Home » Articles » Classic Videos: Ron Paul During the Last Election

Classic Videos: Ron Paul During the Last Election

by John Rubino on March 8, 2010 · 33 comments

The best way to understand how far the U.S. has drifted from its original design is to listen to Ron Paul. He sounds like Thomas Jefferson would if he were around, which makes him a flake and a radical to most of today’s Republicans and Democrats. But he strikes a chord with a surprisingly wide range of good people, from techies who want to be left alone, to college kids who don’t want to support their selfish boomer parents for the next thirty years, to soldiers appalled by what they’re being asked to do.

“Classical liberal” concepts like individual freedom, limited government and non-interventionism aren’t a factor in today’s politics because they conflict with the goals of both the left and right. But post-crash they’ll be in the mix. In the meantime, we’ve got Ron Paul to keep the pot boiling. Here’s an interview with PBS’s Judy Woodruff in 2007.

{ 33 comments… read them below or add one }

henry1coulter March 8, 2010 at 12:00 pm

Ron Paul is an inspiration to me. He is the only politician (if you can call him that) I’ve ever sent money to, a true patriot and our best hope for the future. He is getting up there in years but is just as feisty as ever. Keep it up Ron.


Jack March 8, 2010 at 12:05 pm

Ron Paul is no flake. I stand with him. He is a PATRIOT and STATESMAN. No comprimise of his principles. That is a leader.


Brad Thrasher March 8, 2010 at 12:28 pm

When I hear these strict constructionist arguments from the Ron Paul’s of the world, it sounds like more of the same. People just looking to avoid their responsibility and take a free ride. It’s very much a, what’s mine is mine and screw you argument.

We do need to restructure. How about starting by charging a royalty on all things developed and invented with our tax money. Instead of giving our commonwealth away, let the government do what each of you advocates for yourselves. Get a reasonable ROI!!!

A one cent royalty every time someone logs on to the internet, uses GPS, pops something in the microwave, drives on our roads, takes a prescription drug etc, etc…

Don’t just stop there. Place a VAT on all goods and services entering this country equal to our defense budget. Why should we bear the entire cost of ensuring safe passage of goods and services throughout the world. It’s because as Lyndon Johnson once quipped while unzipping his pants and placing his ample organ on the table for all to see, it’s about that.

Get real people! The solutions to our problems is not some dreamed of Republic that never existed. The solution is stepping up to the plate and paying for what we get. To advocate anything less is to admit you’re just another welfare bum. A taker.


Frank March 8, 2010 at 3:49 pm

Hi Brad. You’ll have to reiterate your logic concerning how supporting Ron Paul makes you a welfare bum. Considering the fact that Paul is against entitlement programs I find that hard to believe.

You say, “People just looking to avoid their responsibility and take a free ride.”

I fail to see how wanting to cut down wasteful spending equates to a free ride. In fact that is clearly wrong. A free ride means getting the services and not paying for them. This is what is going on now and can be seen by looking at our current account deficit of $1,200,000,000,000. This is the monetary value of the difference between what we are getting and what we are paying for.
What Paul advocates is not getting the services and not paying for them. In other words to stop the free ride that is currently going on.



Lennon March 8, 2010 at 3:53 pm

@Brad Thrasher: Another option would be to end all personal income taxes and let the free thinking creativity and ingenuity be released from the population to bring back the (mostly) free market we had for the first 100-ish years of our existence. For at least 97 years and probably for a bit longer, we have existed under a mixed system of corporatism/socialism-lite, not true free market capitalism.


tyler March 8, 2010 at 4:25 pm

Ron Paul is a complete joke on foreign policy and he would get us all killed. Iran is a serious threat. How come I’ve never heard ron paul talk about illegal immigrants? They are a serious threat to our society and have invaded our country and sucked like leeches off the government. I will give ron paul supporters credit, theyre the only people who complain about fox news on the right. I despise fixed news, all hacks all the time, tired talking points and nothing but former george bush staff.


Brad Thrasher March 8, 2010 at 5:41 pm

Hey Frank,

In a perfect we wouldn’t need law. Everybody would just do the right thing. Social Security began as Aid to the Blind back in the 1930′s. Are you and Ron Paul saying we shouldn’t provide for the medically challenged? Are we to go back to the days when children who are different are confined to attics or put in work houses and worse?

Yeah lets do as Ron Paul as says and return return to slavery and your wives and daughters will lose their right to vote, to own property and in some states even inherit, lose Title 9 sports and even get an education.

Yeah guys, that U.S. Constitution really worked well for the first 100 years, didn’t it?

We need to restructure our economy and the first to place to start is tariffs in the form of a VAT and a reasonable ROI on the commonwealth. Do that Lennon and yes we could get rid of the income tax, which is the single worst form of regressive ever invented.


Bruce C. March 8, 2010 at 9:27 pm

Hey Brad,

What are you complaining about? Everything you seem to advocate is going on right now and with plenty of supporters. Think the income tax is regressive? Okay, lets shift the rate structure up even more so that half the population doesn’t have to pay 3% of the revenues, and why not increase the earned income tax credit, food stamps, and all the rest while we’re at it too? Of course the IRS will have to expand and be a little more intrusive to handle all those Value Added Taxes on everything that’s sold but that’s okay – it’ll be worth it – because somehow that money will be redistributed to the “commonwealth”.

And your right: Why should people who have no “skin in the game” in the form of personal wealth or property be denied the right to determine how that wealth and property should be controlled and taxed by the government?

I hate people who don’t do the right thing, don’t you? That’s why we need laws to force people to provide money for people in need, and other good causes, because they may not do it otherwise. Personally, I think everyone who is medically challenged or old or retired or hungry or sick or not making enough money to live like-people-should-in-the-richest-country-in-the-world should get money from the government. It’s only right! People shouldn’t be allowed to choose the perceived needs they wish to provide for and in the way they see fit. I say they won’t do it, or they won’t do it enough!

I also think that people who come into this country illegally or who over-stay their visas SHOULD be treated with the respect that our Constitution demands, and helped (damn it!), not treated like criminals or made to feel unwelcome. I think people are heartless and unjust and should be forced to provide comfort for those who simply want to share in the abundance and generosity of this great nation like we all do (though, regrettably, some more than others). Don’t you? You know… I don’t care if you do or not. IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO! You should be taxed like all the rest of the selfish people in this greedy, capitalist country so that other less fortunate ones won’t suffer.

And did I mention the people in other countries? They need our help too because…

GET IT???!!!



Robert D. March 9, 2010 at 6:04 am

As much as I love Ron Paul and the belief we should return to less Federal government, I dont think anything will change before the wheels fall off. Why would we aregue who should get government funding when there will not be ANY for anyone? It will be all or nothing, either we keep all the spending, or we wont spend a dime, there is no compromise! We will have a confidence crisis with our currency, its is in the beginning stages, all the instruments are in place, and we are looking for the signs of currency problems and cant see them…. HAH! no ever has, nor anyone ever will, except in retrospect, dont worry about spending, it will not be fixed, just hang on to your hats….


Jack March 9, 2010 at 6:35 am

Agree or disagree with ROn Paul at least we know where he stands. He seems to vote his prinicpals. That is kinda odd in todays world. He is a true rebal.


Scott March 9, 2010 at 8:30 am


For a better understanding Ron Paul’s positions on the issues, I would suggest reading “Ron Paul’s Plan for a Freedom President” http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul647.html , and also, check out http://www.campaignforliberty.com


paper is poverty March 9, 2010 at 8:56 am

Brad, you wrote “Yeah lets do as Ron Paul as says and return return to slavery and your wives and daughters will lose their right to vote….”

But it’s the Constitution itself which insures the abolishment of slavery and women’s right to vote. Google “Constitutional amendment” if you are unclear on this point.

Secondly, Ron Paul says right in this interview that we can’t summarily give up Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security, he just argues that we should find ways to transition away from that. You may disagree, but given that we’re broke, bankrupt, ruined, headed for default or hyperinflation, perhaps it’s good that somebody out there is wondering how to take care of the least among us by some means other than a huge federal government.

And by the way, the states can set up whatever they want. If Massachusetts wants high taxes and cradle-to-grave welfare, they can give it a go. If Utah wants no welfare at all, they can see what that does to their crime rate. Or at least, we were supposed to be allowed that sort of diversity. It hasn’t happened in practice because we’ve had an incessant centralization of power in Washington. The mega-corporations love this, because corrupting the government is so much easier when the people with real power are all in one place. And it serves the lefty utopian thinkers (Fabian socialists et al), as well as the military industrial surveillance complex, so hey, all the elites are happy. Thank god for the coming collapse and consequent re-localization, because another couple decades of this and it would be Walden Two meets 1984.


Brad Thrasher March 9, 2010 at 3:54 pm

Hey PIP, the constitution guarantees nothing. How the law is applied to facts is the guaranty. Amendments can and have been repealed. It took a civil war, the emancipation proclamation, passing of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights protests 100 years later to overturn Dred Scot. Perhaps PIP should google reality if he is unclear on that point.

It’s laughable that the corporatists on this site, including Ron Paul only advocate reductions in defense and social spending. Either each of you, including Mr. Paul, is uninformed about corporate welfare or you support it by your silence.

It begs the question, do you support the overthrow of our Republic by the financial interests or are you just stupid?


Scott March 9, 2010 at 5:37 pm

“Either each of you, including Mr. Paul, is uninformed about corporate welfare or you support it by your silence.”


You are misinformed. Ron Paul does not support corporate welfare. He has consistently been against all forms of corporate welfare, including the colossal Wall Street bailouts.


Brad Thrasher March 9, 2010 at 7:01 pm

Scot, I watched both videos. Mr. Paul said nothing about corporate welfare in either. That’s some commitment he has when in a prime tv spot he fails to even mention corporate welfare.

During the midterm in 2006 and again in 2008 the Democrats promised that if we elected them that they would get us out of Iraq. We gave them a majority in 2006 and an increased in 2008. four years after the promise was made, we are still in Iraq with no end in sight.

Why should I or you believe Ron Paul would be any different?

I do support Mr. Paul on auditing the Federal Reserve. As previously stated on this thread I also support his calls for increasing tariffs and reducing income taxes. However, because I didn’t say, “I support Ron Paul on taxes” the tea party crowd missed it.


Scott March 9, 2010 at 10:15 pm


Here is an excerpt from “My Plan for a Freedom President – How I would put the Constitution back in the Oval Office” by Ron Paul at http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul647.html that I referenced in my previous comment:

“Of course, just as the welfare-warfare state was not constructed in 100 days, it could not be dismantled in the first 100 days of any presidency. While our goal is to reduce the size of the state as quickly as possible, we should always make sure our immediate proposals minimize social disruption and human suffering. Thus, we should not seek to abolish the social safety net overnight because that would harm those who have grown dependent on government-provided welfare. Instead, we would want to give individuals who have come to rely on the state time to prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help – churches and private charities.

Now, this need for a transition period does not apply to all types of welfare. For example, I would have no problem defunding corporate welfare programs, such as the Export-Import Bank or the TARP bank bailouts, right away. I find it difficult to muster much sympathy for the CEO’s of Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs.”

If you are looking for someone committed to reining in corporate welfare and getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, Ron Paul is your guy. He is unquestionably the most consistent and principled politician in Washington, D.C. of either party. I hope he decides to run for President again in 2012, and you have the opportunity to vote for him. With all the press coverage he has gotten after the 2008 election coupled with his accurate warnings of the financial mess we are still in the middle of, he just might get elected.

Ron Paul gets virtually no Wall Street or other big-money backing because he votes based on the Constitution, not based on who is funding his campaign. He raised over $35 milion for his Presidential run via internet “Money Bombs” that were organized by his supporters, stayed in the race to the end and took what money he had left (~ $5 million) to start his grass roots Campaign For Liberty.


Brad Thrasher March 9, 2010 at 11:10 pm

Hey Scot,

Thanks for making my point that Ron Paul isn’t serious about ending corporate welfare. He said nothing about in a 17 minute interview with Judy Woodruff. He has one sentence about it in his what is purported to be his platform piece. That’s nothing more than a throw away applause line in a State of the Union address.

All the best,


R Michael Hill March 10, 2010 at 3:42 am


It is quite amusing that simply because Ron Paul fails to mention or decry corporate welfare in this interview, and makes a brief statement concerning it in another source (where it IS decried), you can then feel justified in saying he supports corporate welfare. You’d make a damn poor Sherlock Holmes.
“Yes my dear Watson… I watched the whole bloody thing! And as everyone knows, corporate welfare is such a pain in arse, that surely he would have mentioned it even if the interviewer didn’t ask about it specifically.”
Watson to Holmes, “But Holmes, there is a mention of ending it in this piece here by Ron Paul.”
Holmes, “Ah, that settles it then! We have examined to full pieces of the hundreds of pieces of Ron Paul evidence, and only one line in those two mentions ending corporate welfare. It is very apparent then that Ron Paul supports corporate welfare… it’s elementary my dear Watson!”

Thrasher is a fool. It doesn’t take much of a search to find plenty of Ron Paul videos and articles where he denounces corporate welfare, both in general and in specific. You are a numb skull.


Scott March 10, 2010 at 7:46 am


The information is readily available to you that confirms beyond doubt that Ron Paul is against corporate welfare. If you choose not to take a few minutes to look into it – that’s your call. Unfortunately too many approach voting this way and look what a mess we have! We as a country get the government that we deserve! If most voters would take just a little time to understand a candidate’s position we would have a much better government. Since the 2008 election, Ron Paul has been interviewed extensively on most of the major networks and has talked about the need for sound money, balanced budgets, ending corporate welfare and returning to a true free market, auditing then ending the Federal Reserve, and having a strong defense and a non-interventionist foreign policy. If you would look into his long-held (11 terms in Cogress representing the 14th district of Texas) positions on issues, you just might find that he is a politician you agree with. I hope you and many others change their approach to politics before voting in the next election. If not, we will continue over the economic cliff that we started falling off – it’s still a long way down from here for most of us who aren’t as well-connected as the Wall Street banks.


Bruce C. March 10, 2010 at 11:15 am

I’d like to add that Ron Paul is also very consistent in his positions, primarily because he is a Constitutionalist, which makes him very predictable and accountable.

P.S. to Brad: One thing the Constitution does guarantee, by implication, is that by straying too far away from its principles of limited government and informed civic participation then misery and servitude are sure to follow.


Brad Thrasher March 10, 2010 at 1:05 pm

Hey gang,

Actually I think I will start attending Ron Paul, Tea Party rallies and maybe do some advertising on the Alex Jones and George Noory radio shows. While reading your posts I doodled a neat design for tin foil cap liners.

You guys are inspiring.

All the best,


R Michael Hill March 10, 2010 at 4:02 pm

Brad is a hoot! Even a superficial look at Ron Paul would lead a blind and deaf man to the undeniable conclusion that he is opposed to collusion between government and private industry.. yet he foolishly believed otherwise! Then when we call him on his absurdity, he tries to hurt our feelings with the comment below.
I am no conspiracy nut Thrasher… And neither is Ron Paul. Funny though, many of those conspiracy nuts show more integrity and intellectual honesty than you seem to muster here. What a sad commentary on the American electorate you are.. typical, and sad.


Jack March 10, 2010 at 5:49 pm

Hey Trash. Make a hat for me I want one.


Jack March 10, 2010 at 5:50 pm

Dang it I mispelled Thrash, I am sorry, you can see from other posts I do it all the time. I still want a hat.


Scott March 10, 2010 at 8:07 pm


Those are all good ideas – but you will look out of place if you show up at a Ron Paul event or a Tea Party rally wearig a tin foil hat. :)

Since you have made a tin foil hat, I challenge you to wear it while you read through all of Ron Paul’s writings. By the time you read through all his published books and posted articles/columns on the internet you will realize the common sense behind his positions on the issues and throw your tin foil hat in the garbage where it belongs.

BTW, today the House is in the midst of a three hour debate over H Con. Res. 248, which would require President Obama to pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan within 30 days of the resolution’s passage by Congress or no later than the end of 2010 – Here is a 5-minute speech given by Ron Paul on the House floor in support of this resolution – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=422uTaGxY8o&feature=player_embedded


Jack March 10, 2010 at 9:19 pm

Wow, Thanks for the link Scott. But its too late. We way to broke for to much to matter now.


Brad Thrasher March 10, 2010 at 10:09 pm

Hey Scot,

I believed deeply in two politicians during my lifetime. Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. Ironically, each personified some great American myths. Reagan, the can do spirit of the rugged individual and Obama the strength and purpose of our collective will.

I became disenchanted with Reagan over the issues of civil asset forfeiture, that I came to realize States Right’s is just a euphemism for racism, that rather than lowering taxes he merely shifted the burden onto the middle class and the poor through payroll taxes, but most of all that he absolutely failed in his promise to reign in government spending. Even Reagan admitted that he merely reduced the rate of growth in government spending. Big whoop and I’m not convinced he did even that much.

Obama? He’s nothing more than Bush43 in brown skin. Talks like FDR and governs like Jimmy Carter or James Buchanan.

So now ya tell me this guy Ron Paul from Texas is different? No thanks. I just ain’t buyin’ politicians anymore.

Since you’ve shared some interesting links Scot, I’ll reciprocate. Check out the Quiet Coup by Simon Jonson of Baseline Scenario and published by the Atlantic Monthly.


Sadly, I don’t believe we can restore the Republic within the limits of our political process. From gerrymandering districts to packing the courts to the revolving door between industry and government we have lost our way.

Oh, for Bruce C., Jack & R. Michael Hill. I played ice hockey for nearly 40 of my 57 years. You guys are total pikers in the name calling business. If you want to insult somebody at least show some something between your own ears. Like this:

Hill: I can eat alphabet soup and shit better insults.
Jack: Out of 10,000 sperm you were the quickest?
Bruce C.: I defend you the other day. People said you were ugly and stupid. I said you weren’t ugly.

You kids run along and study and don’t pick fights outside your IQ class.

All the best,


Scott March 10, 2010 at 11:21 pm


Thanks for the link for the Quiet Coup – I read it awhile back and emailed it to a number of my friends.

I also was disappointed that Pres. Reagan shifted the tax burden to the middle class and didn’t cut government spending more than he cut taxes. In hindsight, I think V.P. George H.W. Bush had too much influence over Reagan. I never cared for George H.W. Bush but was naively hopeful that George W. Bush would be different, but he too was just another big-government politician.

In the 2008 election, John McCain and Rudy Guiliani were my least favorite Republicans running for President. They both are big-government politicians and neither are socially conservative. I didn’t have much hope for change with Pres. Obama being elected either. He is definitely not socially or fiscally conservative and, like McCain and Hillary Clinton, he was supported heavily by Wall Street bankers. So it was obvious to me before the 2008 general election that virtually nothing would change for the better in terms of economic or foreign policy and the wealthy well-connected would continue to profit at the expense of everyone else. So I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries and voted 3rd party in the general election (as a protest vote).

From what I’ve read, Ron Paul is different – his political adversaries don’t call him Dr. No for nothing. He doesn’t play the game of trading his congressional vote for campaign funds from lobbyists like so many politicians do in D.C.

From your comments on Reagan and Obama, you sound disenchanted with both parties, so why don’t you look into Ron Paul further and give him a chance. He is a statesman who votes based on principles, not a politician who votes based on money. Like I said before, read what he has written before dismssing him as just another politican. Also check out Ron Paul’s son Rand Paul (http://www.randpaul2010.com/). He is running as a Republican for Senate (he is an optometrist taking his first try at politics) in Kentucky and also is a limited-government, strict constitutionalist. Rand is currently leading in the polls by ~15% over his nearest challenger (who is backed by Sen. Mitch McConnell and the RNC).


Scott March 10, 2010 at 11:29 pm


You’re welcome. The link is also posted at http://www.campaignforliberty.com – if you haven’t already, check it out. There is alot of good info posted there. I regularly read it and dollarcollapse.com.


Brad Thrasher March 11, 2010 at 2:42 am

Hey Scot,

In 2000 I supported Ralph Nadar. Which should clarity some why I don’t buy the Libertarian argument. If anything, this past decade should prove beyond any doubt what happens when you deregulate the banks.

You’re right that I’m disenchanted with both major parties. I will never again support a Republican or Democrat. I’m done with them. I lean Green Party though.

All the best,


Scott March 11, 2010 at 8:12 am


I don’t agree much with Ralph Nader but, like Ron Paul, he is much more principled than the establishment candidates of either party.

I agree that deregulation of the banks was a disaster because the government was and still is acting as the banker of last resort to bail them out (Ron Paul voted against repealing Glass-Stiegel).

However, take a look at Panama. Panama does not have a central bank like our Federal Reserve to act as the banker of last resort. The banks there are much less regulated than banks in most other countries but they weathered the recent banking crisis much better. They keep reserves of ~60% (here bank reserves are only ~10%) and their banks are run responsibly because they know there is no one that will bail them out if they don’t.


Robert D. March 11, 2010 at 9:01 am

After you take all the idealistic spin off just about everything the government does to protect “the people” we always find out there is a bunch of unexpected consequences that require more government to regulate, fix, or just throw our money at. We as a nation, after subsequent generations, have always ask for and expanded government, as we have forgotten the lessons of mankind. We like to look down at oppressive governments, and they are usually total control governments. MY opinion is, that is exactly what we are asking for when we continuously expand our own government.
Ron Paul is asking that we start shrinking our federal government, at the cost of many, and ask people to take more care of themselves instead of the government having to do it to the people, for the “good of the people”. It tends to sound like a reverse rederic, and we all know his course will be at the suffering of those who may fall through the cracks in the false web of a pretentious wealth illusion of a debtor nation, God help us, but we dont want that now do we? Of course not! but it will happen eventually, and when we finally become insolvent, (which probably wont happen because we have a perfect storm for an FRN crisis here shortly) we will have total anarchy before some dictatorship takes control. Should I take my chances with Ron Paul, than with total government? Where are the indictments for the thieves that created this wall street banking mess? Hah! When its our own government that needs to be judged, you know in history, there is only one type of jury for that to be decreed. We think we have run off the horrible oppression that goes along with total government, yes! as long as WE as an Imperial nation have demanded it from the world, and as long as the power full are happy with the way things are going (see Iraq and Iran). Just keep giving up freedom for the “greater good” of all, and eventually you will have no choice at all. Oh wait, I know, this time its different, because we as a nation are much smarter than those in history. I dont believe for a minute that we should dismantle every law that has been enacted to protect the people from exploitation, but to continue to add to the already burdensome support system is just incredulous. The last hope I had until now for fedgov, was Ross Perot, and yes I know I am a radical, just as anyone who wants a different course than the one we are on.
Im hoping for the best…. no sleep till Nebraska.


Bruce C. March 11, 2010 at 2:16 pm

Scot and Robert D.,

Thank you. Finally some people (even at this site) who understand that it is government backing and involvement in the economy that causes the imbalances and the plutocracy, not the lack of regulations per se.


Leave a Comment

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com] [Most Recent USD from www.kitco.com] [Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]