L
lo yeeOn
Guest
>CD: So can we look forward to a Paul-Kucinich 2008 ticket?
>
>RP: Not likely, but I think that Paul and Kucinich will continue to
>work together and do the kind of work that we've been doing for a
>couple years now.
Well, Congressman Paul, if you're reading this. You know that my
family is in the process of making a donation to your campaign.
And we're also in the process of making a donation to Kucinich's
campaign. And if the two of you run together, the campaign will
receive twice the donation.
I think that a lot of people will also be in the same position,
wishing that the two of you would work together.
As you said, the money saved from stopping our hemmorhaging war may
very well be big enough to fund (at least) some of the social programs
that Kucinich might be interested in. And you recognize as Kucinich
also recognizes that the politicians who believe in regime-changes and
the so-called pre-emptive wars are most dangerous and that there is no
greater issue for the 2008 election than that of war and peace. So,
it seems that as you're hoping that representative Duncan would change
his mind about not supporting your candidacy, I hope that you'd also
change your mind about the unlikelihood of running with Kucinich as a
team. I hope, instead, that you two would actively seek each other
out and form a winning team to lead our country out of the current
destructive path.
To re-iterate, there is nothing more important to the US of A now than
for her to return to a non-interventionist foreign policy. Yet, there
is such a huge effort from the media and the war lobby to prevent this
from happening. To counter their influence, those of us who can help
should work together to maximize our strength for the good of peace.
And there is nothing worse than to see that the war lobby will have
its way: wreck our country further by making our government launch
more unprovoked wars. Finally, the peace ``dividend'' will be very
very substantial, enough to remedy many of the society's problems,
such as health care and education.
For the sake of peace,
lo yeeOn
========
In article <466d1b29.9273384@news.isomedia.com>,
- <jazzerciser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/davis4.html
>
>A Conversation With an Unusual Man
>by Charles Davis
>
>
>Ron Paul is not your typical Republican. The Libertarian Party's
>presidential nominee in 1988, he believes in limited government and a
>"live and let live" social policy. He voted against going to war in
>Iraq back in 2002, and he strongly opposes any military action against
>Iran. In fact, Paul's considered to be the most consistent antiwar
>member of Congress. Though that position may be out of step with
>today's Republican Party, Paul has enjoyed enormous success online. In
>the following conversation, Paul talks about his campaign, the issues
>he's focused on, and the fallout from his exchange in the South
>Carolina Republican debate with former New York City Mayor Rudy
>Giuliani over the role United States foreign policy may have played in
>providing motivation for the attacks of 9/11.
>http://www.techpresident.com/node/361
>http://youtube.com/watch?v=vLkJCjipIAk
>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html
>
>
>
>CD: Why are you running for president?
>
>RP: I'm running to win and to promote the cause of individual liberty
>and limited government. And my goal is to shrink the size of the
>government and maximize the freedoms of each individual.
>
>
>CD: Is there a specific issue that you would say your campaign is
>focused on?
>
>RP: It didn't purposely start out that way, but the number one issue
>in the country is the war in Iraq. So this has given me an opportunity
>to talk about foreign policy overall, because Iraq is just a
>consequence of foreign policy process. And so therefore I get to talk
>about the noninterventionist foreign policy and what I've written
>about and talked about for a lot of years, and it's right now in the
>forefront. And the debates have helped me and its brought a lot of
>attention to it, so a lot of the debate that's going on right now I'm
>very pleased with.
>
>
>CD: I noticed your exchange in the South Carolina debate with Giuliani
>which has gotten you a lot of press lately. So I'm wondering, what
>would you say is the blowback, if you will, from that amongst your
>Republican colleagues? Your fellow candidates weren't very receptive
>to you, but how about the actual Republican people?
>
>RP: On the House floor I would say that people who are quiet probably
>didn't approve. But dozens and dozens have come up and been very
>complimentary, both Republicans and Democrats, but more Democrats than
>Republicans. And outside, of course the discussion on the Internet has
>been overwhelmingly favorable and has literally been a tremendous
>boost to the campaign. And it's coming from a lot of people who are
>just frustrated, people who left the Republican Party or independents,
>Democrats who are frustrated with the Democrats not doing the job that
>they were just elected to do. And this morning on C-span I heard
>somebody come on and said, "I used to be a Democrat but I'm a
>Republican now, but only because Ron Paul is running." I hear a lot of
>that, and of course the number of people that visit our website now is
>growing by leaps and bounds.
>
>
>CD: I wanted to talk to you about that. How are you overcoming your
>lack of resources compared to the Mitt Romney's and John McCain's of
>the world? How are you getting your message out successfully lacking
>that name recognition and those resources?
>
>RP: I would say the Internet's been a tremendous help, it's sort of a
>secret weapon for a grassroots campaign. But I guess the debates have
>been the most helpful, because this has drawn attention to the beliefs
>that I have that are different but still traditional Republican. And
>that's my argument, that you can be a conservative and still be
>opposed to the war, and be a conservative and believe in civil
>liberties, and be a conservative and believe in free enterprise. So
>this is a very attractive position. Republicans are tired with what's
>happened, [the] budget didn't get balanced, and everybody's tired with
>the war. Even those who want to keep fighting it are tired of the war
>and wish it would end. But it's a political position right now that is
>powerful, and I just think a candidate cannot win next year if they
>don't have a strong position and a plan to do something different in Iraq.
>
>
>CD: Could you sum up what your stance is and why you believe that a
>foreign policy of interventionism is not conservative or is not
>Republican? And could you explain what your foreign policy is and why
>it is conservative?
>
>RP: I think it used to be conservative and I think Republicans have
>lost their way. Traditionally Republicans have been more of the peace
>party than the war party, and we've been known to traditionally try to
>end wars like Korea and Vietnam. Even President Bush ran on a program
>which to me was sort of non-intervention, and sort of the peace side,
>and he complained about Clinton and Kosovo and Somalia. So I think
>that's very traditional for Republicans, but it seems like they forget
>easily. Matter of fact, the Republican Party was very strong on this
>House floor against what Clinton was doing in Bosnia. So it's
>interesting that sometimes it becomes more partisanship than thinking
>out on principle. The noninterventionist policy was traditionally
>Republican; I think it's very conservative. I don't see how you can
>come up with any other policy than that if you're a strict
>constitutionalist. It tells you that you shouldn't go to war unless
>there's a declaration of war, you shouldn't go to war under UN
>resolutions, [and] it should be only under the direction of Congress.
>But we just haven't done that. And all of a sudden, because of the
>frustration with the war, people are looking at that and saying, "you
>know, that makes sense."
>
>
>CD: There was a recent bill on the House floor that would have
>required U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq within three months.
>You were one of two Republicans to vote for that bill, the only other
>one was Congressman John Duncan from Tennessee. But he says that he
>could support a candidate who expounds a neoconservative foreign
>policy because it's only one issue and he could agree with the other
>candidates on most other things. Do you think you could support
>someone who backs an interventionist, some would call it a
>neoconservative foreign policy, because maybe you agree with them on
>economic issues? Or do you see foreign policy as the number one issue,
>and that everything else kind of flows from that?
>http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cdavis.php?articleid=11038
>
>
>RP: A radical neoconservative I can't support, because I think they're
>very dangerous and they're very aggressive for starting preemptive
>war. I could support one who has a more moderate viewpoint, which they
>call the realists. I think Wayne Gilchrest might fall into that
>category. He's not ultra-conservative, but he and I work closely
>together and he has a reasonable approach. Jim Leach was one like
>that. That is, they promote diplomacy. You know, my purest program is
>probably not going to happen overnight and you're going to have to
>settle for something less. But I wouldn't accept an aggressive
>neoconservative. But a realist, and the realists were really the ones
>who controlled George Bush Sr.. One of the reasons, even though this
>was international law and I don't particularly like the justification
>for the Persian Gulf war, George Bush Sr. said you know my mandate was
>to push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, I had no other authority to do
>that [regime change]. So he respected the mandate [as opposed to]
>"lets remake the Middle East and lets just march in." So I think those
>who are realists and believe in diplomacy and don't go shooting up
>from the hip, I think I could support somebody like that when I would
>think that would at least be toning down this rhetoric. And maybe they
>would start talking to the Iranians. Maybe they would move the Navy a
>little bit away from their shores rather than marching up there with
>the Navy and threatening them, and not willing to take anything off
>the table including a nuclear-first strike. That is very dangerous
>rhetoric. http://www.reason.com/news/show/120067.html
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Leach
>
>
>CD: Now while the neoconservatives may be more extreme, aren't the
>realists the ones that are responsible for the 50 years of foreign
>policy you've railed against?
>
>RP: Yeah, I think that's true. But I'm talking about where we are and
>which way we move. The realists now all of a sudden look like
>reasonable people compared to the radical neoconservatives. But yeah,
>you're right. So you have an Eisenhower, who was probably closer to
>being in the realist camp, but he was the one who condemned the
>military-industrial complex, he wouldn't go to war in the Suez canal,
>and yet he was behind the CIA getting rid of Mossadeq. So, yes it's
>far from perfect. But the fact that at least half the time they may be
>right, that would be better than having somebody who believed in
>preemptive war.
>
>
>CD: What are the obstacles to you getting your message out there in a
>presidential campaign, compared to all the other candidates with their
>resources and name recognition?
>
>RP: Probably raising enough money if you have to have some
>advertising. But the Internet's the secret weapon, and it helps a lot.
>It's going to help get the message out and help raise money too. And
>also I think the greatest threat is sort of, I got a taste of it and
>the country witnessed it, is that if you are saying things that
>challenge the status quo and challenging the essence of foreign
>policy, they twist it around and they try to paint you as being
>un-American. So I think that'll be the toughest problem because I'm
>expecting that I'll get more of that. So I have to work very hard to
>make sure the message is louder than their accusations that I'm in
>some way not loyal and that for some reason I blame America. I mean,
>to me that's nonsense.
>
>
>CD: Now if that exchange [with Giuliani] is the high mark of your
>campaign, do you think that you were successful in that you have at
>least raised the issue of foreign policy in general American debate?
>
>RP: Oh yeah, I think its been worthwhile, but I'd like to think that
>was just the beginning, not the high-water mark.
>
>
>CD: How can you move your campaign to the next step up?
>
>RP: Well, we'll be in all the debates, and we're still building an
>army of people on the Internet, and there's so many things going on
>spontaneously that we don't even know about. There's so much activity
>every day, there's somebody coming up with a new website, so it's
>pretty amazing what's happening.
>
>
>CD: Speaking of being in the debates, what did you make of the head of
>the Michigan GOP trying to start that ill-fated petition to kick you out?
>
>RP: In a way it backfired just like Giuliani's attack backfired.
>Because immediately there was our petition going up, and I don't think
>it took him even 48 hours to back away from that. I mean it was
>ridiculous to try to silence somebody because he made a point that
>maybe we're not as conservative as we claim. I think that totally
>backfired. So you don't like it, you don't enjoy it, but maybe there's
>more benefit. You know, when that first thing hit with Giuliani I
>thought "well, you know, this is terrible, it's so embarrassing," yet
>it turned out to be probably the best thing that could've happened to us.
>
>
>CD: Do you think that the way the primary system works, and the whole
>political system in the United States, it's kind of stacked to support
>the establishment candidates in both parties so there can't really be
>a groundswell of support for a maverick?
>
>RP: More so all the time, especially the way they're bunching up the
>primaries so people with big money have the advantage. And also if you
>look at the opportunities for anybody to do it in a third party, it's
>practically impossible because the two establishment parties make it
>so difficult to even get on ballots. I mean you have to be a Ross
>Perot to get on the ballot and spend millions and millions of dollars.
>So it's amazing that we go around the world using force to spread
>democracy and we have a few infractions here at home. And sometimes we
>become less democratic as we're fighting overseas to promote democracy.
>
>
>CD: Congressman Dennis Kucinich is kind of similar in that he is one
>of the more vocal antiwar critics on the Democratic side of the
>debates. I know you guys probably disagree on a load of things, but
>you've come together a lot to work on issues of war and peace. So
>could you talk about your relationship with Congressman Kucinich over
>the past couple years, what it's been like, what you think of him?
>
>RP: We're close friends, and we certainly agree [on the war]. And I
>think we may end up voting closely all the time on the war issue.
>Sometimes some of these funding bills are a little bit complex, and
>even Walter Jones and I will disagree even though we agree on what
>we're supposed to be doing, but the interpretation will be a little
>bit different. But I think Dennis and I usually come down on the same
>side of it. That is, if you don't want the war you quit the funding,
>and that's our responsibility and it's not the president's authority
>to do what he wants because we have the purse strings, so you have to
>vote against the spending. So we get along very well on that, and
>since it's such a major issue I think I will continue to work with him
>the best we can. And you know, take some of the liberal welfare
>spending that Dennis might support more than I. But you know, I'm not
>hostile toward that. If I can save the money from overseas, put some
>of it against the deficit, end up with a net reduction in the size of
>the budget, at the same time stopping a war, I may well be very open
>to funding some of these programs. Because I'm not out to gut some of
>these programs that have taught people to be very dependant on the
>government, like medical care. I mean, that's not my goal. I've never
>run for office with the goal of slashing [those programs] even though
>philosophically I don't think it's the best way to deliver services
>and prosperity to poor people.
>
>
>CD: So can we look forward to a Paul-Kucinich 2008 ticket?
>
>RP: Not likely, but I think that Paul and Kucinich will continue to
>work together and do the kind of work that we've been doing for a
>couple years now.
>
>
>CD: Finally, I was talking to Congressman Duncan (R-TN) and he told me
>that, more than anyone in Congress, he probably agrees with Ron Paul
>the most. But yet he still says he's going to endorse Fred Thompson
>because he has a chance to win. How do you combat that mindset that
>says "well, you know, I might agree with you but these other people
>have a better chance?"
>http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cdavis.php?articleid=11038
>
>RP: We have to convince them by our campaign getting bigger and more
>credible, and that we go up in the polls. So only time will tell.
>
>
>
>June 8, 2007
>
>Charles Davis [send him mail] is a freelance journalist in Washington,
>DC. More of his work may be found on his personal website.
>http://charliedavis.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
>2007 LewRockwell.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>RP: Not likely, but I think that Paul and Kucinich will continue to
>work together and do the kind of work that we've been doing for a
>couple years now.
Well, Congressman Paul, if you're reading this. You know that my
family is in the process of making a donation to your campaign.
And we're also in the process of making a donation to Kucinich's
campaign. And if the two of you run together, the campaign will
receive twice the donation.
I think that a lot of people will also be in the same position,
wishing that the two of you would work together.
As you said, the money saved from stopping our hemmorhaging war may
very well be big enough to fund (at least) some of the social programs
that Kucinich might be interested in. And you recognize as Kucinich
also recognizes that the politicians who believe in regime-changes and
the so-called pre-emptive wars are most dangerous and that there is no
greater issue for the 2008 election than that of war and peace. So,
it seems that as you're hoping that representative Duncan would change
his mind about not supporting your candidacy, I hope that you'd also
change your mind about the unlikelihood of running with Kucinich as a
team. I hope, instead, that you two would actively seek each other
out and form a winning team to lead our country out of the current
destructive path.
To re-iterate, there is nothing more important to the US of A now than
for her to return to a non-interventionist foreign policy. Yet, there
is such a huge effort from the media and the war lobby to prevent this
from happening. To counter their influence, those of us who can help
should work together to maximize our strength for the good of peace.
And there is nothing worse than to see that the war lobby will have
its way: wreck our country further by making our government launch
more unprovoked wars. Finally, the peace ``dividend'' will be very
very substantial, enough to remedy many of the society's problems,
such as health care and education.
For the sake of peace,
lo yeeOn
========
In article <466d1b29.9273384@news.isomedia.com>,
- <jazzerciser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/davis4.html
>
>A Conversation With an Unusual Man
>by Charles Davis
>
>
>Ron Paul is not your typical Republican. The Libertarian Party's
>presidential nominee in 1988, he believes in limited government and a
>"live and let live" social policy. He voted against going to war in
>Iraq back in 2002, and he strongly opposes any military action against
>Iran. In fact, Paul's considered to be the most consistent antiwar
>member of Congress. Though that position may be out of step with
>today's Republican Party, Paul has enjoyed enormous success online. In
>the following conversation, Paul talks about his campaign, the issues
>he's focused on, and the fallout from his exchange in the South
>Carolina Republican debate with former New York City Mayor Rudy
>Giuliani over the role United States foreign policy may have played in
>providing motivation for the attacks of 9/11.
>http://www.techpresident.com/node/361
>http://youtube.com/watch?v=vLkJCjipIAk
>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html
>
>
>
>CD: Why are you running for president?
>
>RP: I'm running to win and to promote the cause of individual liberty
>and limited government. And my goal is to shrink the size of the
>government and maximize the freedoms of each individual.
>
>
>CD: Is there a specific issue that you would say your campaign is
>focused on?
>
>RP: It didn't purposely start out that way, but the number one issue
>in the country is the war in Iraq. So this has given me an opportunity
>to talk about foreign policy overall, because Iraq is just a
>consequence of foreign policy process. And so therefore I get to talk
>about the noninterventionist foreign policy and what I've written
>about and talked about for a lot of years, and it's right now in the
>forefront. And the debates have helped me and its brought a lot of
>attention to it, so a lot of the debate that's going on right now I'm
>very pleased with.
>
>
>CD: I noticed your exchange in the South Carolina debate with Giuliani
>which has gotten you a lot of press lately. So I'm wondering, what
>would you say is the blowback, if you will, from that amongst your
>Republican colleagues? Your fellow candidates weren't very receptive
>to you, but how about the actual Republican people?
>
>RP: On the House floor I would say that people who are quiet probably
>didn't approve. But dozens and dozens have come up and been very
>complimentary, both Republicans and Democrats, but more Democrats than
>Republicans. And outside, of course the discussion on the Internet has
>been overwhelmingly favorable and has literally been a tremendous
>boost to the campaign. And it's coming from a lot of people who are
>just frustrated, people who left the Republican Party or independents,
>Democrats who are frustrated with the Democrats not doing the job that
>they were just elected to do. And this morning on C-span I heard
>somebody come on and said, "I used to be a Democrat but I'm a
>Republican now, but only because Ron Paul is running." I hear a lot of
>that, and of course the number of people that visit our website now is
>growing by leaps and bounds.
>
>
>CD: I wanted to talk to you about that. How are you overcoming your
>lack of resources compared to the Mitt Romney's and John McCain's of
>the world? How are you getting your message out successfully lacking
>that name recognition and those resources?
>
>RP: I would say the Internet's been a tremendous help, it's sort of a
>secret weapon for a grassroots campaign. But I guess the debates have
>been the most helpful, because this has drawn attention to the beliefs
>that I have that are different but still traditional Republican. And
>that's my argument, that you can be a conservative and still be
>opposed to the war, and be a conservative and believe in civil
>liberties, and be a conservative and believe in free enterprise. So
>this is a very attractive position. Republicans are tired with what's
>happened, [the] budget didn't get balanced, and everybody's tired with
>the war. Even those who want to keep fighting it are tired of the war
>and wish it would end. But it's a political position right now that is
>powerful, and I just think a candidate cannot win next year if they
>don't have a strong position and a plan to do something different in Iraq.
>
>
>CD: Could you sum up what your stance is and why you believe that a
>foreign policy of interventionism is not conservative or is not
>Republican? And could you explain what your foreign policy is and why
>it is conservative?
>
>RP: I think it used to be conservative and I think Republicans have
>lost their way. Traditionally Republicans have been more of the peace
>party than the war party, and we've been known to traditionally try to
>end wars like Korea and Vietnam. Even President Bush ran on a program
>which to me was sort of non-intervention, and sort of the peace side,
>and he complained about Clinton and Kosovo and Somalia. So I think
>that's very traditional for Republicans, but it seems like they forget
>easily. Matter of fact, the Republican Party was very strong on this
>House floor against what Clinton was doing in Bosnia. So it's
>interesting that sometimes it becomes more partisanship than thinking
>out on principle. The noninterventionist policy was traditionally
>Republican; I think it's very conservative. I don't see how you can
>come up with any other policy than that if you're a strict
>constitutionalist. It tells you that you shouldn't go to war unless
>there's a declaration of war, you shouldn't go to war under UN
>resolutions, [and] it should be only under the direction of Congress.
>But we just haven't done that. And all of a sudden, because of the
>frustration with the war, people are looking at that and saying, "you
>know, that makes sense."
>
>
>CD: There was a recent bill on the House floor that would have
>required U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq within three months.
>You were one of two Republicans to vote for that bill, the only other
>one was Congressman John Duncan from Tennessee. But he says that he
>could support a candidate who expounds a neoconservative foreign
>policy because it's only one issue and he could agree with the other
>candidates on most other things. Do you think you could support
>someone who backs an interventionist, some would call it a
>neoconservative foreign policy, because maybe you agree with them on
>economic issues? Or do you see foreign policy as the number one issue,
>and that everything else kind of flows from that?
>http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cdavis.php?articleid=11038
>
>
>RP: A radical neoconservative I can't support, because I think they're
>very dangerous and they're very aggressive for starting preemptive
>war. I could support one who has a more moderate viewpoint, which they
>call the realists. I think Wayne Gilchrest might fall into that
>category. He's not ultra-conservative, but he and I work closely
>together and he has a reasonable approach. Jim Leach was one like
>that. That is, they promote diplomacy. You know, my purest program is
>probably not going to happen overnight and you're going to have to
>settle for something less. But I wouldn't accept an aggressive
>neoconservative. But a realist, and the realists were really the ones
>who controlled George Bush Sr.. One of the reasons, even though this
>was international law and I don't particularly like the justification
>for the Persian Gulf war, George Bush Sr. said you know my mandate was
>to push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, I had no other authority to do
>that [regime change]. So he respected the mandate [as opposed to]
>"lets remake the Middle East and lets just march in." So I think those
>who are realists and believe in diplomacy and don't go shooting up
>from the hip, I think I could support somebody like that when I would
>think that would at least be toning down this rhetoric. And maybe they
>would start talking to the Iranians. Maybe they would move the Navy a
>little bit away from their shores rather than marching up there with
>the Navy and threatening them, and not willing to take anything off
>the table including a nuclear-first strike. That is very dangerous
>rhetoric. http://www.reason.com/news/show/120067.html
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Leach
>
>
>CD: Now while the neoconservatives may be more extreme, aren't the
>realists the ones that are responsible for the 50 years of foreign
>policy you've railed against?
>
>RP: Yeah, I think that's true. But I'm talking about where we are and
>which way we move. The realists now all of a sudden look like
>reasonable people compared to the radical neoconservatives. But yeah,
>you're right. So you have an Eisenhower, who was probably closer to
>being in the realist camp, but he was the one who condemned the
>military-industrial complex, he wouldn't go to war in the Suez canal,
>and yet he was behind the CIA getting rid of Mossadeq. So, yes it's
>far from perfect. But the fact that at least half the time they may be
>right, that would be better than having somebody who believed in
>preemptive war.
>
>
>CD: What are the obstacles to you getting your message out there in a
>presidential campaign, compared to all the other candidates with their
>resources and name recognition?
>
>RP: Probably raising enough money if you have to have some
>advertising. But the Internet's the secret weapon, and it helps a lot.
>It's going to help get the message out and help raise money too. And
>also I think the greatest threat is sort of, I got a taste of it and
>the country witnessed it, is that if you are saying things that
>challenge the status quo and challenging the essence of foreign
>policy, they twist it around and they try to paint you as being
>un-American. So I think that'll be the toughest problem because I'm
>expecting that I'll get more of that. So I have to work very hard to
>make sure the message is louder than their accusations that I'm in
>some way not loyal and that for some reason I blame America. I mean,
>to me that's nonsense.
>
>
>CD: Now if that exchange [with Giuliani] is the high mark of your
>campaign, do you think that you were successful in that you have at
>least raised the issue of foreign policy in general American debate?
>
>RP: Oh yeah, I think its been worthwhile, but I'd like to think that
>was just the beginning, not the high-water mark.
>
>
>CD: How can you move your campaign to the next step up?
>
>RP: Well, we'll be in all the debates, and we're still building an
>army of people on the Internet, and there's so many things going on
>spontaneously that we don't even know about. There's so much activity
>every day, there's somebody coming up with a new website, so it's
>pretty amazing what's happening.
>
>
>CD: Speaking of being in the debates, what did you make of the head of
>the Michigan GOP trying to start that ill-fated petition to kick you out?
>
>RP: In a way it backfired just like Giuliani's attack backfired.
>Because immediately there was our petition going up, and I don't think
>it took him even 48 hours to back away from that. I mean it was
>ridiculous to try to silence somebody because he made a point that
>maybe we're not as conservative as we claim. I think that totally
>backfired. So you don't like it, you don't enjoy it, but maybe there's
>more benefit. You know, when that first thing hit with Giuliani I
>thought "well, you know, this is terrible, it's so embarrassing," yet
>it turned out to be probably the best thing that could've happened to us.
>
>
>CD: Do you think that the way the primary system works, and the whole
>political system in the United States, it's kind of stacked to support
>the establishment candidates in both parties so there can't really be
>a groundswell of support for a maverick?
>
>RP: More so all the time, especially the way they're bunching up the
>primaries so people with big money have the advantage. And also if you
>look at the opportunities for anybody to do it in a third party, it's
>practically impossible because the two establishment parties make it
>so difficult to even get on ballots. I mean you have to be a Ross
>Perot to get on the ballot and spend millions and millions of dollars.
>So it's amazing that we go around the world using force to spread
>democracy and we have a few infractions here at home. And sometimes we
>become less democratic as we're fighting overseas to promote democracy.
>
>
>CD: Congressman Dennis Kucinich is kind of similar in that he is one
>of the more vocal antiwar critics on the Democratic side of the
>debates. I know you guys probably disagree on a load of things, but
>you've come together a lot to work on issues of war and peace. So
>could you talk about your relationship with Congressman Kucinich over
>the past couple years, what it's been like, what you think of him?
>
>RP: We're close friends, and we certainly agree [on the war]. And I
>think we may end up voting closely all the time on the war issue.
>Sometimes some of these funding bills are a little bit complex, and
>even Walter Jones and I will disagree even though we agree on what
>we're supposed to be doing, but the interpretation will be a little
>bit different. But I think Dennis and I usually come down on the same
>side of it. That is, if you don't want the war you quit the funding,
>and that's our responsibility and it's not the president's authority
>to do what he wants because we have the purse strings, so you have to
>vote against the spending. So we get along very well on that, and
>since it's such a major issue I think I will continue to work with him
>the best we can. And you know, take some of the liberal welfare
>spending that Dennis might support more than I. But you know, I'm not
>hostile toward that. If I can save the money from overseas, put some
>of it against the deficit, end up with a net reduction in the size of
>the budget, at the same time stopping a war, I may well be very open
>to funding some of these programs. Because I'm not out to gut some of
>these programs that have taught people to be very dependant on the
>government, like medical care. I mean, that's not my goal. I've never
>run for office with the goal of slashing [those programs] even though
>philosophically I don't think it's the best way to deliver services
>and prosperity to poor people.
>
>
>CD: So can we look forward to a Paul-Kucinich 2008 ticket?
>
>RP: Not likely, but I think that Paul and Kucinich will continue to
>work together and do the kind of work that we've been doing for a
>couple years now.
>
>
>CD: Finally, I was talking to Congressman Duncan (R-TN) and he told me
>that, more than anyone in Congress, he probably agrees with Ron Paul
>the most. But yet he still says he's going to endorse Fred Thompson
>because he has a chance to win. How do you combat that mindset that
>says "well, you know, I might agree with you but these other people
>have a better chance?"
>http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cdavis.php?articleid=11038
>
>RP: We have to convince them by our campaign getting bigger and more
>credible, and that we go up in the polls. So only time will tell.
>
>
>
>June 8, 2007
>
>Charles Davis [send him mail] is a freelance journalist in Washington,
>DC. More of his work may be found on his personal website.
>http://charliedavis.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
>2007 LewRockwell.com
>
>
>
>
>