83 votes

Ron Paul on FOX - 'Special Report' w/Bret Baier 10/26: Paul in the Center Seat

Part 1 Links provided by drheyde, each has a short promo.


Parts 2-3 below:

Part 2


Part 3


Continuing to break through the post-2pm FOX blackout.

Can O'Reilly be next?

Will Greta actually stoop to uttering the words 'Ron Paul'?

Stay tuned...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

this is only showing 2 videos

but there are actually 3 separate videos on FOX's page

video 1: 10:03 in length

video 2: 5:51 in length

video 3: 19:13 in length (SPECIAL REPORT ONLINE Segment)

No doubt

the online part was better, but Ron still did well in the TV version. I think we should feel very good about this.

Am I missing something?

Is the above video the "on air" segment, the "online" segment, or both?

the current YT above is only part of the segment

the full one is here

(select the yellow links - part 1 and part 2)

while you are on FOX, select the video that is 19:13 in length ("SPECIAL REPORT ONLINE" Segment)


is this the T.V. or internet version?

The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it

Not bad at all

But there are certain areas where Dr Paul can make improvements. Statements like

"No, I'm really not that concerned that Iran which has ZERO nukes today and MIGHT (or might not) have 1 or 2 several years from now is going to attack Israel which has 300 nukes."

You mean you would lift sanctions on Iran?

"We have sanctioned ourselves out of all leverage with Iran. If they have no business ties with us, then they don't have anything to loose. We have no means to influence their policies. OTOH, if they have a lot of business dealing with the US and Europe, then they will not want to jeopardize them."

You would legalize crack cocaine?

"We have had a drug war that has cost trillions and killed thousands and can anyone show me any evidence that drug use has declined? Let us try something different. Legalize it and take away all profit from the drug dealers, take away the need for addicts to commit crimes to support their habit, and trust the vast majority of the American people to make the right choice and void drugs, as they do now. And honestly does anyone REALLY think Whole Foods is going to have heroine in aisle 5 and LSD in aisle 6??"

Do you really think that America is a Prison?

"I think there have been more and more laws that restrict our freedom of movement. From the TSA at airports, (which BTW, wants to expand to our nations highways) x-ray scanners, pat downs, and then restrictions on opening foreign bank accounts and the suspension of the 4th amendment at border crossings. The government seems to think that freedom of movement is a privilege which they can grant or revoke at their whim. That honest Americans need to be treated as criminal suspects. A border fence is just another step. As president I want to make it as easy as possible for Americans to travel. Not as hard as possible."

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” William Pitt

Agreed - but the solution is more citizen support

The interviewers ask questions already knowing what the answer is. They are trained in this. Classic journalist training. As such they know Paul's response and are ready to counter it. Just like a decent trial lawyer. They do not want the jury (public) to hear anything they do not want them to hear.

I agree with Lysander and emalvini it is FRUSTRATING since Dr. Paul's easy going style plays right into the journalist's hands. The good Dr. Paul will not change this style of his.

But the key is that the journalist's HAVE an agenda, they want to pick the candidate for us..ie., Romney. And the only solution for us, is to gain large enough grassroots citizen support from the people of our fair land to overcome bias' in the media/and DC.

These "don't rock my boat" politicians and media/news types are more scared of Ron Paul than 50 nukes in Iran. Ron Paul will shatter their circus. We must win the crowd.

"This isn't what the govern meant"

"Win the crowd and you will win your freedom"

Debbie's picture

I hate it when interviewers

I hate it when interviewers interrupt the great statesman.


I Agree Lysander, However, What You Need To Understand More

fully is that they interrupt him a lot before he can explain it in the way you suggest. How could anyone fully answer a question when all they want to do is get a yes or no answer. Like Bill O'Reily said,"I don't want a history lesson."

They want yes or no answers leaving it open ended and up for criticism by the uninformed viewing audience to decide weather they agree or disagree.

This forum is not a suitable way to fully explain or give an appropriate or comprehensive answer to a complicated question.

In this type of forum, there is just not enough time to argue all the points to questions they want answers to..

They know that most of their questions require a good explaination, not yes or no answers, however, they ask the questions anyway knowing he won't be allowed to fully explain the answer and thus look foolish..

Damn dude. Why don't you run

Damn dude. Why don't you run for something? You lay it out pretty good.

Thanks. But it's a lot easier writing it down.

And it's WAAAAYYYY harder when your on TV, surrounded by four hostile interviewers. Considering that, Paul did very well. I would have melted under the pressure.

Still, you know he will be asked about those very topics every time, and I think he would benefit from rehearsing those answers.

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” William Pitt

I wish he would finish his thoughts about Egypt

with how we not only propped up a dictator but that all that money we sent them was used to buy weapons that now might be used against Israel. I think that's the point he is making but he never actually says it.

Great Interview! I'm not sure

Great Interview!

I'm not sure what all the anger is about below.

I thought it was a good, lively discussion of issues.

I'm critical of Dr. Paul's drug policy answer.

I have never been comfortable with the answer of drug policy "being handled by the states." I know Ron Paul, as hypothetical governor of Texas, would not support a state-level war on drugs. When the panel called him out on this Dr. Paul gave what I consider a very uneasy answer. I get frustrated sometimes when he concentrates too heavily on the Constitution and state's rights when the question is about liberty. I thought he let an outstanding educational moment slip past.

I wish Dr. Paul would have said something along the lines of... "I'm not running for governor of Texas. I'm running for President of the United States. Hypothetically yes, I support the principles of liberty at all levels of government, but since I am running for POTUS, I'm talking about how I would handle drug policy at the federal level. As president I would not interfere with the drug policy decisions made by the people at the state level. Similarly, I wouldn't support socialized medicine at the state-level, but as President I wouldn't interfere with the Mass. health care laws."

Journalists only ask

Journalists only ask questions they know the answer to. Like a decent trial lawyer. This is how they control the length and content heard by the jury (public). Furthermore the counter argument is already prepared in advance - it is scripted event.

Paul's easy going manner causes him to fall into this.

Fox has picked a candidate - Romney and want to make that decision for us as well. If Paul is to win, we must generate enough grassroot, citizen support to make it happen. Media and DC will not help us.

The economy is the only place we may get a break, it could tank prior to the election, and that will force Americans to look and consider Paul.

"This isn't what the govern meant"

"Win the crowd and you will win your freedom"

In that setting he won that

In that setting he won that debate because Krauthammer indicated he wouldn't be opposed to one of the drugs that is currently illegal. I'm going to guess it's not cocaine or opium. But technically you can grow poppy and you can make Meth at CVS along with a whole host of other concoctions. Not much stopping you.

You could get inside a big tire and roll down a steep hill and be quite buzzed when you reach the bottom. Is the DEA going to crash your house with assault rifles to see if you've been breaking the law by getting excessively dizzy in your spare time?

In my state if you know what to say you can get a doctor to give you percs, vikes, oc's etc and it's all free!!! Tax payers fund the prescription pain killer street industry in MA. Doctors get kick backs from big pharma(working closely with the cia and military industrial complex).

I said you could grow poppy but refining it is another thing when the cia/military helps grow it and certainly gets it into the country.

Drugs are used to fund black ops and to create a system of chaos for the public. All a grand psyops since the war was declared along with the contrived introduction of a counter culture whilst opium was sought in SE Asia. Funny not long after Vietnam the opium starts to come from Afghanistan. Previous to Vietnam the opium came from the French via Turkey, before that Iran was in the business...entangling drug alliances.

Yeah potentially they could try to arrest you for being dizzy.

Nothing the state does regarding the drug war surprises me.

Look at DMT. In certain instances (which I am too lazy to look up right now) it is illegal to have the substance in your bloodstream.

DMT, which is released by the pineal gland, is essential for normal body functioning. This means that every single human being is breaking these drug laws by simply existing.

And by the way, it is very difficult to obtain the right chemicals in order to synthesize any of the major psychotropics. The DEA has gone to incredible lengths to ban and heavily restrict any chemical remotely useful. Frankly, I don't know how the hell people do it. There is certainly no legal method.

I'm not saying Ron Paul didn't win the argument. He of course is correct. I just think he could have answered the question better than he did.

Embeded video quality is crap, original:

Might as well embed the actual Fox video in order to drive traffic to it, it included 5 more minutes too:


Thank you.

Now I can see the beginning.

"The world is a dynamic mess of jiggling things, if you look at it right." - Richard Feynman

0-0-0 Dr. Paul showin em up

If you don't agree with 0-0-0 you're a statist hypocrite misanthrope.

You can bet that next week,

You can bet that next week, Herman Cain's toughest question will be "So, how does it feel to be a cancer survivor"?

typical attack

I guarantee you, they'll pitch the rest softballs and help them shine.
and Brett, you're a liar and NO, FOX isnt decent or alright.

See, the issue here brett and fox is that the typical Ron Paul supporter is smart and discerning.
We're not the typical US idiot who has their opinions fed to them by you guys.

Jackson County Georgia

War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.
Thomas Jefferson


Haven't read the posts yet, but I can't see anything to criticize of Jessie Benton, so WOWEE....HAPPY DAY!!!

TV part bad; online part good

This was an intentional hit job by the neo-cons at Fox. They piled on Dr Paul during the televised portion giving him no opportunity to look good, then did that dirty trick at the end by showing the Jon Stewart joke pictures. That was really low.

For the extended online part (which everybody knew would mostly only viewed by RP supporters), they went to a free-form format that allowed Dr Paul to shine.

With that scum bag Krauthammer involved, you know this was an intentional smear effort. Though seeing Krauthammer's body language of disgust was entertaining.

What I don't understand is why RP does not have a quick pat

answer to that stupid "fence" question. They deliberately used that to make him look foolish. He hemmed and hawed around it. Why doesn't he just say that it was a symbolic or philosophical answer, not literal!! All he has to say is that while a fence is designed to restrict freedoms of certain individuals, it has the unintentional effect of restricting ALL individuals - just like TSA, Patriot Act etc. What a mess that was.

krauthammer is a TURD

i really didnt think the tv part was bad. yea, RP is a stammerer. but he comes across as genuine, kind, and smart. He answered every question well. Krauthammer, on the other hand, is a neocon piece of trash. he is the worst sort of statist warmonger fascist. his kind are embarrassed by ron paul because he exposes them as haters of the constitution and friends of big government socialism. He makes them look just like their sworn enemy; the democrats. Thats why his question to RP was so pointed; "what drug WOULDN'T you make legal?" he knows RP wants to make all drugs legal. The question was really just a sarcastic insult. Sometimes the disabled can be the biggest fascists; they feel helpless and want law enforcement and the military to oppress everyone so they can feel "secure".

I had the same opinion. But I

I had the same opinion. But I watched it again without my Ron Paul glasses on and it really is pretty good actually.