Ron Paul on Fox Business Channel

uh..........it could be my COMPLETE imagination here, but did anyone else hear the definite change in the female reporter's accent ? i mean.....if you listen to her very first words in welcoming Ron Paul to the show and compare them directly to her very last - when she's asking about the currency issue for instance - you'll notice that she either reverted back to a more "natural accent" (for her, perhaps?) or thought that it would be cute to "talk texan" with a texan. i happen to believe that it was the latter of the two........but i am biased, so............

i'm from texas, and live in texas. Ron Paul and i both have less of a southern accent than many who do. it is discourteous for anyone to "take on" the other person's accent in order to make them feel more comfortable in the conversation. it's really is a rude form of disrespect, if intentional.

Once again Dr. Paul was terrific....
now let me put my "catty" hat on....ummm, fox...if your interviewer is reading his questions off a prompter...please let him know that the word is BOW-HE-MOUTH not BE-MOUTHS... as in extremely large ect....

And as for the comment made about Dr. Paul's stand on competing currency....He can't just out and out abolish the Fed...but by having a competing currency...the better, stronger one will just naturally take over...wanna take a bet on which one that would be...

And as for the third party run....you bet it's a question he's gonna hear again and again...what better way to piss off the die hard republicans that vote for party no matter what....nope, not gonna catch the good Doctor in that trap!

Thank God he not only has intergrity, kindness, and honesty....but he's a smart cookie too =)

Just because he won't support the nominee if he doesn't like him does NOT mean there would be a third party run -- plus he is running for Congress as well.
The press likes to focus on negatives, with the 3rd party myth making him a spoiler, and such when he is not.

Dr. Paul is going to get the 3rd party question on a CONSTANT basis as long as he campaigns. In fact, the longer he stays in, the more frequent he is going to be asked the question, and the more dogged the press is going to be about asking it. He is going to have to answer the question 50 million times, and the media will ask it 50 million different ways. My god, what do you expect? The man DID run as the Libertarian candidate for President in 1988, he has had no qualms about bucking his party for two decades, he is on the opposite side of his party on probably the most important issue for Republicans these days, and he unequivocally and emphatically said during the last debate that he absolutely would NOT support the Republican nominee for President if he did not agree with the nominee's positions on the issues (a very likely outcome when you consider the positions of Guiliani, Romney, McCain, et al). These are obviously conflicting pieces of information. Anyway, the question of a third party run could have been ended at the last debate if Ron would have said that he will 100% support the eventual Republican nominee, as several of the other candidates said. The bottom line is, because of his independence of thought and previous history, this question will follow him as long as he is campaigning.

The key question is NOT whether or not Dr. Paul is considering a 3rd party run. The key question is under what conditions would he consider a 3rd party run. Lets be realistic, any of the candidates in both parties would consider a 3rd party run if they were polling strongly on a national basis but not winning their own party's nomination. You think Romney's in it for the good of his party or to become President? If you think its the former, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

If you read between the lines of the interview, he indicates under what conditions he would consider a 3rd party run. Note that during the interview he says that the reasons he would NOT run 3rd party is that it is too difficult to get on the ballot and it is too hard to get into the debates. Thus, we now know under what conditions he would consider a 3rd party run: A) Getting on the ballot in all 50 states, and B)getting into the presidential debates. The Libertarians will be on the ballot in at least 45 states in '08, if not all 50. The crucial factor will be getting into the televised Presidential debates. Without that, a 3rd party run is completely hopeless. There are conditions under which a candidate qualifies for the debates, and I believe it is polling nationally at something like 10% over a certain period of time. If he is polling nationally at that level by next spring/summer (and lets imagine a Rudy-Hillary match-up), it would be hard to NOT consider a third party run. Is it likely? Probably not. But then again, I don't know how likely it is that the typical hard-core neocon/Fox News Republican is going to vote in the primary for someone so opposed to the Iraq War and so adamant that blowback is partly the cause of 9/11.

.
I don't know who the on-air hosts were, but they lobbed softballs and didn't do any follow-up questions. I could see a tiny bit of exasperation in in Dr. Paul's face.

I think the woman, who was quite pretty, was a girlfriend of a producer and this is her first job. The other guy (whom some apparently know) was way too image-conscious. Too much posing. Wanted to come across as a serious journalist but was just goofy and awful. The tie tells the story.

I made it through half way and then thought, why the heck am I watching this stuff? Dr. Paul was good but then he always is.

Dr. Paul looked great and did a superb job.

David Asman had the most Libertarian TV talk show in Denver about ten years ago after he left the Wall Street Journal. I was asked to assist in marketing the syndication of the show in the Chicago area.

David Asman is certainly friend, not foe.

Maybe Dr. Paul should hint at the idea of a third party run as he quite likely could get the support of the Constitution, Reform, Libertarian and Evangelical Parties against a Guiliani/Hillary campaign.

If Dr. Paul doesn't get the nomination, I will never vote Republican as long as I live, I swear.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

"Mr Paul?" - It's Doctor, you incumbent.

"If you don't get nom... will you run as independent"
"Even if the nom doesn't conform.."
"Absolutely, positively, no way you will run as a spoiler for GOP candidate?"
"Wouldn't it be a huge disappoint for the people who've donated, blah blah BLAH.."

WOW fox, you wouldn't be trying to get Ron Paul to say he would run as a 3rd party candidate would you? Thereby, delegitimizing his Republican nomination, and making him out as an outcast.

Superbly handled Ron Paul! :D

WOW!!! Excellent interview..... FACTLESS News is doing what? Not Spinning!!! OMG...

Tim
http://ronpaul.meetup.com...

Hey everybody,

We all know that Dr. Paul supports abolishing the Federal Reserve. However, he seems to only attack it from the standpoint of allowing competing currencies. This is all well and good, but there is something to be said for a unified currency.

In a 1984 paper, Milton Friedman provided an alternative to returning to a commodity standard that maintains most of its positive aspects.

http://faculty.tamu-comme...

In this article, he says that we should do the following:

1.) Freeze the "high-powered" money, which is cash and deposits at the Fed.

2.) Gradually eliminate the reserve requirements, which would allow the money multiplier to create new money.

3.) Dissolve the Federal Reserve, and absorb it into the Treasury with its sole purpose being to maintain the constant supply of high-powered money.

4.) Keep the FDIC around if people need it as an emotional pacifier, or to localize any possible bank panics, which probably wouldn't happen anyway.

I might ask him about it if I get the chance at the Q&A in Newport Beach next week.

- Caleb

Amazing how these folks cut people like Dr. Paul off because they're so used to politicians that just keep talking and talking and talking, trying to run out the clock while not actually saying anything.

I also thought the whole thing of "..did I hear you right, you're saying a @?!_NEW_!?@ currency?!?!." was a bit much. I heard him quite clearly the first time, he very plainly said "parallel currency". And it's not like that's never been done before. Abraham Lincoln did that with the "greenbacks" during the Civil War.

Mr Paul? its Dr to you, you incumbent.
They asked him the same question about 4 times, worded differently - about whether he would run for independent (3rd party) if he did not get the nomination. WELL DONE, sir! He never gave in. Bastards; cus you know if he said anything remotely to yea I might, all seriousness of him running is gone.
No need for 3rd party's, he's going to rip both major ones apart.

Fox news debate coming up... WONDER how he'll be treated there...