhere else.

So how real is the concern over Congressman Ron Paul’s position on Israel? Real enough that the Republican Jewish coalition last week told the congressman that he was not invited to speak at a candidates’ forum, even though every other Republican candidate was invited. The same group also banned the congressman from speaking in 2007 as well. Now let me just say that a private organization, The Republican Jewish Coalition, doesn’t have to invite anyone. But what reason did the RJC give for excluding Paul? Well, they cited his “Misguided and extreme views “on Israel. Tonight, we’re going to take a look at three of those views. Now there is plenty on the internet about Ron Paul’s beliefs, but most of that has been debunked. Instead of using conjecture, tonight I’m looking at actual statements the Congressman has made. Let’s begin with the criticism of, “It’s all Israel’s fault”, the idea that Ron Paul blames Israel for terror waged against it. Here’s a video clip that reportedly proves it.

Ron Paul: Hamas was encouraged and really started by Israel, because they wanted Hamas to counteract Yasser Arafat. You say, “Yea, that was better then and served his purpose, but we didn’t want Hamas to do this”. So then, we as Americans say, “Well, we have such a good system, we’re going to impose this on the world, we’re going to invade Iraq and teach people how to be democrats. We want free elections”. So we encourage the Palestinians to have a free election, they do, and they elect Hamas.

Ben Swann: The author of the blog where this was posted says that this is proof that the Congressman Paul is anti-Israel. After all, he blames Israel for attacks from Hamas, he blames the United States for Hamas. But what does the Congressman say? He says, “blowback”, the military and intelligence term for consequence of foreign policy and interventions, is something the United States doesn’t want to deal with, and yet is very real. But let’s go further. Is he factually correct of what he said about Hamas? Yes. According to Avner, who worked for the Israeli government in religious affairs in Gaza for decades, it was 30 years ago when Israel tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged Hamas as a counterweight to the secular nationalist of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the PLO. So it would be incorrect to say that Congressman Paul is blaming Israel for bombings by Hamas. Rather, his position appears to be warning about the consequence of blowback in both, American and Israeli foreign policy.

Which brings us to the second issue. “Clearly, Ron Paul is anti-Israel”, detractors say, “After all, he wants to deny Israel foreign aid”.

Ron Paul: To me, foreign aid is taking money from poor people in this country, and giving it to rich people in poor countries. And it becomes weapons of war, essentially, no matter how well motivated it is.

Host: Congressman Paul, would you cut aid to Israel?

Ron Paul: I would cut all foreign aid, I would treat everybody equally and fairly.

Ben Swann: Well, despite the headlines, is that an anti-Israel stance? It is an anti-foreign aid stance, combined with consistency in foreign policy. Okay, but Israel has had a special relationship with the United States for many years. Shouldn’t an exception be made, isn’t Congressman Paul turning his back on this nation that needs the United States?

Ron Paul: I’m the one that defends the sovereignty of Israel, I don’t want Israel to be beholding to us. And even Netanyahu this year before the U.S. Congress said, “We don’t need American troops to defend us, we can take care of ourselves”. So I’m just sort of talking in a language that some people in this country don’t want to hear, and yet, there’s a full discussion of these views in Israel itself.

Ben Swann: Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic recently wrote that Ron Paul’s position is actually the closest to a Zionist, of all the Republican candidates. He says because, “In one sense, a true Zionist is a believer in two core values of the Jewish Liberation Movement: Jewish independence and Jewish self-reliance”. So here’s what you need to know, is Ron Paul anti-Israel? Well, consider history. In 1981, Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear plant. Texas Congressman Ron Paul went against both, the UN and President Ronald Reagan, when he defended Israel’s right to defend itself. Today, that position hasn’t changed. Paul seems to believe that the strongest stance with Israel is for the United States to no longer try to control that nation’s every move.

Let me end with a question. If today, Israel decided that it must launch an attack on Iran to protect its own people, which Republican candidate, aside from Ron Paul, would support that move without Israel, who is a sovereign nation, forced to receive any U.S. approval? And that is reality check.

I have no doubt you have thoughts on this story. If you’d like to make your voice heard, you can do so right now, get in on the conversation. Just search Facebook.com for “Ben Swann Reality Check“. We’re going to post a story on there, I’d love to hear your comments, even follow up of a couple of Reality Checks next week.