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.

Interviewer: Congressman Paul, thank you for joining us. So you’ve taken off in Iowa now, you’re now tied for second or are in second place a little bit ahead of Mitt Romney. What’s going on out there?

Ron Paul: Well, it looks like a lot of votes are coming our way. And we’ve been working hard out there, we’ve spent a lot of money and spent a lot of time out there. And the country is a different place than it was 4 years ago, because it’s easy to compare what I’m doing now to 4 years ago. But, economically, the conditions are different, and people have changed their minds about all the war activity overseas and they’re agreeing now that we should come home, not only because the wars are prolonged, but also because it’s costing us a lot of money and it’s related to the problems that we’re having here at home economically.

Interviewer: You’ve watched about everybody else have a chance to be the guy that takes on Mitt Romney. I mean, are you about to, can you be the next to surge?

Ron Paul: Well, I want steady, solid growth. Surges mean sometimes you can drop off rather quickly. What have we had, 3 or 4 that have surged up and then they dropped off? I don’t think that’s likely to happen in my case. But I think we can keep going because we’re accelerating, we’re [having] steady growth, and in this last month, we’ve gone from low double-digits to high double-digits. So I think our campaign is coming together quite well right now, but I don’t suspect all of a sudden we’re going to surge 20 points and then drop off thirty points, I don’t think that’s going to happen.

Interviewer: Okay, so you clearly know Newt Gingrich well. I mean, you’ve served in Congress with Gingrich back in the 1980s. So what’s your sense of this guy, is he the kind of person that can be the President of the United States, does he have the leadership qualities to be a good President?

Ron Paul: He has qualities where he can devise some strategies, but sometimes when those strategies come to fruition, he falls short on leadership. That’s more or less what happened. I don’t think anybody can deny giving him some credit for what happened in 1994, he had a strategy and the Republicans finally took over the House after 4 years. But then things for him went downhill, and when he had to leave, it wasn’t under the best of circumstances.

Interviewer: What’s your sense, I mean, you’ve been really critical of him as a flip-flopper, basically, saying that he’s a guy that hasn’t been consistent. He’s not usually the candidate that most people think of when you bring up the issue of flip-flopping, what is it about Gingrich?

Ron Paul: Well, he’s been on a lot of different sides on all the issues and actually that little ad that we did, which was a video for the internet, was mainly using other people’s assessment of what he’s done; either working with Pelosi on global warming or his position on medical care and these different things. So he’s had definitely different positions on many of these policies.

Interviewer: What does that say about him?

Ron Paul: It means that he might be the opposite of what I’ve been doing for 30 years, my positions haven’t changed all that much.

Interviewer: I guess nobody has really attacked you as a flip-flopper at this point. Mr. Consistent.

Ron Paul: So far so good.

Interviewer: Okay, so the ultimate question here: who is a bigger flip-flopper, Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich?

Ron Paul: You know, I get questions like that all the time.

Interviewer: Common, give us an answer.

Ron Paul: No, they ask me about the different candidates, “What do you think of the other candidates?” I put them all into one category. So it’s pretty easy on the flip-flopping, you can put Newt and Mitt together.

Interviewer: So you think there’s not much of a difference between Romney and Gingrich?

Ron Paul: Philosophically probably not, I don’t think so. I mean, where would the difference be on foreign policy? They’re both very, very aggressive on what they would do overseas, and they’re not ready to really change monetary policy, and I doubt if either one of them would say that we have to get rid of the Department of Education, you know, a few things like that.

Interviewer: Which one of them has been more consistent, I mean, it’s still a way of asking you … ?

Ron Paul: They’re both very consistently inconsistent.

Interviewer: Both, Gingrich and Romney?

Ron Paul: Yea, they’re consistently inconsistent.

Interviewer: So you know the wrap on Ron Paul, the wrap is that you’ve got positions that are outside the mainstream of the Republican Party.

Ron Paul: I’ve heard that.

Interviewer: And you fall in with some disputes with the leadership of this party, whether it be on foreign policy or on some other issues. How do you get beyond what you’ve managed to get, which is 15% or so, how do you get beyond that?

Ron Paul: Well, we’re doing that. 5 or 6 months ago we were probably half way where we are today. We were 8% and 9%, and now we’re 18%, 19%. And I just keep saying the same thing. And about being out of the mainstream, that’s a trick question, because I think the country is out of the mainstream, I think the Republican Party is out of the mainstream Republican tradition. Because they claim they’re for individual liberties and limited government and balanced budgets, what’s their record? I mean, where are the balanced budgets, what have they done? We had a President and the House and the Senate for 6 years, plus 2, partially. The government kept growing at a rapid rate. So I would say that being for balanced budgets and taking the oath of office seriously, having a strong national defense and sound money doesn’t sound too out of the mainstream as far as I’m concerned. It sounds like what Republicans are supposed to be standing for.

Interviewer: Because Gingrich has said that he is more conservative, he is the true conservative compared to Mitt Romney.

Ron Paul: Well, I guess he can say whatever he wants.

Interviewer: Is he going to have a hard time making that case?

Ron Paul: Well, he may be able to make the case, but I don’t think he has the evidence.

Interviewer: What do you mean by that, he doesn’t have the evidence, you don’t think he’s truly a conservative?

Ron Paul: No, we can go back and compare all his policies and all his statements and all his votes and everything he’s ever said in his career. He is pretty much for big government, there’s no doubt about it. Early on in his career, he wasn’t even bashful about it, he ran on a big Republican government platform.

Interviewer: So Newt Gingrich is a big government advocate?

Ron Paul: His policies have been big government.

Interviewer: Alright, Ron Paul, thank you.

Ron Paul: Very good.

Dear Supporter,

Our good friend in Liberty, Peter Schiff, is planning a run for Senate in Connecticut against Chris Dodd. The grassroots across the country are organizing a money bomb for him today to raise money and send a powerful message to the political elites that freedom is popular [and that big government is not the solution to our problems].

Our country needs Peter Schiff in Washington, and you can help today. Please go to www.SchiffforSenate.com right now and make a contribution. Together, we can help make history.

In Liberty,

Ron Paul

Donate at Peter Schiff’s official website SchiffforSenate.com

Track donations live at http://schiff.depositwiz.com/

Adam Kokesh: This is Adam Kokesh with Congressman Ron Paul in his office in Washington, DC talking about my race going into 2010, what’s happening here on the Hill and all the ways that the movement that this man did such an incredible job to make what it is today and build the kind of grassroots support that’s going to make it possible to put more liberty candidates in office in 2010. So thank you for having me, would you like to share something with our viewers?

Ron Paul: Well, we sure could use a lot of help here. I keep thinking that the country is a mess and it really is, and at times it is slightly depressing to be here in Washington. But I really get encouraged when I leave Washington because I think the freedom movement is much further along outside of Washington, and actually I’m more optimistic now than I have been in the past because the young people are actually waking up and that’s where all the movements are. I think all the revolution take place with younger generation.

I have so many people coming in to this office now, high school kids and college kids come in and they talk about the Federal Reserve and they talk about auditing the Fed and they bring their parents in and their parents haven’t been thinking about it in those terms. They have been sort of walked into the traditional, conservative opinions about what to do and they wonder why we’re not making progress up here.

But because of the seriousness of our economic crisis right now, a lot of people are giving deep thought to the monetary policy, fiscal policy and they’re aware that some major changes have to occur. Now, the members of Congress are starting to recognize this, but they sort of are lost because I don’t think they understand the basic free market economics. And that is what we need. We need people to really come to the belief that it is in their interest to believe in freedom. Right now, too many people think that the government will take care of them and there is always going to be a safety net. But in a way it might be a blessing in disguise that if there is no safety net maybe they’ll say, “Hey, I better take care of myself. Oh, the government is not going to take care of me forever. How can they provide free education, free medical care, free housing a job forever and not have to pay for it?”

And that is what is changing, and that’s why I think in the next ten years we’re going to see dramatic changes and yet, today here in Washington I would say “Don’t wait for tomorrow or the next day”. As a matter of fact at this very time we’re getting ready to vote for the supplemental bill which is a total disaster and is going in exactly the opposite direction. So, in time we’re going to see a change because we can’t continue this. We just can’t keep spending money, borrowing money, and then printing money you don’t have. That leads to disaster. So this is why I’m encouraged that young people are getting involved and this message is being spread and people are learning about sound free market economics. So, I’m delighted you’re very much involved and interested in this.

Adam Kokesh: I have some good news for you, sir. The revolution is alive and well in New Mexico as it is throughout this country. There are a lot of people getting behind candidates like myself because of what you have inspired them to do. You’re not going to have to wait ten years to get some help on the Hill here. Help is on the way.

Ron Paul: Sounds great, thank you.

Dear Friend,

A lot of folks have begun calling B.J. Lawson the next Ron Paul. The comparison is very flattering… for me.

For those who are not yet familiar, B.J. Lawson is a wonderful young candidate running for Congress in North Carolina’s Fourth Congressional District. B.J. is a medical doctor, family man, Constitutionalist and a fierce defender of individual freedom. We need B.J. Lawson in Congress to stand beside me in the fight for liberty, and against the corporate socialism that has overtaken our economy!

B.J. is running against an entrenched big government liberal who voted for the $700 billion taxpayer bailout of Wall Street and has a long history of voting for huge spending, raiding your social security trust fund for pet projects, and even voted for the Patriot Act.

A recent poll shows B.J. Lawson within striking distance in this election, but he needs your help!

B.J. needs $250,000, right away, to run the campaign he needs to take this race right down the the wire. I know that if we band together, we can help him get the money he needs.

I am asking you, as a fellow Defender of Liberty, to mark the four week countdown to this November’s election and join with me and donate to B.J. Lawson’s campaign this Tuesday, October 7th. I know times are tough, but that is all the more reason why we need to send a message and help B.J. Lawson.

Contributions can be made at http://www.lawsonforcongress.com

This one-day “Money Bomb” could be what it takes to propel the next Ron Paul into Congress. I hope you will join me to support B.J. Lawson with your on-line contribution this Tuesday, October 7th.

Sincerely,

Ron Paul

A New Alliance

by Ron Paul

The press conference at the National Press Club had a precise purpose. It was to expose, to as many people as possible, the gross deception of our presidential election process. It is controlled by the powerful elite to make sure that neither candidate of the two major parties will challenge the status quo. There is no real choice between the two major parties and their nominees, only the rhetoric varies. The amazingly long campaign is designed to make sure the real issues are ignored. The quotes I used at the press conference from insider Carroll Quigley and the League of Women voters strongly support this contention.

Calling together candidates from the liberal, conservative, libertarian and progressive constituencies, who are all opposed to this rigged process, was designed to alert the American people to the uselessness of continuing to support a process that a claims that one’s only choice is to choose the lesser of two evils and reject a principle vote that might challenge the status quo as a wasted vote.

In both political education and organization, coalitions are worthwhile and necessary to have an impact. “Talking to the choir” alone achieves little. I have always approached political and economic education with a “missionary” zeal by inviting any group in on issues we agree upon.

This opens the door to legitimate discourse with the hope of winning new converts to the cause of liberty. This strategy led to the press conference with the four candidates agreeing to the four principles we believe are crucial in challenging the political system that has evolved over many years in this country.

This unique press conference, despite the surprising, late complication from the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, hopefully will prove to be historically significant.

This does not mean that I expect to get Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney to become libertarians, nor do they expect me to change my mind on the issues on which we disagree. In the meantime, why can’t we be friends, respectful of each other, and fight the corrupt process from which we suffer, and at the same time champion the four issues that we all agree upon which the two major candidates won’t address?

Many practical benefits can come from this unique alliance. Our cause is liberty — freedom is popular and is the banner that brings people together. Since authoritarianism divides, we always have the edge in an intellectual fight. Once it’s realized that the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity are best achieved with our views, I’m convinced we win by working with others. Those who don’t want to collaborate are insecure with their own beliefs.

In the past two years at the many rallies where I talked and shook hands with literally thousands of people, I frequently asked them what brought them to our campaign. There were many answers: the Constitution, my consistency, views on the Federal Reserve, the war, and civil liberties. The crowds were overwhelmingly made up of young people.

Oftentimes I welcomed the diverse groups that came, mentioning that the crowd was made up of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Liberals and Progressives with each group applauding. Even jokingly, I recognized the “anarchists” and that, too, was met with some applause. In conversations, many admitted to having been Democrats and members of the Green Party and supporters of Ralph Nader, yet they came to agree with us on all the issues once the entire philosophy was understood. That’s progress.

Principled people are not shy in participating with others and will defend their beliefs on their merits. Liberals and progressives are willing to align themselves with us on the key issues of peace, civil liberties, debt and the Federal Reserve. That’s exciting and very encouraging, and it means we are making progress. The big challenge, however, is taking on the establishment, and the process that is so well entrenched. But we can’t beat the entrenched elite without the alliance of all those who have been disenfranchised.

Ironically the most difficult group to recruit has been the evangelicals who supported McCain and his pro-war positions. They have been convinced that they are obligated to initiate preventive war in the Middle East for theological reasons. Fortunately, this is a minority of the Christian community, but our doors remain open to all despite this type of challenge. The point is, new devotees to the freedom philosophy are more likely to come from the left than from those conservatives who have been convinced that God has instructed us to militarize the Middle East.

Although we were on the receiving end of ridicule in the reporting of the press conference, I personally was quite satisfied with the results. True revolutions are not won in a week, a month, or even a year. They take time. But we are making progress, and the momentum remains and is picking up. The Campaign for Liberty is alive and well, and its growth and influence will continue. Obviously the press conference could have been even more successful without the last-minute change of heart by the Libertarian Party candidate by not participating. He stated that his support for the four points remains firm. His real reason for not coming, nor letting me know until forty minutes before the press conference started, is unknown to me. To say the least, I was shocked and disappointed.

Yet in the long run, this last-minute change in plans will prove to be of little importance. I’m convinced that problems like this always seem bigger at the moment, yet things usually work out in the end. Recovering from the mistakes and shortcomings of all that we do in this effort is not difficult if the message is right and our efforts are determined. And I’m convinced they are. That’s what will determine our long-term success, not the shortcomings of any one person.

The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more than one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.

In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York. This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats. We need more states to permit this option. This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.

I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.