Instant Reaction! Ron Paul on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday

On this fine Sunday morning I had the rare opportunity to watch an interview with Ron Paul live on CNN's "State of the Union" with Candy Crowley.  Paul discussed the campaign and why he is currently campaigning in Maine while everyone else is focused on Florida.As has become commonplace with mainstream interviews - and debate questions - Crowley starts out by asking Paul what it would take for him to drop out of the race and if he will continue on to the Republican convention.  This highlights how the media loves to pick winners and mold the debate.  Less than 2% of voters have spoken in the Republican primary so far.  Are those results what we are supposed to base an entire nomination process on? And if they are, Paul should be considered a frontrunner, as he placed in the 3rd, 2nd, and 4th respectively in the 1st 3 contests.  Contrast this to the campaign of Newt Gingrich, who every pundit from Martin Bashir to Bill O'Reilly will tell you is in a "Two Man Race" with Mitt Romney, placing 1st in South Carolina recently but only after 4th place showings in Iowa and New Hampshire.  Meanwhile, Paul has some things that Newt doesn't have: excellent fundraising, national organization and , oh yeah - his name on the ballot in all 50 states.   Meanwhile, Newt couldn't even get on the ballot in his own state! It seems that the standards for what differentiates a "frontrunner" from a gadfly are fairly subjective nowadays.Crowley admits that it is likely Paul will go to the convention with "a large chunk of delegates" and chooses not to ask the intelligent journalistic question of "and how will this translate into a strategy for winning the Republican nomination?", but instead opts for the slimier, degrading question of "what do you want in return?".  Again this serves to further drive home the media narrative that Ron Paul is just a gadfly who, while he will get some delegates, is only in it to advance some silly cause like auditing the Fed and knows he can't actually win.They discuss why Paul is campaigning in  Maine, which begins it's caucuses next weekend , instead of Florida where all the action is.  Paul's strategy of focusing on states where he can compete affordably and pick up delegates, instead of blowing all of his money in a winner-take-all Primary in Florida with demographics that aren't favorable, is similar to how he runs his Congressional office and likely a preview of how he would operate as President.  Paul routinely returns unused funds to the Congressional budget office in the US Treasury because he is pragmatic with  money, particularly the taxpayers' money.Paul has to explain to Crowley something that must be very difficult to understand for a typical political pundit - he doesn't think in terms of "delivering votes".   He does not make deals or trade political favors, which is why he often ends up the lone "no" vote on the House floor.  Many of his sole "no" votes are on issues that on the surface look like wonderful things - Holocaust Memorial funding and a Congressional medal for Rosa Parks - but Paul votes "no" on principle.  He votes no on things like this because they are unconstitutional, and as a Congressman he has to take an oath to uphold the Constitution.  Unfortunately he is one of the few who not only read and understand the Consitution, but take his oath seriously.  If we can't take a supposed "representative" of the people by his word, what worth are they to us as representivies anyway? Paul sticks to his principles, but that doesn't mean he is heartless.  On the issue of the medal for Rosa Parks - a hero of Dr. Paul's - Dr. Paul actually proposed that all members of Congress chip in $100 each to personallu pay for the medal instead of unconstiutionally using the taxpayers' money on it.  Of course, his notion was ignored by other members of Congress, who are seemingly happy to endlessly dish out other people's money for a worthy cause, but never their own.Crowley continues the "what are you still doing in the race?" line of questioning by asking if Paul could endorse any of his rivals.  The Establishment is clearly frightened, as the GOP nominee will have no chance whatsoever without the support of Paul's supporters and they know it. What they miss with this line of questioning is that it wouldn't matter if Paul endorsed one of his opponents if they still held their current positions on monetary and foreign policy.  The endorsement would be meaningless and probably make most Paul supporters feel he was a sell-out.  Nobody supports Paul because they see him as their "leader" - they support him because of his principles and more imporantly the fact that he actually believes in them and acts upon them. When asking Paul about Herman Cain's recent endorsement of Newt, you could almost see Paul trying to hold back his laughter with a "who gives as a shit" grin.   Herman Cain was never anything more than a joke candidate, and we will always remember him for his bizarre campaign ads, general cluelessness on major issues and creepy smile.  The fact that his name is even mentioned in an interview with one of 5 men who could conceivably be President a year from now is a testament to how out of touch with reality the media is.So far through the first segment, we've had zero questions about the Federal Reserve, foreign policy, the NDAA or any other actual issue that matters to anyone.  Instead, we essentially get 10 minutes of Candy Crowley (how appropriate and creepy at the same time is that name, btw?) asking Ron Paul when he'll drop out and why he's being such a crank about the whole thing. Let's hope for something better when we get back from break.We get back from break and .... why hallelujah it's a foreign policy question! What's the occasion, Crowley?  She asks about Obama's statement from the State of the Union that "no options are off the table" when it comes to Iran's supposed Nuclear weapons program.  And what a sad state of affairs it is when the only time that most of Congress can get together to applaud something is when the President promises to bomb another Muslim country to smithereens. Paul points out that people woudn't be cheering these things so vociferously if it was phrased differently.  In this case "no options off the table" translates to "multi-trillion dollar war and occupation, up to and including the option of a Nuclear first strike".  Doesn't sound quite as fun now, does it? Paul also highlights the hyposcrisy of saying "no options off the table" when they've already removed the most important option when it comes to dealing with other nations: actually talking to them. They can't take options off the table when they won't even sit down at the table in the first place.In response to a generic question about the economy, Paul states that "it's really not all that complicated". And it's not! The problems with the economy result from too much government, too much intervention both in the economy at home and in the affairs of other nations overseas.  If the Fed wasn't destroying our currency and the government wasn't spending it all on trillion dollar wars and corporate bailouts, the economy would be great.   Instead, both Republicans and Democrats alike call for more government solutions, more interventions in the economy and overseas.  As a Doctor, Paul is the only candidate that points out not just the symptoms of the country's diseases, but the actual causes of the illness.  You can treat the symptoms of a headache by taking Advil all day, but it won't answer the question of why you are getting headaches or how to stop them from occurring.  It's certainly not a perfect analogy to the government's intervention in the ecocomy - after all, Advil actually does help with headaches.We wrap things up with a question about the TSA , in reference to Paul's recent "End the TSA" money bomb and his son Rand's recent detention at the hands of our blue-gloved guardians.  Most people seem to forget that the TSA has only been around for a little over a decade, and in that time they have prevented exactly zero terrorist acts.  Meanwhile, they continue to grope 6 year old girls and strip search old ladies, while at the same time allowing loaded guns to get through security and claiming they are the only thing keeping us from being blown up by those evil Muslims.  Paul is the only candidate to take a strong stance against not only the actions of the TSA, but the entire concept of government providing "security".  If we continue to give up our liberty in favor of security theater like this, we will get neither liberty nor security*.Despite my cynicism, this was actually a decent interview for Dr. Paul as he was able to firmly state both his intentions to remain in the race and pick up as many delegates as possible, that he is not running just to "make a deal" or "deliver votes" to another candidate, and will continue to expose viewers to his strong stances in favor of greater freedom and liberty in this country.  Anybody that takes time to actually examine Dr. Paul's positions and statements will see that he is truly the only sane option for President.  The media will continue to find creative ways to balance not wanting to seem completely biased against Ron Paul but at the same time making sure to downplay him as a candidate as much as possible.  In the old days, this animosity towards a candidate would doom him. But luckily we live in a different age, an age where any idiot with a blog can deliver news and give you his take. This is leading to an  era where people are listening less and less to our corporate masters in the media, and more and more to each other. And that can only be a good thing.(*Semi-stolen in paraphrase form from Benjamin Franklin).VIDEO BELOWReceive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!