I hope all of you Ron Paul backers actually are registered & informed on how to vote for him, instead of hoping he will make a 3rd party bid for President.

Abraham Lincoln proposed several times throughout his political career that the U.S. government should pay money to the slave states and export the slaves to Liberia, Africa, because he believed that slavery was morally and ploitically wrong. Congress would not pass his proposals to pay the slave states, and after he met with several promenent free blacks including Frederick Douglass, found that blacks abhored the idea of being shipped back to Africa. President Lincoln discussed with his cabinet the idea of paying the Confederacy to set their slaves free in early January, 1865, but they all rejected it. In January of 1865, the Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens along with others proposed to Confederate President Jeffreson Davis that the South send a peace commission to negotiate with President Lincoln. Davis endorsed the idea provided that the South could keep her slaves and still susceed from the Union. Vice President Stephens along with two other commissioners passed through Union lines near City Point, VA, General Grant's headquarters on Jan. 28, 1865, and requested Grant to arrange a peace conference with Lincoln. Lincoln consented and arrived at City Point on Jan. 30,1865. Lincoln proposed his famous FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR PLAN to the peace commision. He would pay the Confederacy that amount to be apportioned to the southern states by the number of slaves each held IF THEY WOULD FREE ALL THEIR SLAVES, AND LAY DOWN THEIR ARMS, AND RETURN TO THE UNION. Vice President Stephens said that Jefferson Davis would not approve it, and the conference ended. SO YOU SEE THAT LINCOLN TRIED TO SET THE SLAVES FREE BY PURCHASING THEM, BUT THE CONFEDERACY REJECTED IT.

You pittifull Ron Paul backing saps have shoddy reasoning skills!

The piece was fair, you Paul supporters just refuse to conform and adapt to reality. Your issues are with truth and facts, such stubborn things.

Again, another example of why we should not trust the word of CNN. This is just another cheap shot against Paul and his message of liberty…something that MSM fears.

"That is why we have a Constitution that advocates a strong federal government."

And in what section would you find this? No, madam, I think you are wrong.

HEY BECKY, WILL YOU PLEASE GET RID OF
THIS. IT'S A BAD REFLECTION ON CNN,
NOT ON RON PAUL. THE VIEWERS KNOW THE
TRUTH SO, EASE UP ON THE EDITORIALIZING

Yes, the interviewer pushed him into saying that he was not 100% sure he would not run as an independent. He said he didn't really want to and was 99.99% sure he would not.

The story also does not mention Ron Paul's reason for opposing the civil rights act. It's not because he dosen't believe in civil rights. He had a problem with the way it was written.

I wish CNN's reporting was as honest and consistent as Dr. Paul.

Ron Paul will be the 2008 "spoiler" and responsible for a Hillary win (12/26/07). You may quote me on this in January 2009 if not before (wink, wink)!!

Go Hillary44 08! http://hillaryis44.org/

Any lame criticism of Dr. Ron Paul has only served to strenghten our support of the most noble of candidates.
Mr. Russert and the other corporate spinmeister critics have to bring up ancient questions such as the Civil War in a feeble attempt to trip Ron Paul. It does not work and only shows Dr. Paul's character and integrity.

I would hope that my representative would work for SOME projects that would benefit his constituents. Isn't that what we elect them for? Dr. Paul is against pork barrel legislation that only benefits large corporations and not the people.

Dr. Ron Paul knows he has the responsibility to run to serve our country.

Rebecca, do you have an agenda against Ron Paul? Ron criticized the Civil Rights act NOT because of race issues, but because it was an act that had certain points that gave up certain private liberties. Why would you leave out the he specifically stated that it was NOT a race issues but an issue of personal liberty?

And then Rebecca, you leave out Ron Paul's comments on the civil war, in which he states that 600,000 people shouldn't have died. Is it wrong for Paul to try to imagine a way to free slaves rather then war?

Rebecca, this is a biased article and it should be corrected and adjusted to portray Ron Paul's real views. Instead its tightly edited to hide the truth, and to reveal your personal views. Luckily smart American voters will see through this.

After talking around with people of all stripes I've started to reconsider Ron Paul's overall viability in a general election. I'm starting the think now that Paul might be able to put together a winning coalition around the issues of isolationism and immigration. With Hillary Clinton's inability to make a firm stand on the illegal immigration issue, and her unwillingness to commit to a withdrawl from Iraq, Paul can draw on the one popular GOP strength while pinning Hillary into the GOP's greatest weakness (immigration and Iraq respectively). It's tentative, and I still doubt he'll survive the primaries, but Ron Paul could prove to be a formidable candidate.

I just have one comment.
Where did this Fruit Cake come from?

AS SOON AS SOMEONE DOES WELL IN THE
CAMPAIGN, HE GETS A TARGET ON HIS
BACK. RON PAUL WAS JUST AWARDED HIS
TARGET. HE HAS GRADUATED FROM "TO BE
IGNORED", TO "WATCH OUT FOR THIS GUY.
MAKE HIM LOOK BAD OR HE WILL WIN".
HE CAN'T BE BOUGHT. HE WANTS TO
PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY (SEE H.R.219).
HE WANTS YOU TO KEEP YOUR WHOLE PAY CK.
HE WANTS TO END THIS WAR AND BRING ALL
TROOPS HOME FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD.
IT'S COSTING A TRILLION A YEAR. AND
HE WANTS TO CLOSE OUR BORDERS.
SOMETHING NEITHER THE REPUBS OR THE
DEMS HAVE DONE WHILE IN CONTROL.
READ THE CONSTITUTION. THE FEDS ARE
INVOLVED IN TOO MUCH UNCONSTITUIONAL
STUFF. RETURN STATES RIGHTS. WE ARE
FACING BIG BROTHER.
VOTE FOR RON PAUL TO SAVE THIS COUNTRY.

Having read many comments from regular Americans about Ron Paul I believe there is no doubt the Ron Paul revolution will prevail. The majority of the comments are pro Paul and that makes me ecstatic to realize how close we are to being the America our forefathers intended us to be. Ron Paul will get the nomination!

God Bless Ron Paul

Brian Glenn

Ron Paul will be the 2008 "spoiler" and responsible for a Hillary win (12/25/07). You may quote me on this in January 2009 if not before (wink, wink)!!

Go Hillary44 08! http://hillaryis44.org/

Let me say one thing, for everyone who has looked at this and cried 'bad journalism'…

There is a thing called the Associated Press Stylebook. For every person who decries this article, I suggest you do some research on the topic. Her article is clear, concise, and does not break any of the fundamental principles. And with the way he said it, I heard Weasel. Unless there was a transcript after the show, or the show was scripted, she was not in the wrong.

As for the rest of it, she did what any actual reporter would do. She gathered, disseminated, edited, and produced a piece, and for something that probably won't go any farther than the Ticker. And she did it within reasonable boundaries and with integrity.

Do your research before you cry 'hit piece'. Oh, and while you're at it, do your research on your favorite candidate, and stop acting like children. And please, if you want to say something is 'bad journalism', learn some grammar and proper usage, you hypocrites.

Rebecca Sinderbrand, I understand the difficulty of reporting Paul's comments clearly in a short space, but this is shoddy. Instead of writing "would have gotten rid of slavery eventually," it would have been more accurate to write, "could have gotten rid of slavery another way."

Does Ms Sinderbrand still have a job as 'Associate Political Editor'?

Actually any third party venture by Ron Paul would be pretty much irrelevant. Because of his unrealistic stance on Iraq and his irrational isolationism, he would take just as many (if not more) votes from the democratic candidate as he would the republican candidate. Do you really think all of his internet donations are coming from republicans? HA! The lion's share is coming from anti-war democrats trying to sabotage the republican nomination process. However, when you look at the polls, it doesn't appear to be working very well. Right now the only candidate that Ron Paul is probably depriving of supporters is Dennis Kusinich.

thank god for ron paul

Disgusting.

The strike-through on the word "weasel" was cute. Does anyone mention the word "weasel" when Clinton fails to commit to a stance on the issues?!?!

Cant offend those who sign your paycheck though. If you actually engaged in journalism, you wouldn't have the pretty title of "Associate Political Editor," would you Rebecca?

If I wanted to be as cute as you, I would have put a HTML tag to make that read: ASSOCIATE

Nice intentional misquote with the strikethrough fascists!

All we need to complete the circus of a Ron Paul third party bid would be a Al Gore Green Party run and a Mayor Bloomberg run. Hopefully his constituents will do the world a favor and not re-elect this clown.

What blatant lies!!! Ron Paul did NOT say the US would have gotten rid of slavery eventually, in fact he said the US was the ONLY westernized country who still had slaves at the time, which is quite an embarrassment. What he said was that there was a better way to end slavery than to have 600,000 Americans killed. He said it would've made more sense to buy the slaves and then SET THEM FREE. CNN, you need to take this completely inaccurate story off the ticker.

He could…its called the Libertarian party…which he has always been a member of….remember – take in his whole message – eliminating the CIA, the FBI…the Department of Education – 90% of his ideas are good…10% are insane….yes…exactly what this country doesn't need

If you voters want a guy who espouses smaller, less invasive government,, take a look at what Ron Paul supports. I've never been a republican, but this guy has what it takes to make me reconsider.

To the rest of you folks who are comfortable with the goverenment doing your thinking for you and don't mind paying the price of OUR freedom,,,Go ahead on,, support one of the other power grabbing weasles running.
As an example,, housing prices are declining all over the country. What does government do? They access properties at higher than before the mortgage crunch and tax accordingly! Is this what government is supposed to do? I've read the constitution and bill of rights and I think not.

Mark-

I am saying the South at that time was not willing to cooperate with the North period. Whether it be Kansas as a Free State or "buying slaves".

Even many in the North were uncommitted to freeing the slaves. Did you know the Emancipation Proclamation came about as a result of the North getting their butts whipped time after time? It was a last ditch effort by Lincoln to win the war.

Regardless, this is the least of Paul's problems. Personally, I was disappointed. I wish someone with this message could communicate it and implement it successfully. Paul is not that guy.

And to whomever said that they are voting for Paul to "save the Republic", is doing nothing but wasting their vote.

Find a candidate with similiar ideas. The only guy I know who has the "original" Reagan philosophy, prior to him becoming a "traitor" (I know he said he never called Reagan a traitor, and I believe him)is Thompson. He is all about weak federal and strong state governments.

why should he rule it out?
democracy isn't the sole property of the democrat and republican cartels

why should he rule it out,
the democracy isn't the sole property of the democrat and republican cartels.

This was an awful piece of journalism. You actually work as a journalist professionally?

Please find a new career.

I feel bad for the people that write these tickers. Are they really too stupid to report accurately? Or are they just doing their job?

thank you cnn for your unwaivering support in providing execellant motivation to the ron paul supporters by continuing to misquote him at every turn. these attempts to place him in a bad light serve as an inspiration to his supporters to re-double their campaigning efforts. it is laughable at this point and you serve the campaign well by providing comic relief to the grassroots supporters working every day to get the word out about ron paul. keep up the good work cause everyone needs a good laugh every now and then.

Finally a blog on Dr. Ron Paul on CNN. unfortunately its all misquoted and taken out of context. Also CNN only brings up the sam old reaped question over and over again. Why not mention what he discussed on foreign policy issues CNN? I really do like you guys but you pick and chose some of the lamest things to right about. Please dont make me remove you from my Home Page.

Who edited this tripe?
If you are going to go after Dr. Paul, at least use facts.

Rebecca Sinderbrand this is a totally unprofessional "article" and is an insult to the standards of journalism.

Putting the word "Weasel" and crossing it out is a lowlife tactic. Cherry picking out of context and outright slander.

You should be ashamed. You are clearly biased.

Gee, when did CNN start hiring fourth-graders who flunked Listening 101 to do political blogs? Must be because the public child indoctrination camps are not in session for the annual violation of the separation of church and state called Xmas.

Go watch the interview and decide for yourself. This article is so incorrect that it belongs in the "fiction" department. My 4-year-old can write better, and he can't write yet!

I showed my daughter what Meet the Press used to be in its 60 year retrospective. Honest liberals, not dishonest character assassins like the one who mis-paraphrased virtually every significant point the guest (Ron Paul) made in summaries misquoted everywhere. An executive producer should relook at the broadcast and then fire the hit-piecer; all other media should note the audience response below and call for a re-write of what was really asked and answered in news briefs. Emphasis news.

JB from Boston:

Brazil had a massive slave population and did not have to go to war to end it. In their case, the geography was inverted – the North used the slaves for sugar cane production while the South was the industrial center. Today, the country with the largest population of African origin is Nigeria, followed by Brazil. Are you saying that the US is less capable than Brazil?

i really hope he does not run as an independant. if he wins the republican nod it would be great. but if he loses then he wont win the independant and he would just take those votes from the democrats. we cannot have another republican in the white house unless it is ron paul.

The trouble is that Americans tend to see only two valid parties with no real differences between the candidates of either. Anyone who runs as neither a democrat or a republican is a serious contender for my vote.

Posted by Jon Anderson: "For the good of the GOP, please throw your support behind someone who can really beat the Dems in a general election: Romney, Giuliani, or maybe McCain."

What you don't understand is that "beating the Dems" in the general election is not our primary goal. Our primary goal is Saving our Republic. Supporting the likes of Romney, Giuliani or McCain aint gonna help us achieve our goal!

I understand that everybody has their own opinion, but when reporting on an actual interview, your opinion really doesn't matter. Be lucky that I'm not running because I would make the media responsible to the people and not the big corporate interests that you people represent. You and your brethren of terrible journalists should be deported to Antarctica where the only living beings that you can affect are penguins. Go Ron Paul!!! You don't just have to beat the other candidates, you have these people to beat as well.

CNN, thank you for at least correcting the "weasel" issue, and for taking off the sarcastic quotations on the word "eventually" at the end of the article. Putting quotes on that word, as you know, implies that Dr. Paul did not have a solution for quickly ending slavery without a civil war, and he most certainly did. You, however, chose to end the article there, in a poor attempt to smear the good doctor. Shame.

That is one of the worst hit pieces I have seen to date. Watch the video if you haven't yet. This piece misrepresents Paul. Even if you don't agree with everything he says, he speaks the rare truth.

Such honest is refreshing? So if i honestly say I would stand by and watch while Americans are abused and just "let the situation work itself out", that is refreshing? This guy is either crazy as a loon, or, worse yet, the most dangerous threat in the race.

All of you Paul supporters are a joke!

So, let me get this straight. The North was supposed to simply offer to buy all the slaves in order to stop slavery. Slavery was legal! The south did not want to sell their slaves. How would the farms function?

Idiotic! It would have enabled slavery to exist for many many more years. And not like it existed thru the mid 1900's. We would have continued to use slaves for many more years before a) the North had the money to buy the slaves b) The South would allow something like that c) The people of the South would recognize blacks as being free.

The United States cannot be compared to other european countries because we were so reliant on slavery. And, there was a true belief that blacks were inferior. And, there was a great divide between the North and South, with the South being very concerned about what the North was up to.

This guy said we should do away with Public Schools.

Legalization of ALL drugs. He clarifies that by saying he thinks drugs are bad and teaches his children that they are bad. Good for his children, but what about the children that don't have hands on parents???????

Again, the message of small federal government and strong state governments is a great message. This guy is a kook!

What is most amusing with all of this, if a Ron Paul fan addresses my post (which I doubt anyway) they won't address the issues I bring up. Because they cannot address issues. They mention the macro view (small federal government, sticking to constitution) but never explain how to actually implement that. Why? Because you can't! Paul tried yesterday and failed miserably!

NEXT LIBERTARIAN PLEASE

I keep hearing the phrase 'Wake Up' associated with the Ron Paul 'Devolution', yet all of his supporters seem to be asleep.

Because you have to be asleep to believe the version of the American Dream they're pedaling. His financial policies would make our current economy seem utopian, his foreign policy would get a positive grin from the Tokugawas, the Caliphates, and the Roman Empire from earlier years. Oh, and wait until he destroys the federal reserve and the Board of Education. With the FBI in close behind, because he doesn't want a 'government policing everything'.

Go ahead and vote for him. I, however, will vote for reason.

I say, "Go, Paul, go." A third party on the Conservative side will split the Republican vote a little and help more rational candidates to be elected. However, I suspect that Paul will be persuaded that splitting the right-wing nut vote is contrary to his own interests.

Major polling organizations and major media, you need to do some SERIOUS soul-searching. Your soul.. you know, that thing you sold to the devil.

As I said last week, MTP will determine the men from the boys. Paul is a toddler.

All you Paul fans are mistaking the message for the messenger. The message is a good one. Unfortunately, the messenger is incapable of putting two coherent sentences together.

Dear Rebecca, Just remember one thing when your writing your articles on people or things you don't agree with. 1. "What goes around comes around" and your day is coming……"Thou Shall Not Lie"

This article is biased!

You Mis-Quote the Congressman!!

Dr. Paul said wiggle.. over a non-issue, and you scratched through the word weasel. How sad you are!

Your show lack of integrity as a journalist with this article.. so sad.

Ron Paul is a man who votes No on any bill that is against the Constitution.

This voting record is real.. and if you understand the Constitution you would know this!

Please Read the Constitution!

Dr. Ron Paul served 5 years in the military as a surgeon, a 10 term Congressman, and has delivered over 4000 Babies!

He is a man of great Integrity and has been in public service for 25 years.

Please dont disrespect a true patriot with misquotes and half truths!

As a journalist.. you should honor the oath you took, and have some of your own integrity!

Whether or not you support Ron Paul, and I'm sure many many journalists do not, when you continue to lie about and misrepresent him, you only legitimize his campaign and make his followers more fervent.

The Meet the Press appearance was on national television for goodness sake! Do you honestly think it's so obscure that you can simply say whatever you want about it and that no one will notice that you're deliberately and blatantly distorting it, or is it that you feel the American public is so stupid as to not be able to watch the interview themselves and actually comprehend what was said?

Though I do find myself agreeing with some of what Mr. Paul says it is far outweighed by the things I disagree with. I hear him talk about abolishing Social Security and Medicare. I'm just curious if he were to do that what happens to all the money we have put into the system for years? Does he refund it? DO we just lose it? What happens Ron?

It's easy to say lets abolish this program and that program but that fixes nothing. How does he make reparations to the trillions of dollars working people have put into those systems? Lets have some real answers Mr. Paul. I've paid in for years and if it gets abolished then I want a refund and I don't think that is too much to ask. I'd love to know how he pulls that off without bankrupting the country.

I thought that Dr. Pauls idea of paying for the slaves instead of having a Civil War that cost this country 600,000 dead was spot on.
If you do any research you would know that the Civil War wasn't about slavery any way, It was about States Rights vs a centralized government.

This headline in incredibly misleading. Shame on you Rebecca Sinderbrand. Also, adding the word "weasel" and crossing it out; Classy.

Readers please check out the full interview on youtube.

This is a pretty bad respresentation of the actual interview. Watch it on YouTube yourself to get a better idea.

Dr.Paul said we should have abolished slavery peacefully like every other country.

"…buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years?"

If its any of the front runners I hope you do run Ron. Try hooking up with Hagel another progressive REAL republican… What a ticket….

Uh joze46 you wrote a very insightful comment about obambi – but whoops it posted in the wrong topic

does that sometimes…

Pathetic.

While I'm not on the Ron Paul bandwagon yet – I watched Meet the Press and what Ron Paul said was:

"The Civil War was unnecessary BECAUSE it did not have to be fought in the 1st place. INSTEAD in Paul's opinion there was a better option which would have not only saved 100,000s of lives but would have ended up costing less in the long run as well!! He proposed that all of the slaves could have been purchased and then given their freedom. Lincoln allowed the tensions to build up to the point where the South felt war was the only option – without his even trying to offer them other alternatives!!! — He feels Lincoln was as inexperienced as obambi "

Word has it that if Obama doesn't get the Dem nod that he will declare himself Independent2 and run with Bloomberg… (He wants to be in the White House soooo bad.)

"Paul also contended that the Civil War had been unnecessary because the United States would have gotten rid of slavery eventually."

that is not what he said. eventually? he proposed that there were other methods to get rid of slavery. why not state that.

and you people were going to spin his answer for running again no matter what. If he said he wouldn't and he did, you would call him a hypocrite. If he said he wouldn't run no matter what, it would be an "early" message to his supporters that he wouldn't follow through or consider running, despite the odds and their support.. If he leaves a small "wiggle room" its that he "refused" to rule out the possibility. Refused? Paul new exactly what you people were trying to do.

and lets be serious, the only reason this question KEEPS being posed in nearly EVERY interview (ITS ALREADY BEEN ASKED, WHY DO YOU KEEP ASKING IT IF YOU DONT HAVE AN ANGLE?) is to assert that he doesn't have a chance, giving reason for doubt with potential supporters. its not so much a question as it is an accusation.

your use of colorful language must have garnered an A+ in english.

How we twist and turn and only show what CNN wants to show to fill their agenda. what sham of reporting this columist should be fired! She is probably a Hillary supporter. And it shows.
Ron Ferrara
Crown Point, Indiana

People must realize that the civil war wasn't as much about slavery as it was about European bankers wanting to destroy the US by dividing it.

The US didn't have a central bank like the federal reserve at the time and were a prosperous country. The financial powers of Europe, namely the Rothschilds couldn't allow our country to continue or it would threaten the international bankers domination of the worlds money.

Here are two interesting quotes. One from Lincoln about slavery, the other by Otto von Bismark on the European bankers and our civil war.

“My paramount objective is to save the Union and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.”
–Abraham Lincoln.

“The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained as one block and as one nation would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world.
–Otto von Bismark

For those who are bashing Ron Paul, please just take a look at his voting record and read what he has actually said throughout the 20 years he's spent in Congress. Compare his voting record and speeches made by the candidate you are thinking of voting for. I wouldn't ask if I hadn't done the same.

This article and the Meet the Press interview were total hitpieces! SHAME!

Logic is lost on some people.
***
Join Dr. Paul – the leading Republican fundraising candidate, recently named a Time magazine "Person of the Year," and the only candidate from ANY party who will tell us exactly when he will end the war.
***
Others have done fabulous jobs of refuting much of the allegations regarding race. As Ron Paul will tell you, liberty knows no color.

I want to address the issue of Dr. Paul's earmarks for his district. First, you must realize that Dr. Paul does not vote for unbalanced budgets, nor tax increases, nor even salary increases for himself. If we had more of this type of principled leadership, we wouldn't have such a problem in Washington.

While Paul opposes taxes, he realizes, unlike Tim Russert and some of the couch potato pundits here, that his district pays taxes. Dr. Paul inserts earmarks into spending bills in an effort to get the taxes his district paid BACK to his district. Its his way of creating a temporary fix until YOU realize how good he could be for the United States. I plead with you… please don't be misled by those who marginalize Dr. Paul. He has principle. What's so wrong about that?

Join Dr. Paul – the leading Republican fundraising candidate, recently named a Time magazine "Person of the Year," and the only candidate from ANY party who will tell us exactly when he will end the war.

Google Ron Paul with key words: "Hope for America" "john stewart" and "franklin pierce" for some great HONEST coverage of Dr. Paul

RON PAUL IS ATTRACTIVE BECAUSE HE IS NOT TAINTED YET. TO MAKE IT IN WASH. DC, YOU HAVE TO BE TAINTED FOR THE MOST PART AND THOSE WHO AREN'T DON'T GET THE EXPOSURE. I MIGHT NOT LIKE OR AGREE WITH EVERYTHING RON PAUL SAYS, BUT I RESPECT HIS RIGHT TO PLACE HIS CARDS IN YOUR FACE, PLAY THEM OR LEAVE THEM, OR FIGHT AGAINST THEM…..BUT HE'S NOT ON THE TAKE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELITEST LIKE THE OTHERS. IMMIGRATION UNWANTED IS A BIGGER ISSUE AND IS HURTING THE HILLARY'S AND OBAMA'S BECAUSE NOT ONLY CAUCASIONS DON'T LIKE IT, ALL GROUPS WHO EARNED LEGAL STATUS EITHER THROUGH ELLIS ISLAND OR BIRTH RIGHTS (72%) DON'T LIKE IT, AND DON'T WANT IT.

To Lynn (Reno):

Regarding Earmarks: Ron Paul puts the earmarks in because as a congressman, he believes he has a duty to represent his district. He also votes against the earmarks he puts in.

Regarding the Constitution: Amendments are part of the constitution. Our founding fathers had the foresight to see that we may have to alter the document as times changed and wrote a procedure in to do so. It is perfectly within the strict construction of the constitution to advocate for an amendment. What is NOT okay is to "reinterpret" the constitution "in light of modern times." Ron Paul also advocates a repeal of the income tax amendment. Russert was really reaching on that question and came out looking like a fool for asking it.

"Ron Paul's whole agenda is set up to let corrupt corporations have free reign"
Ron Paul is against corporate welfare. Lobbyists don't even bother visiting Ron Paul's office at the Capitol, because they know he can't be bought. It is the "regulators" and those who want the government to micro-manage the economy who are in the pockets of big-business. Large corporations don't want a truly free-market, as that would force them to actually compete. Through regulations they can limit competition and create a barrier to entry that ultimately leads to you receiving inferior products and services.

Your comment about the Articles of Confederation and such is just entirely ludicrous and I had a lot of trouble controlling my laughter. However, I would like to point out that if local control leads to local tyranny (which we already have with such fun concepts as eminent domain), then what stops Centralized federal control from leading to national tyranny?

Protect your freedoms. Keep the government out of your life. You will be a happier person if the government stopped trying to micromanage and just worried about protecting your rights.

His supporters can crow about Ron Paul, but on Meet the Press we saw the real man. He speaks against corruption and then rationalizes his use of earmarks for his district. He waffles just like John Kerry as well on a whole host of issues that Russert brought up. He says he loves the Constitution and is a strict constructionist, but then thinks it is fine to advocate amending the Constitution in the places where he doesn't like it. Ron Paul's whole agenda is set up to let corrupt corporations have free reign, and reduce this great country to corrupt fiefdoms like in Afghanistan where warloads hold the power because there isn't a government strong enough to deal with them. Ron Paul has a terrible vision for this nation. It was tried under the Articles of Confederation and failed. It was a civil and economic disaster for our new nation. That is why we have a Constitution that advocates a strong federal government. We need power in both the states and the federal government, not just in the states. Local control will just bring local tyranny.
Posted By Lynn, Reno, NV : December 23, 2007 1:37 pm

Amending the Constitution is constitutional. So I don't see how that isn't strictly constitutional.

As far as earmarks, how would you feel if you paid taxes and got none of the money you paid in return? Paul doesn't support the system but he still has to represent his district, that is what a congressman's job is, to represent the people, not do what's best for yourself.

Turn a blind eye to the truth if you want but this is the only candidate that will speak it whether you like what you're hearing or not.

I'd much rather vote for a man who won't pander for my vote than just another phony who makes empty promises and then does whatever he or she wants. At least you know what one of them will do.

Whoever wrote this article should seriously consider returning to journalism school (assuming that he/she went at all). I'm an undecided, but I watched the interview and I thought Dr. Paul had some good things to say and justified some very difficult positions.

I've always felt that the Political Ticker is a bit simplistic and trite, but really CNN folks? Really?

The discrepancies between the interview and the article are apparent to anyone who has seen both. It'll be a real shame if this article influences those who didn't get a chance to see the real deal this morning but had to read this pathetic write-up instead.

This will the last time I visit this page.

Thank you for your biased hate-filled post, Rebecca. Maybe you should listen more closely though.

Paul also contended that the Civil War had been unnecessary because the United States would have gotten rid of slavery eventually.

Ron Paul never said, "eventually." What he did say was this: (Paraphrased)

Lincoln's solution to the problem got a lot of people killed. In Europe, slavery was ended without wars. The government could have offered a peaceful solution. He then suggested that we could have followed the model of some European nations, where the government bought (and immediately freed) all of the slaves, providing the slaveowners with a cash infusion that would help them to afford a transition to employing people to do the same work.

He didn't propose that America should've waited for slavery to end on its own. He said that the way we ended it was not ideal, and he was correct.

Is it better to end slavery by killing thousands of Americans, or without anyone having to die?

Furthermore it wasn't even the slave owners who died in the Civil War for the most part, it was the poor whites, blacks, and even some of those slaves we were fighting to save who were gunned down for the cause.

Slavery could've been ended without waiting and without killing. THAT is what Ron Paul believes.

This is really the most relevant part of Paul's interview. 100,000 Meetup Supporters, 100,000 Myspace friends, 125,000 donors, 10 million raised between 2 days this quarter and you want to know… if he's going to switch parties?

This gross misrepresentation of Ron Paul really should be deleted. I am not even a Ron Paul supporter, but I watched the interview on Meet the Press and can't help but notice that this article is completely off the mark. I hate to agree with Paul's people, but they're right, it's a biased piece.

Ms. Sinderbrand,

This article is so heavily biased that it doesn't even pass the giggle test for journalist integrity. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Ron Paul did not say that the United States would have eventually gotten rid of slavery. He said we should have done what other nations did and simply bought all the slaves, set them free, and then outlawed slavery. This would have avoided a war that cost the lives of 600,000 Americans and seeded resentment that still lasts today between the Northern and Southern states.

You also misrepresented what he said on every point in your writeup. You do an incredible disservice to the American people, but we know you're just part of the corporatist fascism taking over the country. Luckily, Americans are waking up and this is why Ron Paul is breaking every campaign fundraising record in history.

Some folks on this forum have a poor understanding of the reality of the federal government as it has evolved today. They think the government is there to protect them. Then why is everything breaking down? – schools, the dollar, etc. Better question: how come the government stands in people's way when they try to exercise alternative choices to the status quo? (To Lynn in Reno, Nevada) What exists now is not a federal government that watches out for us. There is a collusion between the government and big business. You can see it with such policies as eminent domain, for example. The problem is a lot of people who have come through the public school system have been fed a lot of misinformation about the Civil War and other key historical events, and you can thank the so-called liberals and progressives for that. So now when people are told the facts that were left out of those history books, they think it's some group trying to practice 'revisionism'. Maybe it would help if people come to grips with the primary purpose of the public school system, and it's not to educate people. The purpose is to indoctrinate them!

You guys should be sued. Dr. Paul DID NOT say that "the United States would have gotten rid of slavery eventually". He said that slavery could have been abolished without the cost of 600,000 U.S. Citizens lives. Just as the British did, the U.S. government could have purchased the slaves and then released them. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT! At least TRY to have honest journalism.

I don't usually curse but whoever did this is a blanka dee blank blank blank blank.

You accuse us of being uncivil, yet your lies only push people away from you.

I will only get my news from the internet from now on.

Al Jazeria has more credibility then you guys!

Did you actually go to school for journalism? That was the laziest piece of junk article I have ever read. And it was slanted and inaccurate. Find another job, Rebecca. That stunk.

Your article quotes Ron as saying, "I deserve one 'weasel' (then corrected) wiggle now and then, Tim." And THIS is what you call "journalism?!" You are just PROVING Ron's point about the mainstream media's move to fascism with rhetoric as contemptable as this.

I watched the video and I think this article is trying to mislead. In my understanding, what Dr. Paul meant was that Civil War was not necessary because other Western Nations have abandoned slavery without going to war.
Yes, Dr. Paul did not rule out third-party run, but that conclusion should never stand alone without 'with less than 0.01% chance'.

I have a dream, that one day soon, Republicans and Democrats. Independents and Liberterians will be able to join together and vote for a candidate based not on his party affiliation, but by the strength of his character and convictions to uphold, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution.

I watched this video! He did not say we would have eventually gotten rid of slavery. He said there were many better options like purchasing their freedom. This entire story is biased, I even know that and I don't plan to vote for him. The constitution was SET UP to be amended because it must be flexible. How could you possibly try to put that in negative light. I have never been more disappointed in CNN.

Dr. Ron Paul is the only candidate that can SAVE the United States of America. Most people, even the intelligent ones, do not fully understand the problems we face. If most people did understand the problems with our government today, more and more Libertarians would be in office, not Democrats or Republicans. Ron Paul has a wonderfully optimistic vision for our country. I support it 110%. In order to help you understand better, read "Restoring the American Dream" by Robert J. Ringer, or "Constitutional Chaos" by Andrew P. Napolitano. We are being forced to pay unconstitutional taxes, forced to fight unconstitutional wars, and provoking foreign radicals causing terrorism. We have to stop the fascism and socialism and vote for Libertarians or main party candidates that have the same platform as Dr. Paul. If Dr. Paul does not win this election, may God have mercy on us all.

Lynn, the main problem with your comment is that corupt corporations already have free reign. The Federal goverment does very little about corporations expoitation of consumers as that is where are large portion of campaign contributions come from. And how can you possibly assume reducing federal involvement in our daily lives will drive this country into fiefdoms? You still have law enforcement. Laws will still be enforced. Leave the fear mongering to the Bush administration.

Besides, the only reason the warlords have such influence in Afghanistan is due to us driving out the Taliban. As much as you may dislike their extreme religious beliefs, it is those beliefs that kept the opium trade under control. We removed that control and now the opium business flourishes.

You best re-read the Constitution as well. It doesn't even come close to supporting a strong federal government, if fact just the opposite. It was written to keep federal govenment out of our lives.

Ignorance is a poison.

Incredible! The media is absolutely determined to keep this guy's campaign alive. Tom Tancredo had to drop out of the race last week because the media was successful at "starving" his campaign. Why? Because he had a "politically incorrect" message. But because Ron Paul trashes the Iraq war
effort and the nation's foreign policy in general, the media showers him with accolades and keeps his campaign alive artifically. If the Tancredo campaign
had gotten one third the publicity Ron Paul and his nutty supporters have received, not only would he still be in the race, but he would probably be polling near the top. I hate it when the media abuses its role as gatekeeper in order to further its own biased agenda. In order to break into the top tier of American politics, you have to be a "media darling" (either the right rhetoric, the right hair,
or the right pedigree). And this is reflected in the sorry group of "frontrunners" in both parties. I wonder if we dumb media consumers will ever wise up and start doing our own thinking instead of relying on the Anderson Cooper and Bill O'Reilly types to do it for us.

PLEASE RUN AS AN INDEPENDENT!!!

Nothing will make a Democratic victory more secure than for this crazy Texan to split out the fiscal conservatives from the sanctimonious, racist and xenophobic conservatives.

Russert asked "Who in Israel wants to attack Iran?"

Excerpt from "US Must Reevaluate Its Relationship With Israel"
by Scott Ritter(UN Weapons inspector) written December 17, 2007 has the answer Dr. Paul was looking for.

"The statements by Israeli officials concerning the recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran and its nuclear program are perhaps the best manifestation of this reality. Avi Dichter, Israel's public security minister, has condemned the NIE as a flawed document, and in terms that link the American analysis to a cause-and-effect cycle that could lead the Middle East down the path of regional war. Like many Israelis, including the prime minister, Dichter disagrees with the American NIE on Iran, in particular the finding that Iran ceased its nuclear weapons program in 2003. The Israelis hold that this program is still active, despite the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has reached a conclusion similar to the NIE's based upon its own exhaustive inspection activities inside Iran over the past five years.

In threatening the world with war because America opted for once to embrace fact instead of fiction, Israel, sadly, has become like a cornered beast, lashing out at any and all it perceives to threaten its security interests. The current Israeli definition of what constitutes its security interests is so broad as to preclude any difference of opinion. Israel's shameless invocations of the Holocaust to defend its actions not only shames the memory of those murdered over 60 years ago, but ironically dilutes the impact of that memory by linking it with current policies that are cruel and intolerant. The message of Holocaust remembrance should be "never again," not just in terms of the persecution of Jews, but in terms of man's inhumanity to man. The birth of the Israeli state, as imperfect and controversial as it was, served as a foundation for the pursuit of tolerance. However, Israel's current policies, rooted in ethnic and religious hatred, are the antithesis of tolerance."

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ritter.php?articleid=12064

Ron Paul appologist are NUTTY!

One is free to hold on to his/her opinion, but people do not have free reign wiggle/weasel with facts! [facts/truth: universaly/majority accepted and respected "worldly" truths, empirical information]

Dr. Paul refers to European solution to end slavery

In the interview with Tim Russert, Dr. Paul referred to the successful method of ending slavery in Europe.

Judge Andrew Napolitano also speaks of this in his book Constitution in Exile. In order to abolish slavery, Lincoln was presented with a solution that would prevent war. This method was successfully utilized by the governments in Europe without war. They purchased (justly compensated) the slaves from the slave owners and then gave the slaves their freedom. The European governments then outlawed slavery.

The cost of this purchase by the US Government would have been insignificant as compared with cost of funding the Civil War and the loss of American lives.

During the Civil war, many southern civilians that had no part in the war, other than living in the south, and did not own slaves, had their homes burned to the ground and their entire life savings taken from them during the looting of southern banks by the US Army. As a result, many southerners developed a deep seated resentment and unfortunately much of it focused against our black brethren. The tremendous loss of life and property and the unconstitutional acts committed under Lincoln’s administration against southern civilians were the root cause of the bad race relations between the southerners and blacks.

But 140 years later…I would have to ask Russert, "What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?"

http://www.paulunteer.com/ron-paul-supporters-in-their-own-words/russert-searches-for-gems-cant-find-the-dirt/

Hey Rebecca Sinderbrand, are you purposefully leaving out Dr Paul's explanation for why he did not like the Civil Rights Act? Paul criticized the Civil Rights Act because it is a clear violation of private property rights. You left this out of your article. Perhaps to insinuate that Dr Paul is a racist? That's a very cheap shot. Dr Paul literally said, "This is a private property issue… it has nothing to do with race." Your piece is very misleading, and you should be ashamed. I hope your editors catch wind of this.

What I find very odd, is that the author, Rebecca Sinderbrand, seems to share many of Ron Paul's stances on issues.

Primarily, I point to this article she wrote concerning Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0605.sinderbrand.html

I would have hoped that Rebecca would have taken the time to read up on the target of her attack, Ron Paul, before spewing such stilted nonsense.

My suggestion, to her, would be to read Ron Paul's issue stances on http://ronpaul2008.com . After that, I would suggest googling "Ron Paul", filtering through the rabid support and opposition, and learn the "Real" Ron Paul.

I would also suggest, very much, watching the "Candidates@Google" interview, which can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

Thanks

Lynn—

Amending the constitution is a built in constitutional process for changing thinks that you "don't like" about the constitution, or to be more accurate that are not working as the founders intended. Someone advocating the use of this process (Which, by the way, has been done on several occasions in the past) is not anti-constitutional. Perhaps, it would sever you well to do some more studying of the constitution before criticizing a candidate's position on it?

Anyway, arbitrarily making changes on a whim because you're the President is the problem. One that none of the other candidates even care to address. Ron Paul understands the need for the balance between federal and state power, that's why he's not advocating a return to the Articles and is a constitutionalist. The key part of that word is "constitution."

What seems to have escaped you is that there is no balance between power between the states and the federal government. The Federal government has all of the power. You can't take a medicine made in your state, that your state has legalized, and that your doctor prescribed you in your state if the Fedgov doesn't approve.

He'd even be willing to pull a Perot and turn the election into a minority Presidency so another "Clinton" could get elected. Not worthy of supporting such a fiasco again and Perot was a smart man. Can't say the same about Paul.

I am a black minister with a congregation of over 500 people and one of my members mentioned to watch the Meet the Press interview with Presidential hopeful, Ron Paul, and after church, they had a copy of the interview they recorded on a DVD and played it in front of nearly the entire church while we enjoyed our post-Sunday service meal. I find this characterization of Ron Paul to be quite absurd by not only the questions issued by Tim Russert, but after reading the news articles such as CNN, I am convinced that our media are the ultimate sinners by misrepresentation. This next Sunday, I plan on giving a speech to support Ron Paul and I challenge the IRS or any governing agency to strip away our non-profit status because I will lead the charge to the streets in my community. We have seen enough of the destruction of the United States by elected demagogues while each year they promise us another solution but fails to even scratch the surface to that of such a fine distinguished man in Ron Paul. I pray everyday for Dr. Paul's safety as it is a very rare time in our history when men like him and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr who come to our nation to teach us tolerance, love, and integrity.

I did not see the interview today with Meet the Press, but I remember Rep. Ron Paul completely avoiding the question when asked during one of the debates if he would endorse the Republican nominee if it wasn't him.

I hope that Rep. Paul does not try to run as a 3rd party candidate. The fact is that the last two Presidents started there administrations with less than 50% of the popular vote as a result of Ross Perot and Ralph Nadar. The legacy of that has been a divisiveness that seems to have no end in site. If you can not win in the primary, how can you win the general election when you have to please the whole nation instead of just one party? I am glad to see Rep. Paul in the race, but hope he accepts the will of the people and drops out if he doesn't translate that money into votes in the primaries. Otherwise we are domed to 4 or 8 more years of bitterness in America.

It is the ability of candidates such as Paul to get substantial support that is the really scary thing about the American consciousness, its level of decency and sense of justice. There is this huge portion of American people that are ready at a moment's notice to reject all the hard-fought progress we have made concerning the rejection of barbarism and savagery that lurks just beneath the surface of most conservative's beliefs. What a contradiction we are to support equality and justice (supposedly) and yet embrace the traditional attitudes of our Jim Crow era fathers..

Hats off to Dr Paul for once again effectively confronting a hostile media talking head. How laughable that Mr Russert imagines that wanting to amend the Constitution makes one a non-Constitutionalist! Is he this stupid? Or does he think his listeners are? Russert was clearly in way over his head, and resorted to talking over Dr Paul in order (I suppose) to appear to have the upper hand. Newflash, Tim…Dr Paul ruled and you came across as a waterboy for the status quo. A giant was in your midst, and you had not the sense to realize it!

Holy God this is perhaps the worst excuse for an article I have ever read in the history of reading articles! What the hell is wrong with people that write things like this? This is THE MOST SLANTED, BIASED, WRONG ARTICLE I HAVE EVER SEEN. How the heck does the author have a job? Seriously? If you actually WATCHED the interview this morning you would realize how WRONG this article is. It just makes me laugh and the obvious bias in the media at this point, it makes them seem realllllly stupid.

This is an absolutely abysmal piece of reporting, from a so-called reputable news source.

He didn't say eventually, he proposed a peaceful alternative to the bloodiest war in American history like every other nation was able to do.

I strongly encourage anyone with interest to youtube the interview and see for yourself the truth. This is just a hit piece.

Spinning wheel, go to go 'round, I guess. When a candidate draws support from Americans across the board, who cares about his stats among GOP likelies. And who cares about spin pieces like this? He's the only true antiwar candidate. Meanwhile he's got the military voters. They know he doesn't view them as pawns on his global chess board. If the media actually let him present his platform (rather than defend out of context quotes from the 80s), he'd have a landslide victory. As it is, he might just make it to the Oval Office despite battling the Perpetual War Propagandists!

I don't normally reply to internet blogs/stories, but this one proves that anyone can become a journalist. I watched the same interview and you forget to include Paul's argument points, which are essential to understanding his viewpoints on the issues discussed on Meet the Press. This is just really lazy journalism.

"Ron Paul says the civil war was unecessary because the US would have gotten rid of slavery eventually." This is inaccurate. He said the US should have bought the slaves and freed them like Europe and not killed 600,000 Americans and divide the country for a hundred years by the war of Northern Agression.

His position would have ended slavery sooner without the war and hate. You made this quote up or have a serious hearing problem.

by the way Months ago in the Washington Post Ron Paul said he wanted Walter Williams for VP.. Walter Williams is black. Nice try…

Nice Hit Piece CNN. Way to totally mis-represent what Ron Paul said on MTP. He didn't say eventually, he was pointing out there were other ways to end slavery without all of the dying.

wow .. what a twist of the words and meanings of the real interview…what a hit piece … go and watch the real interview … idk who put weasel in there that's retarded … and no Dr. Paul isn't racist and against the civil rights act and the civil war … he said things could have been done more sensibly … every other country in the world got rid of slavery without having the go to war over it

The entire interview (~30 minutes) is up on YouTube. If you want news, watch it yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saDw03JXigA

Articles like this one communicate zero genuine information other than how the writer's boss currently feels about the candidate.

"Paul also contended that the Civil War had been unnecessary because the United States would have gotten rid of slavery eventually."

This statement is libel. It is a malicious distortion of Ron Paul's views. Fix it. He said they should have paid for the slaves and then set them free, as Britain had, instead of starting a war that took 600,000 lives.

Because of this slander, you should fix this as well:

"During the Sunday interview, Paul criticized the Civil Rights Act, pointing out that Barry Goldwater opposed it. But he would not say he whether would vote against the legislation today."

First of all you make it sound like he is the one that brought it up. Should be: "When asked about the Civil Rights Act…" Further, why not be honest and state he was against certain parts of the act that invaded private property rights, instead of leaving room for readers to think he might be racist. Ron Paul rejects racism whole heartedly. It is reprehensible that you could let one of your "journalist" slander an honest man like this.

As for one of the comments above, Ron Paul is the only one who can beat Hillary or any other Democrat for that matter.

If you want to know what Paul said on the Russert program, all you have to do is go to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3898804/ and watch the program. Then you won't have to be mad at the reporter for his article.

I incorporated a new political party in 2005 using a Charter under the laws of the State of Washington – The Republican Democracy Party (RDP). I have since gotten two trademarks for the party: "Democratic Republican" and "The Democratic-Republican Party" both of which are now ready to be used.

The beauty of the idea is the RDP Charter and plan – to hold quarterly caucuses in the precincts followed by state legislative district assemblies restricted to caucus participants.

The charter can be reviewed at http://www.republicandemocracy.us.

The Ron Paul campaign can run with this program. I have attempted to approach him in the past. There is no force more powerful in our constitutional republic than the resolve of the people assembled. I believe that we can create that force behind Ron Paul!

Rebecca,

Do you just pick and chose any words so you can do a nice slander job, or do you not know any better? Either way, you don't belong in the New Media. I am appalled by your "reporting." Would you put the weasel word in any other candidate article? If you are going to quote Paul voting against the Civil Rights Act, why don't you do yourself a favor and explain why he did it.

There are things I would like to say to you, but I won't because I would go to your level or writing. You should be ashamed of yourself

Mike said: “Ron Paul…. a Republican only in name just dug himself a hole if anyone was actually watching him on Meet the Press.”

Mike, let’s look at what the real Republicans look like…take a look at the 1952 Republican Party Platform..tell me who it sounds like: Ron Paul or the other so-called “republicans”.

1952 Republican Party Platform excerpt:

“We maintain that man was not born to be ruled, but that he consented to be governed; and that the reasons that moved him thereto are few and simple. He has voluntarily submitted to government because, only by the establishment of just laws, and the power to enforce those laws, can an orderly life be maintained, full and equal opportunity for all be established, and the blessings of liberty be perpetuated.

We hold that government, and those entrusted with government, should set a high example of honesty, of justice, and unselfish devotion to the public good; that they should labor to maintain tranquility at home and peace and friendship with all the nations of the earth.”

As much as you try this will all blow up in your faces when Ron Paul wins. You can't stop people from thinking for themselves.

Matt said: “Ron Paul is a blatant opportunist and populist. He is using vague Republican ideals to gain support. Does anyone know exactly what he stands for?
Right, eliminate all government run organizations like the IRS. Wouldn't that put many thousands out of work? And pull the USA out of all alliances and treaties. No one should even give him any serious thought.”

Obviously Matt, you haven’t read very much. I suggest you go to the Ron Paul Library, there is absolutely no vagueness in the positions that Dr. Paul takes or the policies he advocates.

Where do you find the clowns that write your articles? I'd like to hire a few for my son's birthday party. Hopefully I can find one with better grammar skills, though. I'd hate to set a bad example for the young ones.

I find it interesting that so many seem to either twist or ignore what Dr. Paul says. Concerning "earmarks" he stated that he submits all "earmarks" that come across his desk from his constituents and rightly so, it is his job to represent his constituents however, he also stated that in all his life he has never voted for one "earmark" even those of his constituents. It is amazing that a politician in Washington can maintain his principles and the transparency of his office. I applaud him!

Strange, did you see the same interview that I saw, because it doesn't seem like you did from your commentary.

Rebecca, Ron Paul will be the nominee of the Republican party and will be the next president of the United states, so why would he have to run as anything bur a Republican? Remember, our candidate will raise 20 million this quarter, and those Old Media polls, are using out dated information and out dated methods. You folks from the Old Media are a bit slow, just to get you up to speed, we are having a Revolution. Every one is invited, you just have to get with the program, read the Constitution, it's a libertarian manifesto. We are taking our country back with a message for liberty that is being heard around the World. Your misguided ramblings remind us of just how irrelevant you are. l

The funny comment made about all those former advisors Hillary Clinton had and now work for Obama, also as advisers, is largely tossed around with every Mainstream Media commentator as Obama makes a great snit against Hillary Clinton. Here, Hillary makes a chuckle and said she would like to hear about that one. Then Obama makes the snit, that he would also like her as an advisor too. Many chuckles from everyone. Here, Hillary had an opportunity to fire back however she didn’t. One could respect Hillary’s silence, yet recognize Obama’s comment as an arrogance of deficiency, leading the country by advisors other than his own vision. Something he always says about change but obviously doesn’t know how or know were he is going. And so clear that’s the funny part.

But here, most every commentator, Journalist gives Obama the edge about this snit remark. From my prospective Hillary’s comment fired back is on target and shows Obama’s sallow “reasoning”. Many of the electorate in the country don’t realize the only reason Obama won big in Illinois is because he ran against Allen Keyes who scared the day lights out of everyone in the state. The Republicans most likely gave the election specifically to help Obama win. I personally saw Keyes at a rally and am convinced he is way too weird.

The troubling thing to me is when I talk to many Blacks I hear different responses about Obama’s religion. Obama is supposed to be a Christian. Yet, Obama appears to keep his Islamic name. Well, I wonder about that and how committed is he. Just as he votes present most of the time in the Illinois Senate, is Obama just presently a Christian? If he was baptized why not take a Christian name? Why is he on the fence with his religion? Will he be on the fence with his changes? That’s all I’m asking Barrack Hussein Obama.

Ron Paul is a very valuable asset to the republicans and they're not smart enough to use him. The right-wing theocrats are so entrenched that he has no chance. Even when he agrees with their religious views, his libertarian outlook is too damaging to their war-mongering christian nation jihadist crusades. He can only help the republican party shed their subversive anti-democratic wing,even if it means driving the bus off a cliff. There is no "electable" republican besides him. It's him or nobody. '08 is a Hillary/Edwards year.

What's with the word 'weasel' crossed out in body of the article. Perhaps, the author is a 'weasel' for putting it in the article. Ron Paul never said 'weasel' in the interview. Is this author biased? Probably.

Ron actually did very well in the interview. This article is misleading. Watch the interview on youtube to form your own opinion.

Amazing…The Lame Stream Media actually believes it can get away with such crap. Rebecca wake up to reality!!! Please tell me you didn't waist all your time and money in school to produce this kind of garbage.

I was at a Trader Joe's yesterday wearing my Ron Paul shirt. The store manager came over to me and said, "I love this man's message. The country may not be ready for him though. He's a radical. These days, a true Constitutionalist is a radical. It's just sad that people are conditioned to believe what they are fed." Then he said that he planned to vote for Paul anyway.

On the Civil War issue, Ron Paul's learned view is not all that different from that of Gore Vidal. The war was fought to preserve the union. Slavery was just one of the issues. It was a chance for Lincoln, who held very racist views, to flex his executive muscles. He went so far as to threaten those speaking out against the war with execution. For me, no cause is worthy enough to justify sacrificing 600,000 lives.

Wow this is libel and such a hit piece, just like the interview was, but ultimately Ron Paul came out on top. Any person who cares to research a little knows the Civil war had nothing to do with saving the Slaves. It was just a side affect. Ron Paul would rather have saved 600,000 lives and spending some money to free them, then fight an unnecessary war. I love this man!

Wow, having seen the interview and how well Ron Paul did in spite of aggressive questioning it's amazing how biased, out-of-context, and un-professional this article is. If you have not seen the interview, I urge you to watch it for yourself. Paul is a man of ideas–who else would disagree with Abraham Lincoln on MS TV? Shame on you for this piece of propaganda.

I felt the interview was poorly conducted. Not because Russert asked Ron Paul some tough questions, but because so much of the interview seemed dedicated to irrelevant questions such as "Do you think the Civil War was unecessary?" For the most part, I want to know where the candidates stand on "issues" and what their intentions are should they be elected. I can understand maybe asking a few random questions so that viewers can get an idea of someone's character, but I felt like Russert overdid it a bit and at times did not allow Paul to really even respond.

Worse though is this "ticker". How does one get a job writing this kind of garbage? I feel like I've wasted so much time and money on school, seeing that someone somehow can get a title like "Associate Political Editor" and only be responsible for writing what seems to be about on par with a poorly run high school newspaper. Seriously, where do I sign up?

Do Not Distort Ron Paul's Comments…

Ron Paul suggested that slavery should have been ended in a peaceful, bloodless manner by the US government purchasing their freedom like every other civilized free nation.

He DID NOT suggest that it would have been rid of in a passive manner.

I'm a Democrat, so I don't have a care either way, but I watched this interview this morning and for you guys to make a story out of this is absurd. The guy all but said he wouldn't run as a third party candidate and there were lots of other important points that he made that merit attention much more than this.

Ha! Ha! Ha! A question about the Civil War? News media are really digging a hole for themselves! Thanks for the laugh you jerks!

Oh hum the old media is at it again.. unable to analyze or articulate the positions of Ron Paul. Please do your reaserch and write a article with substance.. While I do not agree with Ron Paul on 100 percent of the issue I hate to see a misrepresntation of peoples postiions. It does an injustice to Journalism and the political process..

Take care,
Tim

He didn't say he opposed the civil war because we would have gotten rid of slavery EVENTUALLY. He is opposed to it because there were better ways of doing it, and it could have been done much faster and less costly than a war.

Having watched the interview, your last comment could use some serious qualification. You almost make it sound like Paul is pro-slavery. Get it right! Every other civilized country got rid of slavery without a civil war…we could have to! And Ron Paul said that.

Ron Paul will never get my vote because he is from the state of Texas and in my lifetime all of the Presidents from Texas was nothing more than war mongrels. They include Lyndon Johnson, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush and between them they have taken too many military lives for their own agendas, the armament dealers and for the huge oil companys such as exxon mobile etc.

I am with everyone else. I saw the interview and saying this is a gross misinterpretation is an understatement. I ask that it be corrected orrewritten or I will no longer support this website or this network.

OH, PLEASE…

Correction to editer –

"But he would not say he whether would vote against the legislation today."

Ron Paul infact said that if it was written out in the same way that it was, that he would vote against it, because it invaded private property rights and there for unconstitutional. He made it clear saying it had nothing to do with racism (he is a strong fighter for individual liberty) – he said he would vote the way he would because of his strong stance in obeying the constitution.

If you can – correct that.

Paul clearly has lots of potential. A recent poll of Iowa released just last week had Ron Paul coming in AHEAD of Giuliani! Now talk about what a victory that would be!

Real nice CNN deleting comments what about free speech CNN.

Nice smear job. God forbid someone states they aren't 100% sure what the future holds. And the slavery thing? Nice. Paul stated it would have been preferable for the government to buy the slaves and release them as opposed to a war. I don't agree with Ron Paul on a while lot of issues but seeing how much contempt the establishment has for him just makes me like him all the more.

Some are stating or implying that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.

The Alabama ordinance of secession reads in part:

". . . as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States,

Be it resolved by the people of Alabama in Convention assembled, That the people of the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri, be and are hereby invited to meet the people of the State of Alabama, by their Delegates, in Convention, on the 4th day of February, A.D., 1861, at the city of Montgomery, in the State of Alabama, for the purpose of consulting with each other as to the most effectual mode of securing concerted and harmonious action in whatever measures may be deemed most desirable for our common peace and security."

Some commenters here have implied, and other have clearly stated, that slavery was not an issue in the Civil War? What universe are you from?

Good to hear Dr. Paul is leaving "all options on the table". A vote for Ron Paul is a vote to be free.

"Paul also contended that the Civil War had been unnecessary because the United States would have gotten rid of slavery eventually."
You should really clarify this smear attempt… If you think that you can ethically make such claims in such a blatantly short and un-detailed reporting of the conversation then you are wrong. I don't see how this piece could be interpreted as anything but a foolhardy smear… as i read it i am laughing at its simplistic and ineffective style, while at the same time i am fuming because i see what you are trying to do.
Who wants war when conflicts can be resolved peacefully?? Especially a civil war where you could very well be forced to kill your own relatives? Come on. Thank you for adding feul to the fire that is the ron paul grassroots campaign. As long as they have garbage like this to keep them going they will be around for a long time, with even more impressive numbers.

What possible purpose in cornbread hell does a monologue about the beginning of the civil war have in this election coverage?
Health care, Energy, Reasons for being at war, inequality. Can we please get a discussion on these kind of things?

We need this guy to be our next president.

Unless of course we want to continue the 'war on terror' and bankrupt ourselves into an economic recession.

http://www.journalismfellowships.org/fellows/2005/fall/sinderbrand.htm

As the primaries and caucuses draw near, we are likely to see more hissing and spitting from the Romney campaign as they witness their prospects vanish in Iowa, New Hampshire South Carolina and nationally. In coming days don’t be surprised if you hear Romney supporters insisting that their candidate is the most electable nationally. They are free to make that assertion. However, there is absolutely no evidence to support their claims. All the recent polling suggests that Romney is, in fact, the least electable candidate among republican presidential hopefuls. Do not be fooled by frantic attempts by Romney and company to give the air of electability and inevitability. These are devises used by the desperate and aimed at the gullible. As the heart of Romney’s campaign feverishly pulses its last beats… thrashing for oxygen like a panic-stricken fish out of water… hemorrhaging every last drop of blood out of its wallet … voters would be wise to step back and avoid the chaos and desperation of Romney’s last agonizing moments of his political life.

http://republicansagainstromney.blogspot.com/

I love how the Ronbots interpret the Congressman's own words as a "hit piece." Hopefully that should tell them something about the man they are worshiping . . . .

"For the good of the GOP, please throw your support behind someone who can really beat the Dems in a general election: Romney, Giuliani, or maybe McCain."

The problem is that, except for Ron Paul, the GOP candidates are as repugnant as the Democrats. All of them except Dr Paul are tax-and-spend statists who think it right and proper for government to intrude wholesale into, and dominate, the lives of the citizens. The only differences between the Democrats and the Republicans are the ways by which they want to waste the taxpayers' money and the ways in which they want to deprive us of our freedoms.

This article seems somewhat misleading, considering Paul said that he would vote against the Civil Rights Act on the grounds of Property Rights violations. Also, he said the Civil War could have been avoided if all of the slaves were freed by being purchased. The article makes it seem like Paul said it would just go away "eventually"… completely inaccurate and misleading. Why is the mainstream media so bent on slandering Dr. Paul?

Go Ron Paul! Siphon money and votes away from the rest of the lame Republican candidates and ensure victory for the Democrats! Yeah Ron!

"Paul also contended that the Civil War had been unnecessary because the United States would have gotten rid of slavery 'eventually.' "

No, he said that they should have bought the slaves and freed them like most other countries. This isn't just wrong, it's dishonest.

CNN just like NBC/MSNBC are controlled by those who create the wars that We The People die in. Dr. Paul is openly planning on abolishing the Federal Reserve cartel so therefore he must be smeared. Shame shame shame on these disgraceful people and Power To The Ron Paul Revolution!!

Ron Paul's assertion that the Civil War was "unnecessary" because slavery would have gone away "eventually" shows a truly callous disregard for the enslavement and unimaginable suffering of an entire class of people in this nation. It also falls into the white racist revisionist rhetoric that the Civil War was not about slavery, it was about economics. What Paul's argument tries to slip over is the moral, the spiritual imperative to end slavery that motivated the Abolitionist movement in the United States.

His criticism of and equivocation about the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s further shows a lack of basic historical knowledge of the Jim Crow-era disenfranchisement of millions of citizens of the United States, and not just in the South. To criticize such historic legislation is to put at least a tacit stamp of approval on such disenfranchisement.

A man whose moral compass is that far askew has no business being a member of the House of Representatives, let alone holding any higher office in the government of these United States of America.

For the sake of clarity, I'd like to state flatly why so many of us still continue to regard Ron Paul and his movement as a "fringe" candidacy:

Ron Paul is known as being a confirmed Libertarian, of course. Nothing so much wrong with that, other than the naiveté that usually accompanies extremism in any form. Many Libertarian principles, applied appropriately, have great value – but carry them too far and you create an unrealistic isolationism that cannot survive or cope in a modern world. His approach to many issues is simply unrealistic.

But the biggest concern – and one which Mr. Paul continually refuses to respond to – is the association of his movement and support it draws from the “conspiracy theory” fringe of nuts and fruitcakes who believe that a vast global conspiracy has been in place for hundreds of years to create a “new world order” that will enslave all true “patriots”, and that 9-11 was an inside job crafted by evil “insiders” in the U.S. government for nefarious purposes of their own. Idiotic stuff, naturally – but it remains the nuts and bolts of Ron Paul’s original base of support. These “true believers” are convinced that Paul is one of them (and he well might be; he won’t say), and they delight in interpreting every statement and nuance of his to fit their own paranoid, narcissistic worldview.

– And Mr. Paul’s answer to the reality of this situation is: complete silence. He is wise enough to realize that much of the growth from followers he is now attracting would be appalled to be thought of as having any part of such nonsense, but at the same time he wants to hold on to the core of his original supporters who have to subscribe to fairy-tale conspiracies to give meaning to their existence.

Ron Paul’s followers are continually extolling his perceived qualities of forthrightness and honesty. If Ron Paul were genuinely forthright and honest, he would set the record straight regarding his true opinion regarding his conspiracy theory advocating supporters.

The fact that Ron Paul does not clarify this most critical point is demonstration that he is – and always has been – basically just another dishonest, exploitive person out on a power kick, and hardly the "savior" so many would like him to be.

This article is just trying to freak people out about the possibility of Ron Paul "taking away votes" from some "legitimate" candidate. It's in the same vein as claiming "he's not electable, don't waste your vote" which is purely designed to put him in the margins.

These attempts will fail. Keep on fanning the flames of Liberty

This seems like an misleading headline and news story, since Paul said he was 99.99% sure this would not be the case on Meet the Press….nice scoop CNN.

Did you watch the show at all? This blatant hit piece which focuses on minimally important issues and side comments (and distorts them) does not speak very highly of journalistic integrity

Bravo CNN! Way to keep marginalizing the only honest Republican presidential candidate. Why on earth should we care if Ron Paul will run 3rd party when he's going to win the Republican nomination?!!!!

Hey lynn why dont you do some research before you post a comment, his job as a representative, is to represent the people, hence the name. if they want something he is supposed to ask for it. its up to him to vote for it or against it. he is nothing like kerry so get that out of your head. he may not agree with what his constituents want but he has to ask for it, thats why why they voted for him.

Except for his stance on abortion and his religiosity I would vote for him as a Libertarian candidate but not as a Republican. George & company have soured me on voting for any Repulican and I want no part of religion in my government.

I can't believe I live in a country where one of the biggest, most respected and well-known news organizations can put out something that is obviously incorrect (to anyone, supporter or not, that has watched the interview in full).

Thanks CNN for reinforcing Paul's view of our country moving in a fascist direction. Surely, the big businesses like yourself abuse their power in order to push their own agenda on the people.

Did you actually WATCH Meet The Press with Ron Paul? What an absolute abysmal "review".

There's no need to support this guy. If he's as good as some say, he will be president eventually anyway.

This succeeds in paraphrasing Mr Paul out of context and I would expect that other news sources will pick this up and credit cnn. Congrats for intentionally misrepresenting points about slavery and the civil rights act. Please see the video, watch and inform yourselves.

Talk about misleading story.
No. 1. What part of 'wiggle' don't you understand, Ms. Sinderbrand? He said wiggle, not weasel. Check MSNBC's transcript.

No. 2. Ron Paul said the British ended slavery not by a civil war; rather by purchasing the slaves and giving them freedom, which would have been cheaper in dollars and 600,000 U.S. citizens lives. What part about saving 600,000 U.S. citizens' lives don't you like?

Hmmm. Makes me wonder if CNN or its owners financially benefits from the military-industrial complex.

If you watched the interview and think you can claim we've now seen the "true" Ron Paul – you are sadly mistaken. The difference between Paul and other candidates is that he actually has reasons for his actions outside of appeasing some group of potential voters. It's called integrity and almost non-existent in American politics today.

If you see Paul's comments in a negative light- you simply do not understand them and should research before forming your opinion. Thus is the problem of todays typical voter- they take everything at face value and love to be fed how they feel. It's easier than thinking for yourself.

In a fantasy world everyone would be able to make mistakes and the government would just print money to make it better. Oh yes- this is the world we live in and it won't last. Open your eyes America and see the lies your so-called top-tier candidates want you to take as reality. Without Ron Paul as our next president- you personal worth and our countries worth will be nothing.

This years election coverage is a horrible abomination trying to be passed off as journalism.

I think MTP is a show all canidates must go thru because it's a tough show. And so is being President. I like Ron he has my vote and some of my money and I hope he wins but I don't want softball interviews either. As for your article, I think your out of context.

This ticker is unbelievably biased not in the favor of Ron Paul. Please watch the entire interview and make your own judgment.

Ron Paul answered every question well.

Regarding the earmarks, he has a responsibility to see to the needs of his constituency. I don't know where you all get the idea that he's a corrupt politician for trying to help his district. I don't like the idea of earmarks much either, but if he doesn't try to divert funds to his district, they'll end up going to someone else's anyway.

Also, the Civil War quote at the bottom is misleading. He said, in the interview, that there was a better way to get rid of slavery than to let 600,000 Americans die for it. He also said that the British gov't bought the slaves and set them free, which could've been an option cheaper than a civil war.

Regarding the Civil Rights act, in the interview he said he wouldn't vote for it if it was written the same way it was in 1964. His issue was with gov't passing laws to control property, not with race. He made that clear.

Why is this article trying to smear Ron Paul? This should be retracted immediately. This is the most biased writeup I've ever seen.

CNN, please have the dignity to at least pretend you're not trying to smear this man. You should be ashamed and take this down!!

Ron Paul simply said that 600,000 Americans did not need to die to accomplish what other nations did without a war.

In terms of the earmark issue, Ron Paul voted against his own earmarks. The inclusion of funds for his county is akin to saying "I think this is a poor way to manage the budget, but if the money is going to be spent somewhere, I would prefer if my people receive some benefit for their tax dollars."

Keep in mind, Ron Paul consistently votes against farm subsidies in his own rural, agricultural district. And he gets re-elected.

TO RON PAUL AND HIS SUPPORTERS EVERYWHERE: LET IT GO!

With all due respect to Ron Paul and his supporters, it's time to back a horse that can actually win. Mr. Paul has some good ideas and has been an effective fundraiser. But he lacks support in the critical early primary states and has no significant traction nationally. For the good of the GOP, please throw your support behind someone who can really beat the Dems in a general election: Romney, Giuliani, or maybe McCain. Thanks.

Ron Paul will be the 2008 Republican "spoiler" and responsible for a Hillary win (12/20/07). You may quote me on this in January 2009 if not before (wink, wink)!!

Go Hillary44 08! http://hillaryis44.org/

It was WIGGLE, NOT Weasal

Wow CNN… It always suprises me how low you're willing to sink.

That's a pretty lame headline. What is this place?

"He speaks against corruption and then rationalizes his use of earmarks for his district." -Lynn

This strikes me as a very ignorant and misinformed comment. The money that is used for earmarks is GOING TO BE SPENT ANYWAYS. What do people not understand about that? If the money is already "SPENT ANYWAYS" is it not better to direct it to direct it in a responsible way (such is the JOB of a house rep) rather than to hand it over to a FEMA GULAG?

contemplate that for a moment and consider that this is how the system works. Just because you are forced to work within the system does not mean that you don't want to change it. Ron Paul has introduced legislation to reform the Earmark corruption but surprise, surprise, no one else in Congress has stepped up to stop misappropriations.

You have GOT to be kidding me. A man with these kind of views on Equal Rights and even the Civil War…is even in single DIGITS?

Get this joker OUTTA here.

I just love how you distort Dr. Paul's word by leaving out key facts that fully elaborate his position for the comments on the Civil Rights Act and the Civil War. But I suppose these biases are sadly inevitable. Wiggle and weasel also have COMPLETELY different connotations. Please review the interview before writing, honestly.

The portion that imposed upon property rights was his issue with the Civil Rights Act. It was not a "race" issue at all for him. You must understand the man is has a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

And with concerns to the Civil War–he cited several examples where the issue of slavery had been settled peacefully in parts of Europe without spilling a drop of blood as in our Civil War. It's great how you twist it so he sounds like this really awful guy when in reality Dr. Paul has more integrity in his pinky than most.

And Lynn, the problem with the Articles of Confederation was the states had TOO much power. I suggest you look at how it really happened before using this as an example to discredit Dr. Paul's views. Our Constitution does NOT advocate a strong federal government. Did you actually read it?

Why is it that the media takes every opportunity they have to bash Mr. Ron Paul? Every second of his airtime he was attacked and it was painfully obvious the networks takes every chance they get to try and paint a bad picture of his character. I'll tell you why; the "powers to be" fear Dr. Paul and the breath of fresh air he brings to the table. Dr. Paul is the only candidate that speaks from the heart and is not afraid to speak up for the people of this great nation. Thank you Mr. Paul for standing up for the constitution, and the foundational principles our forefathers created for the people of the United States of America.

Wake up America, lets get out of these countries, build our defense here at home, stop allowing the federal government to take 30% of our wages and then spend it overseas.

We live in a time where our government and media can create fear and the illusion of safety.

Bottom line choose a candidate that run the country based on what the majority of Americans think and not what THEY think.

So Lynn, I guess you are against the Bill of Rights, which are amendments to the Constitution. Ron Paul voted against the earmarks. Ron Paul will stop all corporate welfare. Ron Paul will stop the bankers robbing us throught the federal reserve. He says the government could have ended slavery without an invasion of the South, like all other civilized countries did. The great result of ending slavery came about at the expense of destroying and impoverishing the entire south for decades, making dirt poor sharecroppers out of everybody. The fact is there could have been a better result and the war was really over the right to secede from the union because slavery was still legal in the United States when the war was fought. The states provide most services for citizens and a Ron Paul administration would leave more money for those states to provide services they want, such as hiring teachers, which the federal department of education does not do.

Ron Paul is the worst kind of politician. He presents himself as a man of the people and incites unclear constitutional ideals. But no one knows what he plans to do. I'm surprised by the number of people who have been deceived by his claims and donate money to his go nowhere, do nothing campaign.

Who's Ron Paul?

I agree with the other posters here. There are several mistakes in this post.

This is why people distrust the mainstream media.

This article could not have skewed the facts more if it had tried. I am not a supporter of Ron Paul, but this article is just horrible. First, he never gave the impression that he would run on a third party ticket. He just said he would not completely 100% rules it out (this is something everyone in politics would say). Second, he just said slavery could have been ended without war like it was in every other country in the world.

This was probably the most slanted interview I've ever seen. How can Tim Russert justify ignoring the two biggest planks in Dr. Paul's platform (foreign policy and the monetary reform), while digging up every little ounce of dirt that he could find (quotes from 20 years ago, quotes from disgruntled staffers a decade ago, etc). This is absurd.

Go Ron Paul!

This is a classic media tactic, whether intentional or not. Focus on trivial controversies, such as whether or not Paul will run as a third-party, to give the illusion of a "hard hitting" report. This allows the media to ignore real controversies, such as issues of spending and foreign policy, while still looking like an "unbiased" news source.

It was an awesome interview with Russert and I think Ron Paul did good. This article on the other hand is awful. Why didn't they just say that Ron Paul is .1% sure he's running as a 3rd Party Presidential candidate and that he's also racist and wouldn't have ended slavery.

Join the Ron Paul Army.

What is Ron Paul doing with his millions of dollars? I doubt he has spent a cent. I bet, he has embezzled the funds into his own coffers.

To Angelo in Pittsburgh:

Yes, let's analyze why the Republican Party was created. It evolved in the 1850's renamed from the Whig Party, whose sole purpose was to fight Jacksonian Democracy.

That's a fine standard!

Look at all the major, national disasters caused by politics and your Republican Party is right at the front of the parade!!

CNN you are a joke. How could you allow such inaccuracies in your writeups. I can't wait till he becomes president, not everyone in this nation is nieve enough to believe everything that is said on this joke of a news program, good try, and good luck in your horrible attempts to mold America.

Ron Paul…. a Republican only in name just dug himself a hole if anyone was actually watching him on Meet the Press.

ROSS PEROT JR?

In regards to Ron Paul's Civil War comment and anyone who supports his ridiculous claim-

The Civil War was not merely about slavery! Slavery was one of many issues used to represent the struggle between the Federal government and state's rights. It is over simplification to say the Civil War was based entirely on slavery. The Civil War was the natural result of the built up tension between the Northern and Southern States for fifty years. War is sometimes necessary and a pacifist position is never a good position for a President to take.

Ron Paul is a blatant opportunist and populist. He is using vague Republican ideals to gain support. Does anyone know exactly what he stands for?

Right, eliminate all government run organizations like the IRS. Wouldn't that put many thousands out of work? And pull the USA out of all alliances and treaties. No one should even give him any serious thought.

Wow! Misinterpretation. Paul did not and was not saying that slavery would have ended, "eventually" as the author of this article stated. He simply was saying that there was an alternative way to end slavery (instead of war). He suggested that we should have ended slavery by buying the slaves and releasing them using government funds. The civil war was due to the fact that the slave owners PAID for them and viewed freeing them as STEALING. If they were paid, we could have avoided losing 600,000 lives. THAT is what paul was saying. He was not saying that slavery would have just naturally ended!!!

Russert asked a GOP candidate a fair, straight-forward question and got lied to?!

Say it ain't so!!!

While he's at it, let him choose T. Boone Pickens as his running mate; after all Pickens is the maggot who has the cash, is from Texas and funded the Swift Boat Vets.

How stupid do you think we are?

This article is HORRIBLY written. It completely misrepresents Ron's words and is written to give you a negative impression. Did you watch the show? Especially with the representation of Ron's words about the Civil War, I am disgusted. Horrendous, horrendous journalism here. Report the REASONS he opposed these things, not side notes in the conversation to put him in a negative light.

Delete this ticker CNN. It is completely biased and plain inaccurate.

Ron Paul is a great man. A modern day Thomas Jefferson, maybe not of the same penmanship but of the same integrity and patriotism. The reality he will be president becomes more evident with each passing day.

He's the only one in ther current crop that's even the least bit interesting.

The big gun conservatives will do their best to sink his campaign.

I hope he pins their ears back, when all is said and done.

I don't think Ron Paul should run as a third party candidate if he were to lose the nomination. If he wanted the democrat to win that would be a great idea but ultimately his votes will be votes taken away from the Republican. I'm amazed at how well Ron Paul is doing in the Republican field I just went to this election blog at http://www.wakeuplate.com and he has 84 % of the vote in the polls. Its remarkable how good his supporters are with the internet.

What a terrible article.. I watched the whole interview and this article takes many things out of context. It seems it was written to marginalize Dr. Paul and paint him as extreme. But what else should I expect from CNN…

Lynn, you're playing right into Tim's hands with this. He didn't even allow Dr. Paul enough time to adequately answer, all the while switching topics back and forth to confuse him. Furthermore, your comment on the Constitution is lacking in knowledge. It was designed to be changed, not stay the same.

This article is certainly not telling the truth. For those of us that actually paid attention, we heard Dr. Paul say that he was 99.9% certain he wouldn't run on the 3rd ticket.

I do not even support Ron Paul (I'm a liberal democrat) but I did watch the interview. This story is completely slanted. He did not say slavery would end "eventually." That is a gross misrepresentation. This article also does not explain his opposition to the civil rights act of 1964, which was a reasonable stance (of which i disagree) but had nothing to do with race. And he did say he would vote against it today because of property rights issues. This article seems to be trying to portray Paul as racist, and that is simply not the case. He is a whole lot of things I do not agree with, but he is not a racist.

"Local control will just bring local tyranny."

Posted By Lynn, Reno, NV : December 23, 2007 1:37 pm

And national control will bring national tyranny.

At least I can leave a local tyranny. Also, I would have a much better chance fighting a local Boss Tweed than fighting a Federal government pushing permanent war, the Patriot Act, torture, repealing habeas corpus, and disregarding the very same Constitution you claim you champion. And it's only going to get worse. All of your platitudes about "corrupt corporations" and "fiefdoms" running our lives does not scare me as much this.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, Lynn from Reno, NV. The rest of us will try to save this country. Just don't tell anyone that you tried as well.

Ron Paul received contributions from over 100,000 different people this quarter. He received $18,000,000 from those 100,000 people. His support is wide and deep. Look around your town and notice you see RP signs everywhere. Grab a cup of coffee and go to http://freeme.tv

Paul also contended that the Civil War had been unnecessary because the United States would have gotten rid of slavery “eventually.”

Actually, Paul said that war wasn't necessary to end slavery, and pointed out that most nations had abolished slavery at that point through means that did not involve war. He pointed out that in Britian, the state bought the slaves and freed them. Thank you once again for revealing mainstream media bias to us all.

"Paul also contended that the Civil War had been unnecessary…"

Not only was it "unnecessary," there was no legal foundation for it either. Nothing in the original Articles of Confederation of 1777 made that Confederation either individually or collectively indissoluble, nor does the Constitution of 1789. In fact, Article, Section 10, of the Constitution says, in part, "No state shall, without the consent of Congress, … enter into any agreement or compact with another state, … or engage in war, unless actually invaded…"–by engaging in an armed invasion of the southern states, the North, by its own Constitution, sanctioned the creation of the Confederacy and the right thereof to defend itself from invasion.

Further, since the Tenth Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." and since the Constitution contains no provision allowing the Federal Government to forcibly prevent any state from leaving the Union, instigation of the "Civil"–actually, it was nothing of the sort, in any sense of that word–War by Lincoln was unconstitutional.

Fundamentally, the War Between the States was the invasion, ruin, and occupation of a sovereign nation, the Confederate States of America.

Finally! A blog on Ron Paul!

Thanks for reporting on Ron Paul's Meet the Press appearance. You mischaracterized his statements about the Civil War terribly, however. A war is a terrible way to do anything. The bitterness that descended from that war and its unimaginable death and destruction persists to this day. We can all be allowed to wish that it had ended much more harmoniously and without the increase in federal power that resulted from it. People of every race and creed, especially those most disadvantaged and wronged, would benefit from more liberty and less government force. On Meet the Press, Dr. Paul offered one possible peaceful ending to slavery that would have resulted in NO death and INCREASED freedom and prosperity for ex-slaves. Standards of ethical journalism should encourage you to amend your article to clarify.

"When pressed by Russert to state unequivocally that he would not, Paul demurred. "I deserve one weasel now and then, Tim!""

He said I deserve one WIGGLE, not weasel.

So, 99.9% isn't "ruling out"? I don't understand.

One word. Wow.

And I don't mean that in a good way.

First off, Dr. Paul absolutely did not use the word "weasel" during this interview. Please check the tape and correct your statement. It appears to me he said "wiggle".

Secondly, you completely mischaracterized Dr. Paul's answer to the Civil War question. He gave a thoughtful, reasoned response to a question that came out of left field. The write-up on this issue amounts to nothing more that yellow journalism.

I found it amusing that Mr. Russert avoided the topics of Iraq and monetary policy in favor of questions such as these. "Exactly when did you stop beating your wife, Congressman?"

I think Ron Paul has a better chance of winning the Republican nomination than most reporters give him credit for. That said, as a supporter, if he doesn't win the nomination, I hope he runs on a third party ticket. Unfortunately, I doubt he will do so – I think he learned how hopeless doing so is when he tried it 20 years ago.

On using the Civil War to end slavery, I think he had a good point that every other nation in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war, and that it cost 600,000 American lives in the war. He proposed another method (which the British used) that could have been implemented immediately and probably would have cost less than the war – simply buying all the slaves and setting them free.

You guys sure do spend a lot of time on the "3rd party" thing. I don't think I've ever seen a CNN interview with Dr. Paul where they didn't ask the 3rd party question.

I'm not sure where CNN gets the idea that it's viewers/reader care to hear the same question brought up over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Who cares if he does or doesn't run 3rd party!? Get over it!

How about maybe covering some issues, CNN? Or are the actual issues beyond the scope of your journalism ethic?

LOL another sloppy CNN attempt to attack Ron Paul…

He criticizes the Civil Rights Act not because of what it attempted to do, but because it basically said that the federal government has the power to tell you what to do on YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY!

His statement about the Civil War was:

1. Every other western country ended slavery without a civil war.

2. The monetary cost and the cost of life could have easily been put to the greater good and ended slavery peacefully.

3. The Civil War was about the federal government taking power from the states. That issue just manifested itself in the form of the debate over slavery.

Study history, before the civil war people were loyal to their states before the country. People need to realize that the USA is an alliance of 50 SOVEREIGN STATES (France is a "State", England is a "State", Germany is a "State")

CNN need to quite using their obviously poor understanding of American history, and their poor excuse for journalism to slander the good Doctor.

He said "wiggle", not weasel. And I wouldn't bring it up except that the entire piece (particularly the latter half) seems to be directed at influencing the reader to think poorly of Ron Paul in its lack of specificity.

He never said slavery would have been abolished "eventually". He said many other things, but you quoted none of it and inserted a quotation that absolutely is not present in the Meet The Press interview.

It is very transparent that this misquotation was fabricated to draw away attention from the real issues presented in this interview: foreign policy, civil liberties and economic policy.

You should correct these misquotations, they're dead wrong and can be contradicted easily by anybody with a video recording of the Tim Russert interview.

I was intrigued by Ron Paul's third party prospects back in the summer. It was a very interesting idea. But during September, on MSNBC, Ron Paul completely shot this idea down. I figured he wouldn't run now. If it took an average person like me to figure this out three months ago, how come it still takes AP/CNN/FOX/MSNBC pundits three months to keep asking this, get the same "99.9% chance I won't do it" and somehow *STILL* keep asking? What part of 99.9% don't you understand? Well, actually, scratch that. What part of $20 Million don't you understand? Why the heck would the top Republican fundraiser need to run third party?

Are you kidding me?! That was the most absurd hit piece I've ever seen. You completely took EVERYTHING YOU POSTED out of context to make it sound like some terrible comment. Of course you probably watched the interview waiting for something to take out of context, it's quite obvious. How about posting his entire responses to the issues brought up? That would make journalistic sense and be ethical, but of course your not interested in that.

To everybody who is going to react negatively to this post, watch the actual interview online. It will explain everything.

Many Historians consider Lincoln nothing more then a war criminal, the states had the right to secede and would have returned to the Union in due time. If you want to attack a candidate you really need to know some historical background. Also if your going to cover an interview you need to point out the positive points as well, such as Paul's capability to rebuttal all accusations, and his positive stance on how to cut spending. Go vote for hucklebee.

Spin Rebecca, Spin:
You Rebecca, like many of your peers, miss the real message that Congressman Ron Paul brings to America. Ron Paul is a true Republican. Maybe you haven't been alive long enough or are not inclined to "research" what the Republican Party originally stood for? Ron Paul is true to his word. He's proven that in ten terms in Congress. And he will bring us back to our roots of a free and prosperous nation FOR ALL Americans. FYI: The Republican Party will be begging Ron Paul to be their candidate in April. He will be the most Popular President America has ever seen.

Answer this: How does being anti-war suddenly not extend to being against a horrid and unnecessary war fought in our own backyards that killed 600,000 American soldiers – the reverberations of which we still feel today?

And then ask yourselves this: How was every single country in the world able to get rid of African slavery without fighting a war? Then, do some reading and research.

Kudos to Ron Paul for being honest enough to comment on an issue that other politicians wouldn't dare to touch. It took a special person to get me to register Republican again after the Bush disaster. If he doesn't get the nomination, I'm staying home on Nov. 4.

According to this article, one would think that the US economy was firing on all cylinders and that the US was friends at peace with all the nations of the world. The fact that this reporter refused to focus on Ron Paul's stance on the important issues of the election gives a very unfavorable opinion of the reporter and the editorial policies of the network.

Is that the best article you can write? Why not say Ron Paul
didn't rule out beating his wife. You lamestream types
make me sick to my stomach.

Wow, talk about libel. Ron Paul didn't say that the US would have gotten rid of slavery "eventually." He said that the US should have done what every other western nation had already done and simply buy out the slaves and set them free, thereby avoiding a war that killed 600,000 people.

He also said that he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act as written because it infringed upon the private property rights of business owners, but that he supports integrated public institutions and would vote for a Civil Rights Act that respected property rights.

Reading your story you appear to present a very slanted view of an extremely principled man.

If you have any integrity you will correct your story. It is inaccurate. I watched the interview, and I know what was said.

I doubt it…if he goes third party all that money he has raised won't be available to the GOP for the general election.

Everyone knows the only reason for his campaing anyway is to obtain donations from more liberal Republicans and Indepenedents–and we his bid failed–use those funds to support the "electable" candidate in the general elections.
What a genius the Chairman, RNC is!!
Of course he Paul did go independent–that would really mess up their plans, and yank away some pretty necessary financial aid to combat John Edwards. Too bad–looks like Mr. Chairman and Mr. President may have underestimated Mr. Pauls potential to pull the rug out.

Such honesty and refusal to pander to voters is very refreshing, and extremely rare in politics. Whether you agree with everything he says or not, you have to respect and appreciate a politician who actually has the guts to tell the truth.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
- George Orwell

"Paul also contended that the Civil War had been unnecessary because the United States would have gotten rid of slavery 'eventually.' "

This is where Paul shows how dangerous his "kill the government" approach truly is. Is his comment true? Probably. Is it a justification for taking a hands-off approach? Absolutely not, because it would have allowed for an extension of the marginalization and enslavement of a segment of our population.

Is government and intrusion sometimes the problem? Yes. But let's be careful about absolutes. Sometimes people need help, and it is ok for our government — which, btw, is supposed to come FROM the people — to lend a hand from time to time.

Ron Paul did rule out running as an independent candidate. He stated that nothing is absolute, but he was 99.9% sure he would not run as an independent. CNN you are misrepresenting this story. You should retract this ticker.

His supporters can crow about Ron Paul, but on Meet the Press we saw the real man. He speaks against corruption and then rationalizes his use of earmarks for his district. He waffles just like John Kerry as well on a whole host of issues that Russert brought up. He says he loves the Constitution and is a strict constructionist, but then thinks it is fine to advocate amending the Constitution in the places where he doesn't like it. Ron Paul's whole agenda is set up to let corrupt corporations have free reign, and reduce this great country to corrupt fiefdoms like in Afghanistan where warloads hold the power because there isn't a government strong enough to deal with them. Ron Paul has a terrible vision for this nation. It was tried under the Articles of Confederation and failed. It was a civil and economic disaster for our new nation. That is why we have a Constitution that advocates a strong federal government. We need power in both the states and the federal government, not just in the states. Local control will just bring local tyranny.