Ron Paul on Hardball 5/13/2011

[low preference guy]

I just catched the end of RP's interview with Chris Matthews. Ron Paul was accusing Chris of implying RP was a racist. They were talking about the CRA. I think Ron did well in the part I watched.

[trey4sports]

tubez?

[pcosmar]

Busy day.
He's everywhere.

More Tubes please.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Wow, the fire!

I can't stop imagining what all this would be like if we had the 47 year old Ron that is present in the '83 Fed debate.

[KramerDSP]

I have no doubts whatsoever that the people who own the mainstream media are TERRIFIED of Ron Paul gaining more and more momentum by the day. Wolf Blitzer on FEMA, Heroin, Anti-Abortion, Chances of Winning, Age and Chris Matthews on the Civil Rights act. Nothing on the wars or the economy.

[nocompromises]

We need a video!

[jct74]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#43027964

[Wren]

Wow, the fire!

I can't stop imagining what all this would be like if we had the 47 year old Ron that is present in the '83 Fed debate.

He was really firey at that age, I'd love to see him smack around the candidates on stage and point out their inconsistencies, but he's too humble for that. A great speech from 1984:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G87jOx1VJ3o

[Wren]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/


thanks!

[Kregisen]

Ron is on FIREEEEEE

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Of course he's a racist, he disagrees with Obama.

[tropicangela]

Thoroughly enjoyed that video! Only problem I found is that I know if I shared that with my Dem friends, they would argue that the Constitution is ancient history :(

[Kregisen]

"You may well win this thing!" - Chris Matthews

Ron was PERFECT in that interview. They ignored the real issues and tried to hurt Ron on emotional talking about (war on drugs, civil rights billl) and Ron knocked it out of the park.

If we can get past this "first glance crazy" thing, and people actually understand the issues and logic behind it, we WILL win this thing.

I've seen 90% of Ron's interviews out there, and the way he handled some of these tough questions was better than just about all of his other interviews.

[Wren]

Ron Paul OWNED that interview! Take notes, Rand :D

[ctiger2]

That was excellent. Matthews loves to needle Paul but you can tell he really respects him for being so principled and honest.

[specsaregood]

Ron at 8:50 - 9:20

I love that guy!

[Guitarzan]

Yes...Ron isn't going to be pushed around this election cycle. That was excellent.

[tropicangela]

It's a freedom package Chris!

[Theocrat]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#43027964

Man, Congressman Paul was blazing in that interview. Oh, he's ready for a showdown! :D

[Shimpchip]

The fire is back!!

[IDefendThePlatform]

It's a freedom package Chris!

Hell yes! That was a great way to wrap up another outstanding interview.

This is gonna be a fun election.

[I Don't Vote]

Chris Matthews sucks balls.

He tried to deny that he was insinuating that Ron was a racist, when in fact that was exactly what he was trying to do. Who the fuck this **** think he kidding?

[LibertyEagle]

OMG, that last bit was fantastic. Dr. Paul was spectacular.

[lester1/2jr]

There are tons of Ron Paul segments these days but that was a good one.

[KramerDSP]

WOW! The end was crazy...

Matthews: Don't get me wrong. I love your foreign policy....

RP: You're coming around Chris. You'll get it soon enough. It's all one package (liberty and foreign policy)

Matthews: (chuckles) - You have a great following. Best of luck in the campaign. Ronald Reagan got it on his third try.

[maqsur]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#43027964

Video up on msnbc site.

[smokemonsc]

Wow what an ending. It's important to call out what the spinsters are implying - it forces them to acknowledge what you aren't. Well played Dr. Paul!

[kahless]

WOW. I was worried he was going to get shaken up by Mathews but he was amazing. Far better than other candidates would have handled such an attack. The future looks good.

[RileyE104]

I love how Chris was comparing RP to Reagan and then admitting that he might actually WIN. :)

If the media keeps giving him a fair shake, Ron will dominate the next five and a half years of politics! (campaign trail + first term) :D

Hell, maybe even the next few decades, seeing as how if he wins it will set the stage for many more libertarians in Congress and the presidency.

[pauladin]

ron seemed 20 years younger in that video.

[low preference guy]

I watched the whole thing just now. Ron Paul utterly destroyed Chris Matthews.

[low preference guy]

Ron Paul OWNED that interview! Take notes, Rand :D

Yep. Ron gave a great answer.

[sratiug]

I watched the whole thing just now. Ron Paul utterly destroyed Chris Matthews.

+1 That was fantastic.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I watched the whole thing just now. Ron Paul utterly destroyed Chris Matthews.

Must spread reputation around.

And I agree. That was like watching Barry Bonds from 2001-2004.

[teacherone]

Rongamsic!!!!!!!

[anaconda]

Ron still hasn't got his talking points down on CRA.

[KramerDSP]

Must spread reputation around.

And I agree. That was like watching Barry Bonds from 2001-2004.

Without the performance enhancers!

[teacherone]

Ron still hasn't got his talking points down on CRA.

yes he does.

he pwned it.

[low preference guy]

Ron still hasn't got his talking points down on CRA.

Are you kidding me?

"No one would put up a sign today. If someone does, he is an idiot and will go out of business."

[TIMB0B]

By the end of that interview he had Matthews ready to kowtow.



Okay, I'm exaggerating a little, but still...

[KramerDSP]

are you kidding me?

"no one would put up a sign today. If someone does, he is an idiot and will go out of business."

+rep!

[SWATH]

Damn he NAILED it! Please put your seats in the upright position and return your tray tables, welcome to the revolution

[SilentBull]

Liking it!!!!! Holy crap, that last monologue was outstanding!

[KramerDSP]

By the end of that interview he had Matthews ready to kowtow.



Okay, I'm exaggerating a little, but still...

Matthews was basically smirking and saying "You won this battle, old man! Bless your heart!"

[Nate-ForLiberty]

"You may actually win this thing." - Chris Matthews to Ron Paul.

[Wesker1982]

That is how Ron Paul needs to do every interview. I love it when he is bold and assertive.

[anaconda]

Are you kidding me?

"No one would put up a sign today. If someone does, he is an idiot and will go out of business."

He didn't sufficiently clarify for the naive voter why simply having a law preventing discrimination is a bad thing. He can make a great case that CRA held back racial integration terribly, for example. In short, swift sound bites. But Ron did very well with Chris today.

[anaconda]

That is how Ron Paul needs to do every interview. I love it when he is bold and assertive.

Agreed. I think it is obvious that this is a conscious decision and adjustment in strategy.

[KramerDSP]

The Hill has an article up saying Ron Paul would not have voted against the Jim Crow Laws. I think he misspoke. Comments are overwhelmingly negative on twitter and under that story.

Ron's gonna go to Palin name recognition levels after this. In fact, I daresay he is the new Palin to the Left.

[talkingpointes]

That has to be one of the most passionate interviews I have ever seen. Ron seriously socked the shit out of Matthews and put HIS feet to the fire. +100000000 For calling pro-government folks, and their philosophy by it's real name, Totalitarianism.

[extrmmxer]

Ron is kicking ass today. The Revolution is in full force boys and girls.

[Fermli]

that interview gets me pumped up.

[acptulsa]

Ron's gonna go to Palin name recognition levels after this. In fact, I daresay he is the new Palin to the Left.

No, he's not. Ron Paul has quite a lot--a whole lot--to offer the 'lefties' who have been betrayed once too often by the Democratic Party. That is a major, major difference. And we're going to capitalize on it.

[specsaregood]

The Hill has an article up saying Ron Paul would not have voted against the Jim Crow Laws. I think he misspoke.
No, I'm quite certain he said getting rid of the Jim Crow laws was good. That is when he went on a tirade about how all those bad things were the result of government.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

He slayed him in that last part. Could somone type that up for me?

[libertyfan101]

He's on point. And as sharp as ever. This is going to be a great election with Ron in it. History is being made right before our eyes.

[anaconda]

No, I'm quite certain he said getting rid of the Jim Crow laws was good. That is when he went on a tirade about how all those bad things were the result of government.

Yes. Ron said getting rid of Jim Crow laws was good. No ambiguity. I think the exchange at that point was getting a bit more contentious and may have been slightly distracting for folks watching. Replaying the interview will easily confirm what Ron said.

[Feeding the Abscess]

The Hill has an article up saying Ron Paul would not have voted against the Jim Crow Laws. I think he misspoke. Comments are overwhelmingly negative on twitter and under that story.

Ron's gonna go to Palin name recognition levels after this. In fact, I daresay he is the new Palin to the Left.

Wow, that shit needs to be email bombed. Now. Being partisan is one thing, but outright lying is another.

[AuH20]

Wow, the fire!

I can't stop imagining what all this would be like if we had the 47 year old Ron that is present in the '83 Fed debate.

We'd be in the top 3.

[AuH20]

He was really firey at that age, I'd love to see him smack around the candidates on stage and point out their inconsistencies, but he's too humble for that. A great speech from 1984:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G87jOx1VJ3o

It's like watching a slugger in his prime. What we see today is a shadow of what he was, but he shows the occasional flash.

[Chester Copperpot]

That was great... And in fairness to Chris Matthews.. he's always been pretty respectful of Dr. Paul.. Even with his ideological differences.. He'll come around... I agree.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

KBbV7mURP0I

[AuH20]

Just watched it. Where has been this guy for the last month? Did he pop a ginseng?

[pcosmar]

That was good. "It's one package."
I said it before, Ron has redefined the debate. It is Principle.

[AndrewD]

Great, fantastic interview. Ron held his ground in a dominating and energetic fashion. Makes me wonder when the day comes and we see Ron using his FULL liberties all hyped up on 7 grams of pure rock cocaine, GOING OFF on the Capital Hill floor and bringing the troops home. Charlie Sheen will be the newly appointed Fed chairman and the interest rates will be LOW, baby LOW!

[ClayTrainor]

This is possibly the best performance Ron Paul has ever had in an interview, imo. He killed it!

[AlexMerced]

that's how rand should've handeled the maddow interview, bravo Dr. Paul

[HarryBrowneLives]

great, fantastic interview. Ron held his ground in a dominating and energetic fashion. Makes me wonder when the day comes and we see ron using his full liberties all hyped up on 7 grams of pure rock cocaine, going off on the capital hill floor and bringing the troops home. Charlie sheen will be the newly appointed fed chairman and the interest rates will be low, baby low!

lmao! +1776

[CharlesTX]

It seemed to me that Ron Paul isn't playing around anymore. This is serious business and he is now a major contender and he's making it known. Bravo on a great interview, Dr. Paul!

[Anti Federalist]

OMG, that last bit was fantastic. Dr. Paul was spectacular.

He was great at the Exeter rally, I just was listening to that Matthews piece and he handed CM's ass to him on a silver platter.

Don't let anybody ever say he's "too old", he's as sharp as a tack, on fire and in great spirits, you can tell he is truly amazed and happy at the progress that has been made in just the last few years.

[jkr]

power
own


makes me want to play tron....

[Sweman]

KBbV7mURP0I

I guess it's time to copy this youtube link and put those twitter accounts into use. Spread it.

[AndrewD]

Spread it.

Thats what she said.

[Bruno]

Libertygasm!

Ron Paul kicked ass!

[KramerDSP]

From The Hill article, which I refuse to link:


MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews pressed Paul during a TV appearance on whether he would have voted against the '64 law, a landmark piece of legislation that took strides toward ending segregation.

"Yeah, but I wouldn't vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws," Paul said. He explained that he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act "because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws."

The MSNBC transcript says the same thing (click transcript from one of the options on the bottom of the MSNBC video link)

[Agorism]

Didn't Matthews ask the exact same questions last year when he saw him?

[KramerDSP]

The Hill misunderstood/misstated Ron's intentions in their article:

"Um, Ron Paul would have also voted against the Jim Crow laws that required the Civil Rights Act to be passed in the first place. He supports the part of the law that ended Jim Crow. However, he does not support legislation telling people what they can or can't do on their own private property. Of course that isn't convenient to liberal talking points so you can expect them to just ignore it and scream RACIST! like they always do to someone who doesn't agree with them."

[low preference guy]

The MSNBC transcript says the same thing (click transcript from one of the options on the bottom of the MSNBC video link)

Ron Paul literally said that, but it is obvious he misspoke, especially when you consider the other statements he made that contradict that statement.

[Humanae Libertas]

It seems Matthews has adopted Lawrence McDumbo's talking points about the Civil Rights Act. Either way -- Ron did a great job handling the misinformation/psy-op.

[AuH20]

Didn't Matthews ask the exact same questions last year when he saw him?

It's his job. Didn't you get a sense that he was almost apologetic to Ron for pushing the slanted questioning? It was kinda like, "Sorry Ron but it's not personal. Just doing my job."

[Bruno]

Matthews is obsessed with that issue. He asked him two things in five minutes. He pressed on heroin specifically, and racism. I'm so glad Ron had this opportunity to very strongly come out against any attacks of racist comments towards him.

[low preference guy]

From another part, just seconds before the quote The Hill is running with:


Ron Paul: We got rid of them [the Jim Crow laws] and that was good.

[Anti Federalist]

Chris Matthews - "Ron I love your foreign policy".

Glenn Beck - "Ron I love your domestic policy".

Ron Paul - "Freedom is a package deal. You can't pick and choose. If you have liberty on this, you must have liberty on that".

[low preference guy]

Ron Paul - "Freedom is a package deal. You can't pick and choose. If you have liberty on this, you must have liberty on that".

And that also includes:

1. The freedom to have a contract on any terms with anyone you want, as long as the other party agrees.
2. The freedom to buy or sell any good at any price from anyone you want, as long as the other party agrees.

[KramerDSP]

Here is the entire transcript:

>>> we're back. libertarian congressman ron paul of texas spent decades espousing the views and doing again on the national stage. this morning, today, he announced he's running for president for the third time. he joins us now from new hampshire. welcome, congressman.

>> thank you, chris.

>> well, ronald reagan ran three times. maybe this will be the one for you. but here, this is a sticking point about how far you go with your libertarianism, sir. here you were talking about heroin use last week on fox news. let's watch your question and answer to you.

>> are you suggesting that heroin and prostitution are an exercise of liberty?

>> well, you know, i probably never used those words. you put those words some place but yes. in essence, if i leave it to the states it is going to be up to the states. up until this past century, you know, for over 100 years they were legal. you're inferring, you know what? if we legalize heroin tomorrow, everyone will use heroin. how many people would use heroin if it'sdy. i need the government to take care of me. i don't want to use heroin so i need these wars.

>> well, your people out there in the crowd agree with that. as a citizen of texas, if that came up for a vote, if you had to vote as a citizen supporting a kand date, do you think the state should legalize heroin and prostitution?

>> i think under the right circumstances we should legalize freedom and that is part of it as long as people don't force things on other people i don't feel threatened by that. it's sort of like legalizing gambling. i don't gamble. i don't get involved but i'm not going to take that right away from you so all the things are things that you can do in a free society but today i gave a long talk about this very issue and i emphasized the fact that the reason i argued for freedom of choice is i want people to decide what medications they can take and whether they want alternative medicine, whether they can drink raw milk, use marijuana when they're sick and shouldn't depend on the government for that guidance. if a law is the there to try to protect children, that's a different story but the concept of legalizing freedom, making choices by individuals and assuming responsibility for themselves. and even though that was a special statement about how many people would do it if it's legalized, you know, most people aren't going to use heroin. more people use it because it's illegal. making it illegal doesn't help that much. kids can get marijuana easier than beer so beer can be regulated in a way to prevent the kids from getting. most of the early history, there were no laws against this.

>> i guess i have to get down to the question. you're saying -- i'm not sure what you're saying f. a mother has children, a husband, a father, should they be allowed to be heroin addicts? because this is how far you're going with your libertarianism it seems even know.

>> the whole thing is addictions are a disease. we don't put alcoholics in prison. i'm against the war on drugs the way it's happening. there's other ways to handle it. if you treat it like a crime and throw the kids like we had for decades in prison because they smoked a little bit of marijuana and they come out violent criminals, that war on drugs has failed and believe me the people know that and so i'm against the federal war on drugs. i'm not pro- drug usage. i'm very critical of the carelessness of doctors giving way too many pain pills. more people addicted to prescription drugs than they are to illegal drugs.

>> okay. just to finish this conversation on this point. you have complete freedom to answer this question, yes or no. should we legalize heroin?

>> i want to legalize freedom and let the states deal with the regulations.

>> let me ask you about how far you would go in terms of the constitution because i understand libertarianism, most of us very much were enraptured it.

>> why would you lose it?

>> because the idea of total freedom doesn't seem to work.

>> oh, total --

>> the civil rights bill, do you think an employer running a shop in texas or anywhere has a right to say if you're black you don't come in my store?

>> i believe --

>> that was the right -- that was the libertarian right before '64.

>> i believe that property rights should be protected. your right to be on tv is protected by property rights because somebody owns that statement. i can't walk into your station and right of freedom of speech is protected by property. the right of your church is protected by property. so people should honor and protect it. this gimmick, chris, it's off the wall saying i'm for property states and states rights so i'm a racist.

>> no. i'm just asking you --

>> outlandish. wait, chris. wait, chris. people say that law was there and you could do that, who's going to do it?

>> everybody was in the south. i saw the -- i saw the white only signs in the south in college. of course they did it.

>> yeah, but i also know that the jim crowe laws were illegal and that's all good.

>> you would have voted against that law.

>> yeah, but not -- i wouldn't vote against getting rid of the jim crowe laws.

>> you were not for the '64 civil rights bill.

>> because of the property rights, not because of got rid of --

>> right. a guy owns a bar, says no blacks, you say that's all right. what's the answer? what's your answer?

>> segregation was created by government laws. slavery was created by government laws. segregation -- let me go. is segregation in the military by government laws. what we want to do as libertarians is repeal the laws and honor and respect people --

>> i'm not seeing this.

>> for you to imply a property rights person is endorsing that stuff, you don't understand that there would be zero signs up today saying something like that. and if they did, they would be an idiot and out of business so i think you're just getting overboard in order to try to --

>> i'm asking it.

>> to turn it around and being a racist.

>> not calling anyone a race igs.

>> that's what you're implying. chris--

>> i was in the peace corpse in baker, louisiana. a laundromat with the sign whites only on the laundromat. just to use the machines. this was a local shop saying no blacks allowed. you say that should be legal.

>> that's ancient history. that's over and done with.

>> because it's been outlawed.

>> segregation on buses and always done by law so it was a culture. that's over and done with. why do you want to go back to ancient days?

>> because you want to come back.

>> it's past.

>> running for president. because you're running for president as a libertarian. we don't need laws to protect people.

>> you are reading much more into it and trying to imply certain beliefs i don't have.

>> no! i think you're a total libertarian. i think you're a total libertarian and appealing about you.

>> listen.

>> they like you. they want to live in a simpler society.

>> believing in liberty versus a totalitarian. if you want the opposite, look around. we have a totalitarian world and what most of history is about. dictatorsh dictatorship. we have a small taste of freedom of choice and the principle of private property and contract rights and we're blowing it. so this whole thing that we're going to give up on that, what we're doing is trying to emphasize that something good and wonderful comes from freedom.

>> okay.

>> and freedom of choice and that we should not say this, that to tall -- liberty is disgusting as you imply and totalitarian should be --

>> you're answering your own questions. we have had a long history of government involvement with medicare, social security, civil rights act, voting rights act and i think you are saying we would have been better off without all of that.

>> i think we would have better with freedom, without government control of our lives, personal lives and policing the world. and running the economy. because we're facing --

>> that is part of life.

>> we are facing a calamity of that. we have a financial crisis, a crisis in the foreign policy. losing hundreds of thousands of people coming back sick because of our foreign policy.

>> okay.

>> and we're at a point where we cannot sustain this and we're on the verge of run away inflation because there's too much acceptance of big government. that is the problem. no matter how noble you try to make it. your good intentions will not compensate for the mistakes that people make that want to run our lives and run the economy and reject the principle of private property and making up our own decisions for ourselves.

>> thank you, congressman. i love your foreign policy. don't get me wrong. i love your foreign policy. thank you for --

>> you're coming along, chris. you will and put it altogether. it is all one package. personal liberty and foreign policy.

>> okay, well you're --

>> it is one package.

>> you have a great following. good luck in the campaigning.

>> it is growing.

>> i know it is growing and you may well win this thing. ronald reagan got it on the third try. thank you, congressman ron paul of texas.

>> all right.

>> that's "hardball" is all about. that's what we do here.

[ShowMeLiberty]

That's what I'm talking about! If Ron keeps up like that throughout this campaign, he'll walk away with the election, no sweat.

[nobody's_hero]

Ron is up on his game. He saw where Chris was headed with this interview and cut him off at the pass.

That's a wise thing to do, because sadly, our mainstream media has conditioned the people to believe that whoever says it first is telling the truth.

My summary of the interview:

Chris Matthews:

"Dr. Paul, you're a raci—"

Ron Paul:

"I'm not a racist. Booyah! In before the spin, beeyotch!"

[Bruno]

Ron is up on his game. He saw where Chris was headed with this interview and cut him off at the pass.

That's a wise thing to do, because sadly, our mainstream media has conditioned the people to believe that whoever says it first is telling the truth.

My summary of the interview:

Chris Matthews:

"Dr. Paul, you're a raci—"

Ron Paul:

"I'm not a racist. Booyah! In before the spin, beeyotch!"

Lmao! :D

+ rep

[Sweman]

It's seems to me that Ron is accepting the term libertarian this term around. I haven't heard him once trying to explain that libertarianism is the core of conservatism, or changing it to strict constitutionalist or constitutional conservative. Pundits are throwing the libertarian label at him and he's catching it. Is he embracing it?

[Michigan11]

That's what I'm talking about! If Ron keeps up like that throughout this campaign, he'll walk away with the election, no sweat.

Exactly, he looks like he is ready to become President here.

[Bruno]

It's seems to me that Ron is accepting the term libertarian this term around. I haven't heard him once trying to explain that libertarianism is the core of conservatism, or changing it to strict constitutionalist or constitutional conservative. Pundits are throwing the libertarian label at him and he's catching it. Is he embracing it?

Matthews made as much of a point to drive home as Ron did to ignore it. He even introduced him as a libertarian, which wasn't meant to be a compliement, but meant to drive away conservatives.

My guess is it wasn't an issue Ron wanted to bother focusing on at this time.

[ClayTrainor]

It's seems to me that Ron is accepting the term libertarian this term around. I haven't heard him once trying to explain that libertarianism is the core of conservatism, or changing it to strict constitutionalist or constitutional conservative. Pundits are throwing the libertarian label at him and he's catching it.

You noticed that too eh? :)


Is he embracing it?

Sure looks like it, but he'll play to the audience at the Republican debates for sure. He'll probably say things along the lines of, "I'm the most conservative member here".

[JCLibertarian]

I love how Chris was comparing RP to Reagan and then admitting that he might actually WIN. :)

If the media keeps giving him a fair shake, Ron will dominate the next five and a half years of politics! (campaign trail + first term) :D

Hell, maybe even the next few decades, seeing as how if he wins it will set the stage for many more libertarians in Congress and the presidency.
Maybe Congress and the Presidency won't exist in a couple decades. Maybe total liberty won't come to fruition in our lifetime, but it doesn't hurt to dream.

This was the best I have ever seen Ron Paul, it is up there with his Morton Downey Jr. Show appearance in 88.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo

[Inkblots]

Wow. Ron's really got the fire in the belly today. Well done!

[JCLibertarian]

Matthews is obsessed with that issue. He asked him two things in five minutes. He pressed on heroin specifically, and racism. I'm so glad Ron had this opportunity to very strongly come out against any attacks of racist comments towards him.

It is kind of ironic that Matthews accuses people of racism when he uses racist slurs like "cracker" to describe white conservatives. Often times, it is the race hustlers that are most racist people. CM should stop self projecting his racist tendencies onto Ron Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kUEsbBSF1g

[Sweman]

Matthews made as much of a point to drive home as Ron did to ignore it. He even introduced him as a libertarian, which wasn't meant to be a compliement, but meant to drive away conservatives.

My guess is it wasn't an issue Ron wanted to bother focusing on at this time.

You noticed that too eh? :)



Sure looks like it, but he'll play to the audience at the Republican debates for sure. He'll probably say things along the lines of, "I'm the most conservative member here".

I think you're both right. Look at Matthews facial expression in this sequence:


>> running for president. because you're running for president as a libertarian. we don't need laws to protect people.

>> you are reading much more into it and trying to imply certain beliefs i don't have.

>> no! i think you're a total libertarian. i think you're a total libertarian and appealing about you.

>> listen.

>> they like you. they want to live in a simpler society.

It's like "Ha ha, he's falling for it. I told you guys he would". It's his agenda, no doubt. But as you guys say, I'm not sure Ron fell for anything.



Edit: And by the way, if I was in Frank Luntz's focus group I would max out the meter at the "and we're blowing it".

[Texan4Life]

EPIC RONGASM!

I was a little worried after that one interview where he seemed really tired... I guess he got a nap this time or someone crushed up a caffeine pill in his Fiji water!

[specsaregood]

Ron Paul literally said that, but it is obvious he misspoke, especially when you consider the other statements he made that contradict that statement.

He didn't misspeak. Its a double negative thing, he would NOT vote AGAINST eliminating Jim crow laws. meaning: he would support laws eliminating jim crow.

[low preference guy]

He didn't misspeak. Its a double negative thing, he would NOT vote AGAINST eliminating Jim crow laws. meaning: he would support laws eliminating jim crow.

You're right. I didn't listen carefully. Good.

[SovereignMN]

He's got a fire in his belly. What I love about Ron Paul is that he never offers excuses for defending liberty, even when it's not popular.

[civusamericanus]

Ron Paul was on fire! His veracity is unstoppable!

Ron Paul is letting the Heroin balloon fly, to allow them to make an issue of it, I can't wait until he pops it simply by saying "It's not the president's job to legalize or criminalize drugs, it's up to the states, just like the states can decide to have legal Marijuana, or prohibit sales of liquor on Sunday's. It's time for the federal government to get out of the business of making decisions that should be left up to individual states.".

But why not let them continue chasing after heroin dreams, it's only going to validate Ron Paul's point over time.

[Paulatized]

Hitting the hard issues straight on all day long!!! Go get'em Ron. Man, I love my "crazy uncle" Ron.

[sailingaway]

Sorry for posting this three places but we need to vote this version down DON'T watch it because views and ratings make it the top version) and vote down bad comments. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc&feature=youtu.be

[georgiaboy]

bump. What an amazing interview. Can't let this announcement day go unannounced!

[doodle]

So Rome is burning.. America is on verge of bankruptcy and Chris like his neocon Fox debate allies has to start with "heroin" questions when Ron Paul takes stage?

Ron Paul did great but it's the issue of prioritizing message that needs to reach people in these sound bite windows, these are not top issues on people minds right now. I'm starting to think if Ron Paul should start being more choosey about these interviews and control the message bit more using other channels besides media pundits.



Matthews knows what's up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XddokAhdRc0#t=2m15s

"Sarah Palin has appeal and platformability and Rand Paul has none of those things going for him, he's just a thoughtful guy".

My view of Chris just changed, he's sunk much lower. I suspect he was sent out to talk down Rand and not be an honest observer. Great clip.

[PaulConventionWV]

No, I'm quite certain he said getting rid of the Jim Crow laws was good. That is when he went on a tirade about how all those bad things were the result of government.

If someone is saying he would not have repealed Jim Crow laws, then that's slander and needs to be corrected. Whomever did that needs to be brought to justice in my opinion because that's an outright lie.

[PaulConventionWV]

From The Hill article, which I refuse to link:



The MSNBC transcript says the same thing (click transcript from one of the options on the bottom of the MSNBC video link)

It's a little confusing, but that is what he said. Re read it and it actually means he supported getting rid of them. That's a good thing.

[Feeding the Abscess]

If someone is saying he would not have repealed Jim Crow laws, then that's slander and needs to be corrected. Whomever did that needs to be brought to justice in my opinion because that's an outright lie.

I completely agree, and the campaign needs to get on that. Now.