Election 2008

Open Thread: What Ron Paul Believes

Ron Paul

Ron Paul takes questions from reporters. Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption Getty Images

Tucker Carlson has been following GOP phenom Ron Paul around for an article he's writing for the New Republic, and today he shared some of his observations. Among the more interesting is that Paul is more radical than some of his supporters realize:

Paul thinks there should be no "government-sponsored safety net" — a concept almost unimaginable to most voters. "I think if some of them thought that through, they would no longer be on Ron Paul's side," Carlson says.

Bonus: Ron Paul on the Issues



Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

See also:
Ron Paul as Vice President For Barack Obama

Dennis Kucinich -- and Ron Paul?

Sent by Alex Hammer | 10:54 AM | 11-28-2007

Read the Constitution! When our troops are home that will be our safety net. The government can't sponsor anything they can only take from us tax payers. Yes of course we are still with him and you should be too! Restore the Constitution!

Sent by Bridget Panzer | 11:02 AM | 11-28-2007

Sure I know, but he doesn't want to put older and dependant people out of the street.

Sent by Jack | 11:09 AM | 11-28-2007

Why would I want a government safety net. Can I not take care of my own problems. I have instilled this in my children so therefore they also don't need a safety net. If they need help they can depend on me just like I have at times depended on my parents.

Growing up when family even extended family had problems(out of work etc..) we all pitched in and got them through the hard times.

It is time for politicians and bureaucrats realize we are tired of paying them to take away our freedom and the responsibility that goes with it!

Sent by Jim Whitehead | 11:21 AM | 11-28-2007

That's WHY I'm with him. The U.S. can't afford such a welfare state anymore. It never really could. Especially if we're extending it to anyone who walks up from Mexico.

There are two options if the U.S. government continues to ignore basic accounting: Hyperinflation, or severe depression. They look pretty much the same from the ground.

Would it be nice if we could live without any economic worry? Sure it would. Does the U.S. government, or any government in all of history, have the power to give that to its people? No. To believe otherwise is to live a dream.

Sent by Dr East | 11:25 AM | 11-28-2007

We have two choices, Ron Paul and taking responsibility for the mess of the last 65 years, of the Military Iindustrial complex to keep our country, much as England did when their empire fell, or sleep through it all into the next administration under a Rudy or Hillary and wake up to chaos like the old USSR.

Brevard, NC 28712

Sent by Ron Liles | 11:27 AM | 11-28-2007

Yes, I'm aware of that, and it's one of the reasons I support him. How could I be unaware of that? The bigger question is - do you (you personally and the greater 'you' of American people) actually WANT government safety nets? If so, why?

Sent by Janet McVay | 11:30 AM | 11-28-2007

RE: What's the Deal with Ron Paul?
His platform does not include banishing abortion. Either this is an outright lie to distort the truth or simply lazy journalism. Either way, you need to post a correction.

Sent by Marta | 11:37 AM | 11-28-2007

Dr. Paul has never said that he wants to abandon those who have become dependent on (government) handouts.
That being said, what do you think will happen to private charity, both formal and informal, when the oppressive federal tax burden is lifted? It will explode, that's what; more than enough to make up for any future phased reduction in unconstitutional "safety nets". Just look at how charity thrives even today, in spite of the ever increasing tax burdens put on ordinary people across the nation.

Sent by Robert E. | 11:37 AM | 11-28-2007

Tucker is completely right with the above statement. As Dr. Paul says, the government has bred a generation of people completely dependent on government welfare. Politics now is a game of who can offer the voters the most loot.

The difference with Dr. Paul's message is that he gives us the ideology of liberty first, which makes us understand why we have problems and what it takes to solve them. He doesn't simply come to a podium and say: "I'll do away with Social Security, Medicare, the CIA, FBI, and all other federal welfare programs!!" he explains that our problems stem from empire-building, neo-colonialism, welfarism, high-taxation, and government authoritarianism.

After hearing him talk the answers come naturally, and the government-sponsored safety net ideas that seemed so necessary now seem like the insidious incrementalism which started our road to collapse.

I completely understand Tucker's cynicism. After so many years seeing the people of the United States elect these soulless, corrupt politicians, who wouldn't have misgivings about the idiocy and apathy of the American public? I can only hope that Dr. Paul's message hits others with the same force that it hit me.

Sent by Ian Condie | 11:41 AM | 11-28-2007

Tucker Carlson has recently setup conditions to create a story and also has become part of the story to discredit Dr. Ron Paul with the "Bunny Ranch Affair" this is the worst kind of yellow journalism. NPR does it's' self a great disservices to repeat the reports of charlatans involved in such repairs. Most people understand the far left leaning of NPR who uses supposed depth and professional journalism as a cover to promote socialites topics staring aways from topics of freedom. Recently I listened to a radio show on MPR about the problems with our dollar and its loosing value. It was a complete bogus just like the money the federal reserve prints. No one even brought up why we have are starting hipper inflation or what the cause may be. These are topic DR. Paul can and has answered and has a solution to the problems. Gold and Silver backed currency. Not a happy answer to those who are part of the construction of new world order like NPR and their associates. How many of your staff are also members of the CFR?

Sent by davina1776 | 11:42 AM | 11-28-2007

Ron Paul is the people's choice for many reasons. He dominates in straw polls, debate polls, fund raising, web traffic and grass roots networking. I have gathered the evidence to support this statement and created a website.
Please visit www.thecaseforronpaul.com and judge for yourself.

Sent by Cleaner44 | 11:44 AM | 11-28-2007

Look at all the subjects squirm, "I need help, I cant do anything by myself - Without Govt telling me what to do I Would be lost"

I like the idea of working 6 months out of the year for Govt, I wouldnt know what to do with all that money.

Sent by AlmostSpeechless | 11:47 AM | 11-28-2007

Marta -- this is from Ron's Paul's website: I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

You can say that he doesn't oppose banishing abortion by arguing that he says it should be a state decision rather than a federal one. But it seems that a large part of what's driving his opposition to Roe v Wade is that he thinks abortion should be banned.

Sent by Matt Martinez | 11:50 AM | 11-28-2007

I, for one, am sick and tired of hearing again and again that as a Ron Paul supporter, I must not know the true details of Paul's platform -- because if I did, maybe I might not support him.

The fact is, the information is all available on his website. I support these issues. Stop arguing that I'm ignorant of them.

Sent by AW | 12:06 PM | 11-28-2007

Yes Matt, Dr. Paul believes personally that abortions are an act of violence. He knows that he could be sued if he mishandled taking care of a fetus (as an ob-gyn) and you could be sued for taking the life of an unborn child (in a car accident, for example)

However, unlike so many other politicians, he refuses to legislate his personal beliefs at the Federal level. If only all our other politicians would follow suit.

His philosophy "the more complex the problem, the more local the solution" You really don't get any more complex an issue than abortion.

Sent by Janet McVay | 12:12 PM | 11-28-2007

I think if more people understood that there would be no government safety net with a Ron Paul presidency, he would win in a landslide. People are sick and tired of paying half of what we earn so the government can squander it away.

Sent by Rob | 12:14 PM | 11-28-2007

"Among the more interesting is that Paul is more radical than some of his supporters realize"

As the media has come to terms with the fact that Ron Paul actually has substantial support, they've now begun to assume that Ron Paul supporters are being duped.

Paul Krugman made this mistake here:

So, next you need to come to terms with the fact that libertarian ideas are really are what it's all about.

As RP puts it: "Freedom is Popular!"

Ron Paul early (i.e. current) supporters are the most informed and savvy of all.

Does this blow your mind? Take some time to come to terms with it.

Sent by Jay Muntz | 12:14 PM | 11-28-2007

Dr. Paul is the only sane person running for office. We have two options continue on this path to economic turmoil or cut something we dont need anyway. Like da Homeland Security, da Fema, etc. Either show me the law for the 16th amendment or REPEAL IT. For cring out loud give us back our friggin liberties!! RESTORE HABEOUS CORPUS! Do you people think you will have all those entitlement systems when our economy collapses? Try work camps. PS. Tucker is being a paid schill worth it?

Sent by givemetruefreedom | 12:20 PM | 11-28-2007

I support Ron Paul, as do a large cross section of American voters. Ron Paul has more straw poll wins than any other candidate.

In a poll taken in Iowa, Ron Paul leads among college students.

Expect Ron Paul to finish 1st or 2nd in both Iowa and NH. I am deadly serious.

Sent by Aaron Kinney | 12:24 PM | 11-28-2007

Looks like NPR is not as neutral and factual as I thought they were. I have been finding out the real scoop about the media here in Washington. They are simply BIAS. I use to have respect for NPR, not anymore. This articled was another attempt at making Ron look bad, and you don't really present the facts.

Sent by Stephuen | 12:24 PM | 11-28-2007

Dr. Ron Paul is the only person running that is talking about the inflation tax we are suffering under right now. What we are earning is worth less and less every year. Food, energy and housing prices are going up faster than my pay check. but I???m told that inflation is low.

We need to go back to the gold standard. We need to make our money worth something. It's true that money can't buy everything, especially what it use to.

that is the real story, Dr. Paul's sound monetary policies.

Sent by William Kone | 12:25 PM | 11-28-2007

please ask a citizen of new orleans what it's like to have a government safety net.

Sent by sean truitt | 12:26 PM | 11-28-2007

Matt Martinez writes ??????it seems that a large part of what's driving his opposition to Roe v Wade is that he thinks abortion should be banned.???

This is completely wrong Matt, what drives Ron Paul is his belief that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Matt, let me direct you to Article I section 8 of the Constitution, which lays out the responsibilities of Congress, and the 10th Amendment, ???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.???

Sent by Ted | 12:26 PM | 11-28-2007

The fact is, if we were using a constitutionaly correct (gold backed) currency, 90% of the need for a "government-sponsored safety net" would not exist. People need to realize that benefits gained via any "government-sponsored safety net" come at the cost of your freedom.

Sent by Bill | 12:28 PM | 11-28-2007

Matt, Dr. Paul does NOT advocate LEGALLY banning abortion. While he personally abhors the practice, he only states that under the USC the Federal Government has no right to legislate it one way or another. He is willing to let the chips fall where they may on the basis that such issues are best left to be dealt with at the most local (i.e. personal) level.

Dr. Paul, even by Tucker Carlson's admission, categorically refuses to claim the right to impose his personal opinions - about abortion or anything else for that matter - on others, especially if done at the point of a gun.

Consider carefully this fact. The only thing that turns what until then is nothing but a political opinion into a (federal) law is that congress voted to force it down your throat, at the point of a gun.

Sent by Robert E. | 12:30 PM | 11-28-2007

I think Ron Paul should consider asking Barack Obama to be his VP. That would be fantastic.

Sent by Cameron Davis | 12:32 PM | 11-28-2007

Mandatory programs like Social Security and Medicare are not "safety nets". A safety net applies only to those who suffer hardship, and are relatively cheap. Rather, they are massively expensive one-size-fits-all socialist programs.

Sent by Jacob | 12:39 PM | 11-28-2007

Robert E. et al -- understood, this is complex. Just want to ask a totally honest question, though: Do you truly believe that the ONLY thing driving Dr. Paul's belief that Roe v. Wade should be overturned is because he thinks it's not a federal issue? Nothing more to it?

Sent by Matt Martinez | 12:40 PM | 11-28-2007

Of course he thinks abortion should be banned. He's an Ob/Gyn who saw a brutal one performed while he was in medical school. But he wants to overturn Roe v Wade because there is no provision in the Constiution for such nonsense. If states want to legalize abortion, Ron Paul is happy to let them, as what is or is not killing should be the purview of the state, not the Federal Government.

Paul has also brought up the point that federal law treats the murder of a pregnant mother as a double murder while allowing for abortion. If killing an unbory baby along with its is murder, Paul asks, how is abortion not? Which federal law would you change?

It is also worth noting that the push for abortions in the early 20th century grew not out of a woman's rights movement, but out of eugenics -- i.e. state-sponsored murder.

Sent by G. M. Palmer | 12:40 PM | 11-28-2007

Here's what has happened with the US government "safety" net.

Social Security was created.
It ran a surplus for nearly it's entire existence.
All the surplus was stolen and used for everything from reconstruction in Europe after WWII, wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iraq II, as SDI.

What it owed to SS and Medicaid now? About 60 trillion dollars according to the GAO in the next 30 years. That's 20 years of federal taxation at current rates.

There is no safety net anymore, there's just the cost with providing one. Social Security and Medicaid is ending with the boomers, and even the boomers won't get much of it.

Sent by Richard Wicks | 12:53 PM | 11-28-2007

1)This is rather lazy reporting. The story is simply "Tucker Carlson says blah blah blah...". Why rely on him and him only? Get Ron Paul's positions from the source. I don't know Carlson, but if someone wanted to discredit Dr. Paul, they would have a hard time doing a better job than Carlson (though still, it won't work)
2) This nonsense about "If Paul supporters really knew...." has got to stop. His supporters know his positions far better than the supporters of others know their candidates positions.
3) If you really want to understand why Paul's supporters are so fervent, it's because they love their country and they see it heading for financial disaster as a result of excessive spending and militarism. Ron Paul is the only one who would change that. See here for the full picture:

Sent by Jim Waddell | 12:53 PM | 11-28-2007

I am a big NPR fan, have been for years, I donate money etc..

With that said, I am also a fan of Ron Paul and have been for years and donate money to him too..

Bravo to NPR for doing a story that is not loaded down with trash talk about Paul. It sure would be nice to see NPR do some sincere open and friendly stories on Ron Paul, he is without a doubt one of our most sincere and unique
politicians of this century.

On to the topic. Imho If Carlson (NBC owned reporter) is a friend or a wolf in sheep's clothing of Ron Pauls is a question yet to be seen. Remember GE is one of the largest military contractors in the world and I find it hard to believe that NBC owned GE would want one of there own endorsing a candidate that wants to leave Iraq and other places..

Thank you NPR, I will be looking for more great stories..

Lbts, Fla.

Sent by brian kuszmar | 12:53 PM | 11-28-2007

Tucker Carlson is supposed to be a fan of Ron Paul, and seems to believe that Paul's libertarian philosophy is a better way to live, and produces more benefits overall than a mixed framework. But for some reason, Tucker seems to be going out of his way to reduce Paul's support base. The only thing I can figure is that his strings are being pulled by the networks, and is prevented from sounding 'too supportive'. But that's just a guess.

Sent by Childers | 12:56 PM | 11-28-2007

shhh, Eugenics must not be brought up in the Abortion debate.

China, Champion of Eugenics, also respects a woman's right to choose. They can choose between having one kid and having Abortions.

Sent by Chris S | 12:56 PM | 11-28-2007

If the government would stay out of my life, I could build my own safety net.

Sent by Kandice Wilson | 12:58 PM | 11-28-2007

That was the WORST, most biased, and insincere radio article I've ever heard about Ron Paul.

NPR is purposely trying to make him look bad and for a "Public" station I'm furious of the tone and demeaner it portends.

NPR says a lot of Ron Paul supporters are "smart", well the jocular attitutde of this reporter only just shows she's isn't smart enough to "get it".

Ron Paul is the people's choice. NPR sucks at reporting the truth and spins crap like FOX. Congratulations for having low standards and dumbing down the American people.

People are sick of this biased news reporting and the sick of politics.

America needs a doctor to fix this mess. America needs Ron Paul for president.

Sent by Tom | 12:59 PM | 11-28-2007

"I think if some of them thought that through, they would no longer be on Ron Paul's side," Carlson says."

I have and I'm not included in that

Who's going to pay for all the government that everyone else wants?


Sent by jomama | 1:01 PM | 11-28-2007

Here's a novel idea...Welfare recipients fill the so-called labor shortage by working for their government hand-outs. Then we no longer "need" illegal alien labor.

No more labor shortage...No more illegal alien problem. Hmmmm.

Sent by TomS | 1:05 PM | 11-28-2007

I think you are dead wrong when you say that his supporters don't understand that living under his model of government would require self-reliance. You may be frightened by that idea, but most of Dr. Paul's supporters yearn for it. In my experience, the RP supporters I know are much more well-versed on his ideas and what follows from them than are average voters. It's much easier to be, because his ideas form a coherent philosophy, and it is the one expressed in our Constitution, which so clearly sets them forth. It is true that many Americans have lost the idea of being able to function freely and self-reliantly. But, thankfully, not all of us. We are the ones who are not afraid of standing on our own feet and who hate the caricature of itself that our country has become. And we are the ones who will bring the new revolution--the peaceful revolution that wakes the people and waters the old roots of the Liberty that is our birthright. I honestly believe that Ron Paul stands a good chance of being our next President. But even if we are defeated this time, we will not be able to be herded back into the sheepfold. It's on, and the world is going to know it very soon. Power to the Peaceful.

Sent by jenny | 1:05 PM | 11-28-2007

To add to my message about GE owned NBC $3.43B for F-35 JSF Engine Development. Thats just ONE contract. Is it possible that GE would support a candidate for President that would cut taxes and bring our troops home? How could GE support such a candidate in any way? Just a thought..

Sent by brian kuszmar | 1:08 PM | 11-28-2007

Our Liberty IS our saftey net. The freedom to choose how and where to allocate one's resources is the best possible defense against any monopoly. It has thus far been our nation's greatest strength, but we are losing it by increment. I believe that the rank and file Ron Paul supporter understands this idea, and that the realization is spreading.

Sent by Charles | 1:08 PM | 11-28-2007

One more thought. Does the media profit from topics that are of great interest to Americans?

Is it possible that News media generates profits from the war too, Think about it, if it was not for the war and sleazy politics and there effects, what do they have to report about? Brittney?

Sent by brian kuszmar | 1:13 PM | 11-28-2007

>>more radical than his supporters realize.

Dude, the supporters are the radical ones. Who do you think is pointing the giant neon sign "Listen to this man" at a humble decent man.
Evidently, you have to be radical to get the rest of country to wake up and question what they are told over and over is true.
For example: Most Americans distrust their government. Most American's believe it is the government's duty to help people. But why would you ask an entity you do not trust (and who refers to you as a number)to help you? It's better to find individuals you trust and help them... like Ron Paul.
By the way, Ron Paul doesn't believe the presidency is capable of royal decree. Strangely, a lot of people refer to the presidency as if we will grant the president whatever he/she wishes; that should be a misconception.

Sent by H. Puterbaugh | 1:18 PM | 11-28-2007

A safety net is useless if it cannot be funded. The fiscal mess of this government precludes being able to pay for a safety-net. Social Security is a myth. The collapsing dollar and the ensuing inflation will ensure that no one has a safety net.

Ron Paul offers a return to fiscal responsibility and real equity in our currency. A solid dollar and a smaller government are the only ways to return our economy to a real sustainable healthy system. Trade agreements with China that force us to take shoddy adulterated goods that pollute our bodies and our economy while destroying our own manufacturing abilities are suicidal and must be stopped.

Ron Paul makes many good points, he is a fine man and he can explain why he believes what he believes, unlike say Hilary who can't even tell you what she believes let alone why.

I was a Democrat, but became an independent once I realized that both major parties are just 2 sides of the same corporate coin. Ron Paul is a new voice and perhaps the last chance to move this country onto the right track before our economy collapses and the ensuing civil chaos allows the government to enact all its executive orders on restraining the populace and instituting marshal law.

Tucker Carlson is a tool, a corporate mouthpiece as Jon Stewart so elegantly pointed out - I'm perplexed as to why he is used as a source for this article, unless of course NPR is also a corporate tool used to manipulate public opinion, nah couldn't be or could it?

Sent by Frank Sagevsal | 1:26 PM | 11-28-2007

The American people are starved for the Truth. They know media pundits do not offer it.

It appears to me they are responding in historically significant numbers, not to candidates who stoke their fears or their greed, but to the one candidate unafraid to tell the truth, Ron Paul.

Paul is a statesman in the mold of Churchill who said he would change his party for his principles but he would not change his principles for his party.

Paul's principles are the legal limits granted to the Federal government in the Constitution from the People and their local communities, the States.

Near as I can tell, he ran for president in 1988 on the libertarian ticket but that was the horse he chose to ride at that time as Champion of the Constitution because the horse he rode to Congress (Republican party) chose a sitting vice president, G.H.W. Bush, to be its jockey.

I attribute his switch to Libertarian ticket in 1988 to youthful impatience. However, all along he has been a Champion of the Constitution.

Besides a physical obesity crisis in US, there is a crisis with an obese federal government that has burst the stitches of the Constitution intended to limit its size.

The good Dr. Paul has the crash diet prescription that will save the national patient's life and restore it to vibrant health.

Sent by Joseph | 1:28 PM | 11-28-2007

OK. So Dr. Paul is a libertarian. He doesn't shy away from that. Will the other candidates go ahead and admit they are statists?

Sent by Mike | 1:28 PM | 11-28-2007

I like to contradictory fear mongers:

Fear Monger # 1: We can't get rid of the income tax! The government would have no money!

Fear Monger # 2: Ron Paul can't get rid of the income tax, he is just saying that.

Sent by James Madison | 1:30 PM | 11-28-2007


Since you supported Paul's bid in 1988, I shouldn't have to explain this to you. But evidently I do. There is no such thing as a government safety net. There is only government expropriation of its productive citizens, which offers some advantages to certain groups over the short term, but which, should it run its natural course, will impoverish every one.

Sent by D. Saul Weiner | 1:37 PM | 11-28-2007

Ron Paul did not organize the Nov 5th donation rally.

Sent by GroverBlue | 1:48 PM | 11-28-2007

I like the spirited discussion. There are two things, I'd like to address.
1.Carlson is writing an in-depth piece on Dr. Paul for a major publication and that's why he is on the road with Ron Paul and that's why we asked him to share his reporting. His reporting is not for his TV job.

2.I did go back and forth and back and forth about the wording to the Ron Paul intro and I think some of your points are well taken...even if they aren't presented in the most gracious manner.

Sent by Alison Stewart-NPR | 1:49 PM | 11-28-2007

NPR -- your tax dollars hard at work.

Sent by Louise | 1:51 PM | 11-28-2007

Stop with the VP nonsense, please!

Until you win the nomination, it's all just arrogant useless speculation.

Is it too much to ask that people focus on issues in a Presidential election rather than trying to turn into a Survivor episode?

Sent by Barney | 1:51 PM | 11-28-2007

I don't want a government safety net. And I need government provided healthcare like I need a bag on my hip....and if left up to them, I'd be lucky to get the bag. No Thanks!

It's about the Constitution!

Go Ron Paul!!!!

Sent by Gabby Wrench | 1:58 PM | 11-28-2007

The Ron Paul campaign is the only authentic grassroots campaign within the GOP. He is the only one able to raise substational money from those who can and will vote. His appeal is broadbased and most important of all - Dr. Paul is authentic. He speaks from his heart always.

Sent by Clay T | 2:03 PM | 11-28-2007

Dear Alison,

You wrote "even if they aren't presented in the most gracious manner." I think this is one of our (Ron Paul supporters) biggest problems. Many, if not most, of the active online RP supporters cut their teeth flaming each other and the world in various chat rooms, blissfully ignorant of netiquitte, let alone actual etiquitte.
Thanks for giving us room to talk, and I hope that we can all be more gracious in our support for Rep. Paul.

Sent by G. M. Palmer | 2:06 PM | 11-28-2007

Ron Paul supporters are well aware that he wants to remove the government sponsored safety net. But Ron Paul fans also understand that this supposed 'safety net' doesn't really provide us much safety. With weakening dollars, our savings will mean nothing by the time we retire. With a broken social security system, there is little chance we will see any of that either. We want our income tax dollars back because the government has be irresponsible with them.

Sent by David H. | 2:13 PM | 11-28-2007

It is important to note that Ron Paul does not call for immediately getting rid of the FEDERAL "safety net". States will obviously also still be able to offer whatever "safety nets" they desire, but the federal government does not even have the constitutional authority to have any sort of "safety net". His supporters most certainly do know his positions and that is why we support him.

I finally found a politician I can trust.

Sent by Victor Zill | 2:20 PM | 11-28-2007

Tucker Carlson is a hitman. His mob boss is the CFR. His target is Ron Paul.

Here blogger Laura Conaway points out a splinter in Ron's eye but ignores the savages who cut down forests to make and jam plywood planks into the eyes of Americans daily.

Not to mention, she has Paul totally wrong about SS.

Sent by Eyes Wide Open | 2:23 PM | 11-28-2007

Paul thinks there should be no "government-sponsored safety net" -- a concept almost unimaginable to most voters. "I think if some of them thought that through, they would no longer be on Ron Paul's side," Carlson says.

If the conventional pundits had actually studied both history and economics (as opposed to perhaps merely sitting in the class rooms) they would understand that liberty and sound money are the best and most effective safety nets ever devised - as well as the most ethical system.

Sent by Caver | 2:28 PM | 11-28-2007

I love you people! It is glorious to see that so many people see government "safety nets" for the traps and disasters that they are.

Go Ron Paul.

Sent by Brian | 2:30 PM | 11-28-2007

I am fully aware of everything Ron Paul Stands for. The government produces absolutely nothing on its own. The only way government can supply a safety net to others, i.e.: welfare handouts, is to take what belongs to others by force, at the point of a gun. Personally, the ONLY thing that I want government to do for me is to protect my rights, liberty, and property. Period. Ron Paul has my undying loyalty and support.

Sent by Don L | 2:32 PM | 11-28-2007

a "strong defense" does not equal borrow on trillion $ from China, a 500 billion from Russia and another 500 billion from Saudi Arabia!

Ron Paul is the only one honest enough to speak this truth!

If the government would stop the regressive, oppresive SS tax that victimizes the lower class who has the lowest life expectancy while benefiting those in the upperclass who have the longest life expectancy then a lot fewer people would even need the social safety net....Ron Paul is the only person to speak this truth...He is in favor of attacking these problems before ever even getting to the point of debating weather or not we should cut back the social safety net....there are a lot of serious OBVIOUS problems that anyone with common sense can see are being ignored before we have to have the philosophical discussion about cutting back /or expanding social safety nets!

Please look into the issues before you fall for a bunch of big government propaganda that convinces you to keep borrowing on the future wages of our children.!

Sent by Gabe Harris | 2:34 PM | 11-28-2007

Why can't you interview Dr. Ron Paul yourself instead of providing Tucker Carlson's interpretation? Lame reporting from NPR from whom I've come to expect the highest quality.

Sent by R Griffith | 2:41 PM | 11-28-2007

Many of Ron Paul's supporters (myself included) are driven by economic philosophies of the Austrian school. This free market oriented school of thought leads us to believe socialistic programs (such as social security, medicare... safety nets) can not possibly succeed. Even given the most well-intentioned politicians (certainly not a given), they can not succeed because they lack the critical market function of entrepreneurial profits to inform the central planners how to allocate resources.

Here is not the place to go into a further discourse on Austrian economics. However, I would be thrilled to see you do some reporting on these philosophies that are behind Paul and his supporters. You can contact the people at these websites:


NPR has (I must admit I'm surprised) done some of the most fair reporting of Ron Paul among traditional media sources. I'm persuaded to think that misrepresentations are honest misunderstandings. If I am correct, I hope that you will continue to seek to understand the man, his philosophies and the movement being driven by those philsophies.

Thank you.

Joe Stoutenburg

Sent by Joe Stoutenburg | 2:44 PM | 11-28-2007

To me Ron Paul is about justice. I trust myself giving my money to social causes than government doing it on my behalf. And when they get the money, they spend it on unnecessary wars.

Sent by iih | 2:45 PM | 11-28-2007

i would like to hear Ron Paul on healthcare.
Everyone please make sure he is invited to health08.org's forum hosted by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Could really use a fresh voice on "the #1 issue"
It'll be nice to hear how Paul ties in his experience as a Physician as well as bringing to the forefront the economic conditions that we face 'as a nation' and how they are affecting our healthcare costs.

Sent by JLS | 2:59 PM | 11-28-2007

"I think if some of them thought that through, they would no longer be on Ron Paul's side," Carlson says.

Wrong. If people REALLY thought it through, they would support Ron Paul.

Sent by Len C | 3:10 PM | 11-28-2007

NPR, thank you for your coverage of Ron Paul!

Learn why Ron Paul is the most exciting candidate for 2008...




Sent by Joy | 3:10 PM | 11-28-2007

I am a life-long Republican with libertarian leanings. I refer to myself as a Reagan Republican and a Bush Democrat. Here's a shocker for you -- I DON'T AGREE WITH ALL OF RON PAUL'S POSITIONS. You know what though? He is the ONLY politician out running that has INTEGRITY & PRINCIPLES; Therefore, he will get my vote.

I am tired of the demopublicans and the republocrats (they really are all the same anymore...) who want to do nothing but take but take my liberty away to make me "safe" all while leaving ours the largest unprotected border in the world.

They want to take MY money and give it to those who do not refuse to work all while having their own hands full of corrupt money as they bow down to their corporate masters.

What a crock.

Ron Paul for President of MY United States!

Sent by Tim_Ohio | 3:20 PM | 11-28-2007

A safety net is a beautiful thing, but the cost is our liberty.

I choose liberty over safety.

Put democracy to the test and see if the majority prefer liberty over safety as I do.

Sent by Pete | 3:27 PM | 11-28-2007

Under a Ron Paul administration, the government safety net would not disappear but would return to the states, counties and cities. The Constitution makes no provisions for health care or poverty relief. You would have more say over how your community addresses these issues instead of Congressmen who pass 2000 page spending bills without reading them.

Sent by Joe Sheperd | 3:30 PM | 11-28-2007

One man with courage equals a majority.Finally, a man that knows what WE THE PEOPLE want from our elected officials. A protector of the constitution for which so many people over 250 years have fought so valiantly to protect. A man that isnt OIL connected. A man that knows we can abolish the ever fearful IRS and go to a consumption tax [Fair Tax Bill H.R. 25 from congressman John Linder of Georgia]. A man that wont let the pockets of the industrial military complex sway any decision making on whether we need another war. A man that will treat all lobbyist like Jesus did the money-exchangers in his day; run them out of the temple. As a 48 year old baby boomer, I never expect to have a safety net from the government. I know that Social Security and Medicaid will all be gone when its my turn. Tackle immigration like my great uncle tackled the indian problem;Either abide by the laws of the constitution or we will send you across the river[ie,Mississippi or Rio Grande] amnesty is there such a word? Get legal or get out! The people of New Orleans sure wish he would been here in 2005. I for one am on the Ron Paul bandwagon and will educate everyone I come in contact with about all the issues he is for.

Sent by Chris Small | 3:32 PM | 11-28-2007

A federal government safety net? Like FEMA? Or do you mean the federal government safety net for career federal government workers?

State and local governments, along with private charity, can provide safety nets. Local government know what is needed. Federal government such as FEMA can't provide what is needed when it is needed.

Sent by John bre | 3:41 PM | 11-28-2007

Hello Allison,
I have always counted on NPR to be the voice of reason and the voice of the people. I hope that you will consider doing an in-depth investigative piece on Tucker Carlson following the Ron Paul Campaign. :) Now that would be interesting, and it might make an interesting story, and it is obvious that the people are interested.

Sent by Oregonian | 3:50 PM | 11-28-2007

The point isn't that there will be NO "safety net" for people who genuinely need it, its that Ron Paul, along with most economists, understands that government is inefficient. Most people deeply misunderstand this point. He's not against helping people, he's against the forced monopoly of programs funded with stolen money taken at gunpoint and wasted on bureaucracy.

In our system, to feed the hungry, we need to first elect a man with a plan similar to ours, so we need a majority. Then the man needs to propose his plan to other politicians, get them to vote on it. If the plan gets past this point, they have to have meetings, and hire more officials to run it the programs and oversee it; remember that lobbyists, people working for large corporations and wealthy special interests, have more power in the voting process than you or I, so they usually end up with the contracts for whatever work needs to be done. Then the money needs to be divvyed up for the program, from the pool of money that has been taken forcibly, from people who never wanted it in the first place,. Then the hungry may get fed. But usually not.
Look up Kiva,org, and try to imagine if that were a centrally planned government organization.

On the other hand, in a true free market, if some people want to feed the hungry, even a small minority, a man could start a charity planning to make a living from it. He would collect money from people who support the program, and feed the hungry and support himself at the same time. If he shows any signs of corruption, people can voluntarily stop paying. If another charity comes along that does it better and more efficiently, getting more food to the hungry than the first man, then people will switch to him. Competition drives better service and programs and products.
Can you stop paying government when it gets corrupt? We have no competing government, they???ll arrested anyone who tries.
Decentralization is what Ron Paul supports, not some sort of abandonment of the poor.

Sent by Vito | 3:58 PM | 11-28-2007

I'm curious about this so called safety net that you refer too.....

Last I checked our goverment was so in debt they can't even afford to create a safety net....

Right now we are "using" the safety net of other nations loans!

Sent by Aeron Texas | 4:02 PM | 11-28-2007

Safety net? Haven't you realized what happened to Russia, China and Japanese safety nets? They're all gone. If u believe after all the above, US should have this system, wake up.

Sent by Immigrants4RP | 4:08 PM | 11-28-2007

"Government Safety Net"??? That must be a joke. That net was spun out of ponzy-scheme lies. The USA owes something like $40,000,000,000,000 in unfunded obligations. There is NO WAY someone entering the workforce today is going to get a dime back from the government and will probably be forced through the barrel of a gun to work till they're 90.

Sent by Wildboar | 4:14 PM | 11-28-2007

There are two candidates. Ron Paul and the Corporate Whore candidate.

Simple choice really

Sent by Bill | 4:17 PM | 11-28-2007

How can there not be a safety net?
Ever hear of local and state governments?

The government in DC needs to stick to the limited powers they were given and not social/criminal issues.

Sent by Robert | 4:26 PM | 11-28-2007

To say that there should be no government safety-net does not imply that we'll have poor and handicapped people dieing of starvation all over the streets. It simply means that this is not the proper role for the federal government because it resolves the need through taxation (i.e. forcefully take from people who have to give to those who haven't).

Rather than the federal government filling this role, the responsibility for caring for society's less-fortunate should rest with family, church, and volunteer organizations (such as Salvation Army), who have typically filled this role in the past. In this way government need not steel from the rich to give to the poor, rather a spirit of volunteer philanthropy benefits both the givers and the receivers.

As the situation now stands, I believe many people don't give more to society's needy because they know that government already taxes them in order to fund a welfare/entitlement system. This results in resentment on all sides. The well-to-do resent the government's legal robbery of their wealth, and the poor resent the apparent selfishness of the rich.

Sent by D. Barlow | 4:29 PM | 11-28-2007

"Nearly two-thirds of Americans do not trust press coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign, according to a new Harvard University survey," from http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003678478

The internet has given the electorate its own voice which will drown out the voices of the party machines and the corporate controlled, dissembling media.

The American People are saying in one voice to the mass media and dissembling candidates, "Gentlemen, your reality is based on lies and balderdash, and we are happy to say we grasp none of it."

If the internet crashes in the next twelve months, it will be proof of a conspiracy of the big media corporations to keep their garbage output from being outclassed by the writing of the public at large.

Sent by Kash | 4:31 PM | 11-28-2007

It is amazing how little we learned in civics class. As a Californian, I see far more income tax money leave the state bound for Washington that will never return. If Dr. Paul were to close the IRS and end federal handouts to industry and individuals, California would wind up with a windfall of its own money back. California would boom. California would be able to pay for universal health care and its own safety net if it wants it. Welcome to federalism people - shrinking washington means empowering the states. Moving Washington to the (old) right allows California to move to the left.

Sent by Dan | 4:34 PM | 11-28-2007

The problem with Uncle Sam's safety net is that all of its ropes have been untied, removed, and replaced with a great deal of pork-flavored yarn.

Sent by Jon | 4:41 PM | 11-28-2007

Thanks for your usual distortions, Tucker.

Ron is advocating REFILLING the existing government safety nets that people have come to depend on, and allowing young people to opt out.

Since he has a plan to actually PAY THOSE EXISTING FUNDS BACK, he is actually more FOR the existing government safety nets than any of the other candidates.

He also happens to be for freedom too, which is why he is against forcing people to participate in government safety nets, and do-gooder measures like nationwide smoking bans.

Thanks for playing, thuogh.

Sent by Ryan | 4:46 PM | 11-28-2007

Read why Ron Paul is the best choice for President, under a "Fourth Turning" framework -- very interesting!

Sent by BmW111 | 5:17 PM | 11-28-2007

Tucker made an assumption that Dr. Paul's supporters have not familiarized ourselves with ALL of his issues and this is NOT the case. I for one NEVER assume anything, I believe in getting the TRUTH instead, and also when you assume you make an "ass" out of "u" and "me".

Like many of Dr. Paul's supporters he has cured my apathy towards politics and has awakened me from a very, very long sleep. Until now I have NEVER even registered to vote let alone voted. I respected myself too much to just vote for the "Lessor of 2 Evils" or as a good friend of mine says the "Evil of 2 Lessors".

Not only am I voting for Dr. Paul in the primaries I have also WILLINGLY donated funds to his campaign. What MSM has FAILED to realize as Dr. Paul's supporters do NOT see it as just his campaign but more importantly ALL of OUR campaign.

Dr. Paul truly is The People's Candidate and the MSM is missing History being made by ignoring to treat him like the 1st Tier he really is.

I'm a Network Marketer and have been sending Dr. Paul's message out to my 40,000+ database on a DAILY basis since the day I decided to FORGET just being a bystander sitting on the sidelines of Life and become an activist in OUR Campaign to fix what the last almost 100 years of Government have destroyed.

I am NOT the ONLY person that Dr. Paul has AWAKENED. Many of my Networker friends and contacts have been AWAKENED as well. Between us we have the capability to get our messages out to MILLIONS of Americans plus to the World as well.

I do NOT even need the MSM not do any other Ron Paul supporter. We are our own MSM but actually are reporting the TRUTH unlike the MSM is doing. They have to do as they are told if they wish to keep their jobs.

I have been following Dr. Paul for 20 years now and so has many of my Networking contacts and friends. We have known about the Fed and the Income Tax being voluntary way before many of Dr. Paul's supporters were even born and definitely years before the Internet was born.

It is ONLY in the last few years that many of the "Real World" people, as I call Non-Networkers, have AWAKENED to the fact that our Government has NOT been HONEST with ALL of us.

I have no way to know if my emailing had anything to do with the results of November 5th but my guess is that it sure did NOT hinder the results of that day.

So to reiterate what I said earlier most ALL, if not ALL, of Dr. Paul's supporters have a very good conception of what his policies are and I am the minority because I actually believe 100% with ALL of them.

As Tucker has said in this article, Dr. Paul's supporters are more versed on their candidate than any other supporters are of their candidates.

ONLY A Doctor WILL HEAL Our Country,

Sent by Freedom4America | 5:39 PM | 11-28-2007

I based my former contents on your written abstract. After listening to the entire interview I found it fair, balanced and entertaining, although I don't agree with everthing Mr. Carlson said. Thank you and I look forward to more coverage of Dr. Paul

Sent by R Griffith | 6:16 PM | 11-28-2007

Tucker is I think mistaken. I think most people on the Ron Paul bandwagon are very well aware of it and support this position.

The fact of the matter is this "safety net" is contrary to basic American ideals. By that I mean the old American ideals of freedom and independence dating back to the revolution.

Charity should be volintary, not tax supported. Giving someone something for "free" in most people creates a sense of obligation. Many people do not want to feel obligated to politicians for such charity.

We should be free, that includes free to fail.

Many people would rather die free than live as comfortable slaves to the all powerful state.

Sent by Alfred N. Montestruc | 6:35 PM | 11-28-2007

What about disabled people? Government hand outs aren't just for retirees and the terminally lazy...

No "safety net" means no SSRI.

Are any of you who are going to vote for Paul willing to donate your own money to making sure people who can't take of themselves are taken care of?

Or should the disabled rot in the streets like subhuman cur?

Libertarians are wolves in sheeps' clothing. Libertarians are social Darwinists.

Sent by Brian | 7:07 PM | 11-28-2007

If you want freedom, if you want REAL liberty, if you want your country back, vote Ron Paul.

If you want to get rid of the Patriot Act, vote Ron Paul.

If you want intrusive government out of your lives, vote Ron Paul.

If you want to escape the crushing burden of imperialism, and paying interest to the privately-owned Federal Reserve Bank, vote Ron Paul.

If you want honesty in government, vote Ron Paul.

If you DON'T want these things, vote for the other guy, or Hillary.

Sent by Charles Davenport | 7:09 PM | 11-28-2007

Ron Paul is capitalist, don't vote for him, we need socialism, not capitalism

Sent by Hugo Chavez | 7:44 PM | 11-28-2007

Because I want the old and infirm to windup homeless on the streets, I support Ron Paul.

Because I believe that women in Mississippi who want an abortion should have no rights over her body, while women in New York should, I support Ron Paul.

Because I believe in no government oversight, and that Enron's complete bankruptcy of California to have been a fluke; because I believe the ruling class has everybody's best interests at heart (except for a few bad apples) and they neither need nor deserve regulation in order to force them to do the right thing (fair pay, keeping the environment clean, etc); because I believe that the "Haves" are (obviously!) rewarded by God and the "Have Nots" somehow brought it upon themselves IN EVERY CASE, I support Ron Paul.

Because my brains have dribbled out of my ears, I support Ron Paul.

Sent by elissaF | 8:11 PM | 11-28-2007

Ron Paul is just a third-tier Republican presidential candidate, people. He is not some supernatural deity who has been cast down from heaven to purge the earth of sin.

You are making Battlestar Galactica fanboys look like calm, rational people. Ease off a little.

Sent by Will G | 8:25 PM | 11-28-2007

Unbelievable: ""Ron Paul really doesn't think the government should be in charge of your life in any way," he says. "He thinks every person ought to be free from government surveillance."" Stated like it's a bad thing!?! Of course every person should be free from government surveillance...tell me the Patriot Act hasn't brainwashed this nation to the point where we don't even question it anymore.

Sent by Crystal | 8:30 PM | 11-28-2007

Beause the median cost of a house in Mongomery County,Md. (one of the many wealthy counties in the Wash DC) is >than 1 million dollars, (and that's the kind of safty net I'm talking about) I won't be voting for Ron Paul.

Sent by R Griffith | 8:37 PM | 11-28-2007

@ elissa,

Please try to be more openminded. Congressman Paul has said time and again exactly what he plans to do to take care of the old, infirm, and particularly injured veterans - end our ruinously expensive wars and empire abroad, stop depreciating the value of our money, and stop spending money on expensive and wasteful government programs that have failed to solve, in 70+ years, even one social problem. Ron Paul has said quite plainly that he would put some of the billions saved into taking care of those who are dependent on these failed programs, but that he would also allow young people to opt to take care of their own retirement. States, charitable organizations and private individuals would begin to pick up the slack, while an economy unburdened of empire and wasteful entitlements, and with workers allowed to keep all the money they make, and not have it taxed or inflated away will reach out to help.

Sent by Vince Daliessio | 10:01 PM | 11-28-2007

I tell you what.. Ron Paul supporters are big fans of the Constitution. Once you realize our rights have been taken away.. coupled with a war costing 2.4T and owe money in S. Security too.

We are screwed financially.

I think RP supporters understand the issues better. I know Ive done my research.

Sent by Parke | 10:11 PM | 11-28-2007

I think Ron Paul is the "genuine" article. Whether you believe that the government should be the safety net or not, it won't be able to do anything once it is bankrupt. If not for the fact that other super-powers a.k.a China exist,I would almost say that may provide a positive outcome for Americans.We may have no choice but to live within our means very soon.

Sent by mnjrupp | 10:13 PM | 11-28-2007

Apologies for beating a dead horse, but ... I'm a Ron Paul supporter and his stand on the "safety nets" is the reason I support him. The safety nets are unsustainable, as Ron's colleagues in Congress are well aware but unwilling to discuss publicly.

If you've any doubt about the insolvency of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, et. al., please check out the paper "Is the US Bankrupt?", published by no less an authority than the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Link here: http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/07/Kotlikoff.pdf").
The author, Laurence J. Kotlikoff, points to research that concludes "our fiscal gap is a stunning $65.9 trillion! This figure is more than five times U.S. GDP and almost twice the size of national wealth." The fiscal gap is the difference between our nation's future government expenditures, including the entitlement programs and debt service, and all future receipts. Kotlikoff suggests that the solutions to this gap "are terrifying. One solution is an immediate and permanent doubling of personal and corporate income taxes. Another is an immediate and permanent two-thirds cut in Social Security and Medicare benefits. A third alternative, were it feasible, would be to immediately and permanently cut all federal discretionary spending by 143% percent." Kotlikoff concludes "that the US is going broke, that remaining open to foreign investment can help stave off bankruptcy, but that radical reform of U.S. fiscal institutions is essential to secure the nation's economic future."

Whether you agree or disagree with Ron Paul, you must admit that he is the only candidate willing to confront the enormity of the problem head on. I suppose you could argue that Obama and Thompson are addressing Social Security, but they offer band aids and not a solution to the root causes.

My primary reservation about Ron Paul is his commitment to dealing with Climate Change. I'm not convinced he sees it as a serious problem. Of course, eliminating the oil company subsidies (one of his policies) would go a long way towards solving the problem.

Sent by Kevin | 10:24 PM | 11-28-2007

Beating a dead horse, but ... I'm a Ron Paul supporter and his stand on the "safety nets" is among the reasons I support him. The safety nets are unsustainable, as Ron's colleagues in Congress are well aware but unwilling to discuss publicly.

If you've any doubt about the insolvency of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, et. al., please check out the paper "Is the US Bankrupt?", published by no less an authority than the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Link here: http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/07/Kotlikoff.pdf").
The author, Laurence J. Kotlikoff, points to research that concludes "our fiscal gap is a stunning $65.9 trillion! This figure is more than five times U.S. GDP and almost twice the size of national wealth." The fiscal gap is the difference between our nation's future government expenditures, including the entitlement programs and debt service, and all future receipts. Kotlikoff goes on to say that the solutions to this gap "are terrifying. One solution is an immediate and permanent doubling of personal and corporate income taxes. Another is an immediate and permanent two-thirds cut in Social Security and Medicare benefits. A third alternative, were it feasible, would be to immediately and permanently cut all federal discretionary spending by 143% percent." Kotlikoff concludes "that the US is going broke, that remaining open to foreign investment can help stave off bankruptcy, but that radical reform of U.S. fiscal institutions is essential to secure the nation's economic future."

Whether you agree or disagree with Ron Paul, he is the only candidate confronting the enormity of the problem head on. I suppose you could argue that Obama and Thompson have talked about Social Security, but their band aids won't fix a $69 trillion problem. Ron seems to be the only candidate calling for serious structural changes, including getting a handle on our out-of-control monetary system.

My primary reservation about Ron Paul is his commitment to dealing with climate change. I'm not convinced he sees it as a serious problem. Of course, eliminating the oil company subsidies (one of his policies) would go a long way towards solving the problem.

Sent by Kevin | 10:44 PM | 11-28-2007

"Because the median cost of a house in Montgomery County,Md. (one of the many wealthy counties in the Wash DC) is >than 1 million dollars, (and that's the kind of safety net I'm talking about) I won't be voting for Ron Paul."

Despite proving that you likely don't have what it takes to own a home like that, Ron Paul wouldn't resent you for your financial well being. The market is not a zero sum game. Wealth is for everyone to have. Ron Paul believes the more the merrier. You ought to be falling all over yourself to support someone who believes so much in the forces of the market righting all wrongs.

Sent by Skip | 10:54 PM | 11-28-2007

OK, I have another deliberately provocative zinger for the Ron Paul fangirls and boys . . . How about the idea that "Dr. Paul" only wants to abolish the education department because he wants the country to sink into a morass of ignorance and misinformation?

Think about it . . . If that were to happen, then the general population might be easily swayed by the argument that our fiduciary monetary system is the work of evil, that the wealthiest country on the planet does not have the moral obligation to provide a safety net for its citizens, and that a society can outlaw abortion while simultaneously being free from government tyranny. Then, assuming a majority of the population believed all of this, Mr. Paul might then have a very slim chance of actually being elected president; compared to reality, where he has no chance.

Even then though, I still think that Mitt Romney would win the popular vote . . .

Sent by Will G | 11:09 PM | 11-28-2007

I thought all bias reporters worked for ABC, MSN, NBC, CBS, FOX and ...
This is poor reporting NPR, what a shame.
I am going to get MY COUNTRY BACK. Watch Ron Paul here for yourself on HBO's BILL MAHER show.
He is a Hero.

Sent by G Harmer | 11:22 PM | 11-28-2007

Bill Maher says Ron Paul is his hero.
Google "Ron Paul is Bill Maher's New Hero"

Sent by George H | 12:08 AM | 11-29-2007

Paul thinks there should be no "government-sponsored safety net" -- a concept almost unimaginable to most voters. "I think if some of them thought that through, they would no longer be on Ron Paul's side," Carlson says.

Makes sense. Most voters accept government programs as a fact of life. Some voters are direct beneficiaries. After thinking it through, why would a beneficiary want to abolish programs?

How many voters are beneficiaries? More than half?

To elect Dr. Paul, beneficiaries need a shift in perspective. A good financial argument would pave the way for the ethical argument. Why should a voter abolish his/her direct benefits?

Sent by Redbud | 1:08 AM | 11-29-2007

"I think if some of them thought that through, they would no longer be on Ron Paul's side," Carlson says.
Well, I have thought it through, and it sounds like FREEDOM and I like it a lot!

Sent by Jim | 1:39 AM | 11-29-2007

I know exactly what Dr. Paul stands for. From what I can tell, Paul's supporters, myself included, are likely the most educated voters around because we don't rely solely on the MSM for our political info. Ron Paul has been very clear time and time again regarding his stance on the issues, both on his website and in his speeches/debates. First we supporters were labeled as kooks and neo-Nazis, now we're being told we are stupid. Please stop insulting our intelligence and do some real reporting.

Sent by Branden | 2:12 AM | 11-29-2007

The Federal Reserve just announced that they will go ahead with bringing down interest rates, that seems like good thing to most people, but, if they would really do some research they would see that "it only hurts, it never helps."

As far as the article above, it seems like there was some quotes taken out of context, I've heard Carlson praise Ron Paul before.... has he changed his mind?


Sent by JT | 2:39 AM | 11-29-2007

Ron Paul can win!

70% of American citizens want us out of Iraq.

Dr. Paul was one of the very few in Washington to realized the folly of invading Iraq and had the courage to speak out. So maybe we should be listening to him now.

Video a Liberal Re-Thinks Ron Paul:

Sent by Joy | 3:56 AM | 11-29-2007

re: 'The Constitution does not provide for a central bank,' " Carlson reports. "It sounds like a parody."

It's not a parody.

Read the US Constitution for yourself. Read what Jefferson, Franklin and Washington each said about the central banking system.

The 'Federal Reserve' is a private company that turns a profit. They weaseled a currency monopoly in exchange for granting loans to help pay for WWI. We haven't been able to get rid of them since.

Sent by VM Vegas | 4:04 AM | 11-29-2007

Looks like the naysayers are popping in. Must be they are getting nervous since Dr. Paul's supporters are raising him Millions of dollars still while the others are struggling.

Yep, that farce of a CNN Debate actually worked out GREAT for Dr. Paul. Since that farce of a debate he raised over $200,000!! That is ONLY in 6 hours!!

As for leaving anybody in the streets I swear you naysayers must be blind and deaf. I have seen many videos on Dr. Paul where he said he would have Billions of dollars to cover the people that are DEPENDENT on the government once you brings ALL the troops home and shrinks government down to a manageable size.

You can attack Dr. Paul until you have carpal tunnel from typing and you will NOT get any Dr. Paul supporter to jump ship and go to any of those POLITICIANS. We have found a STATESMAN and we will fight until we can no longer do so until we put this Great Man into the White House.

Now go back to playing with your marbles and let the Grownups SAVE this country of ours. We promise, that once DR. Paul HEALS our country, that we will allow you to play in it as well.

ONLY A Doctor WILL HEAL Our Country,

Sent by Freedom4America | 4:07 AM | 11-29-2007

THE BOTTOM LINE is that he votes and makes his decisions based on the United States Constitution, NOT his personal beliefs. Get it? That is why this good man's message resonates across the political spectrum. RP is not influenced by any corporate lobbys, PAC's, etc. He sees the country as a land of individuals that should decide, NOT self-serving politicians that are beholding to special interests. Run this country by the US Constitution and the rest will delightfully fall into place.

Sent by Michael St. John | 5:00 AM | 11-29-2007

It's easy really to get people on board for Dr. Paul. Think of it this way if you will? Next time you get a pay check look at all the taxes you pay,including medicare and SS, then ask yourself this. If I had that money could I afford Healthcare and retirement? Then ask yourself if you think the government can better handle that money for you towards thoses interests? Which sounds crazier to you? I think I can do better for myself than the government can for me, I am sure of it. How about you? Thanks for your time

Sent by David Monk | 7:05 AM | 11-29-2007

What Tucker and other reporters fail to realize is Ron Paul supporters are intelligent voters who thoroughly review their candidate choices before deciding who to support. We know exactly what Ron Paul supports as he makes it clear to anyone who cares to ask or investigate. With supporters of other candidates you may find people who aren't clear on why they support their candidate as many of the "popular" candidates change their viewpoints and hide their intentions based on the latest polls. The great thing is, any issues reporters like yourself try and attack Ron Paul about, we are aware of and support Dr. Paul's stance on.

Sent by T.J. Hontz | 8:15 AM | 11-29-2007

The choice is Ron Paul or the status quo of an increasingly out of control federal government and the corrupt two party establishment's annointed "front runners" who will do NOTHING about it.
Ron Paul is a good man and perhaps the only representative in congress who truly honors his oath of office. Ron Paul has my loyalty, my respect and my vote. For the first time in my life, I am donating cash to a political candidate, which I will be doing on December 16th, for Tea Party 2007, in support of Ron Paul and in commemoration of the Boston Tea Party.
Join the revolution.

Sent by Rob Tremewan | 8:33 AM | 11-29-2007

Dear Mr. Will G,

You posted:

..........."OK, I have another deliberately provocative zinger for the Ron Paul fangirls and boys . . . How about the idea that "Dr. Paul" only wants to abolish the education department because he wants the country to sink into a morass of ignorance and misinformation? "................

I'd be happy to share my views with you. I hope NPR is willing to approve my answers to your concerns and post them.

On the Department of Education: Local taxes pay for schools and teachers. The Department of Education doesn't fund them, it's purpose is to dictate policy, which right now is "No Child Left Behind". You can check it out at: www.ed.gov ........ Be aware, when you see funding for "Local Educational Agencies" it might sound like money for schools, but these are actually adminstrative organizations for carrying out policies. Schools don't qualify as "Local Educational Agencies".

So while many schools and teachers funded by local taxes struggle, billions of tax dollars go to the Department of Education to tell those schools what to do.

You also posted:

................"Think about it . . . If that were to happen, then the general population might be easily swayed by the argument that our fiduciary monetary system is the work of evil,"..............

I don't if he's called it a "work of evil". But I don't believe a system is good that creates a situation where workers trying hard to put something aside for the future face a choice between being robbed by inflation and taxes that outpace the interest rate on thier bank account, or risking thier hard earned savings in the stock market.

Not suprising our nation is developing a culture of spending and debt when average hard working people live in an economic system that destroys thier savings.


............"that the wealthiest country on the planet does not have the moral obligation to provide a safety net for its citizens,"...................

As for a safety net: Ron Paul has stated his plan to continue services for those who are dependent, while allowing a choice to opt out of the programs for those who wish to. You can call me pro-choice when it comes to having the SS system forced on people. I welcome the day my child can chose whether or not to participate in a system which will likely be bankrupt before it's time to collect.

Any undistributed funds held by the SSA are "invested in Treasury Bonds". Which is just another way of saying they're loaned to the Federal Government to spend how it wants. Then the people, who already paid the Social Security tax once, are taxed a second time to replace those funds spent on other things by the politicians.

The Social Security program seems a great way to tax people in the name of a great ideal, and then use the funds for totally unrelated projects.

You also posted:

.............."and that a society can outlaw abortion while simultaneously being free from government tyranny." ................

On abortion Paul's political position seems pretty much like his position on drugs...... the Federal Government has no authority on the subjects unless granted in the US Constitution. Which usually means as long as you're not selling it across State lines, the Federal Government should leave you alone. Funny that many advocates of drug decriminalization see him in an opposite light as many pro-choice advocates.

Once it's decided the Federal Government has no authority, then it's up to the People of each State to figure out where the rights of one person end and another begin. While many pro-choice advocates may disagree with Paul's personal pro-life viewpoint, it seems very similar to that of the court that delivered the decision in Roe v. Wade they want to defend: A person's right to privacy (abortion) ends when another person's right to life begins. The matter in dispute is not that people should have rights, but at what point someone changes from a thing with no right to a person with the right to life.

While there's plenty of room to disagree with Paul's view, I would in no way characterize it as tyranical.

And your final point:

........."Then, assuming a majority of the population believed all of this, Mr. Paul might then have a very slim chance of actually being elected president; compared to reality, where he has no chance.
Even then though, I still think that Mitt Romney would win the popular vote . . ." ........

That remains to be seen. In any event, I don't believe what's begun will be killed with the loss of a party nomination. It's not all about Ron Paul. Win or lose, he's been a modern Paul Revere for the cause of Liberty and Natural Rights, awakening people to the danger our great country faces.

Thank you for taking the time to read and consider this.

Sent by DC7 | 8:35 AM | 11-29-2007

Well, the left had deal with Nader as spoiler. Now the right has Paul to deal with.

Amazing development here in VA. The GOP got the election commission to agree to their making primary voters sign a loyalty oath and promise to vote republican in the general election, regardless of any future and unforeseen events.

They're scared Ron Paul will split the primary vote and then his supporters going for the democratic candidate in the general election when Paul isn't on the ballot.


Sent by rick kennerly | 9:32 AM | 11-29-2007

Ron Paul all the way, the modern day Cincinatus. I am actually voting this time as well because there is finally someone I can believe in and trust. Coming from me, that is saying alot.

Sent by ThomasDaniels | 9:47 AM | 11-29-2007

Ron Paul seems extreme because he wants to establish the rule of law. We've become so accustomed to tyranny, despotism and corruption that decency seems like extremism -- at least to the jaded gatekeepers who control the mass media.

Sent by Ally Kendall | 11:12 AM | 11-29-2007

I'm a recent convert to the Ron Paul Revolution. Funny, it's really not a revolution-- it is a fundamental return to our basis for being a country.
As for the "government safety net", well, start with a little thing called "personal responsibility". The so-called "safety net" is filled with people who shirk responsibility for their lives, their children, their education, and their responsibility to take care of themselves. It is the abuse of the "safety net" that has made it something that American Taxpayers simply cannot afford to supply anymore.
Spread the word--- Ron Paul is exactly what America needs right now.

Sent by Jean | 11:25 AM | 11-29-2007

I believe that Ron Paul may have found the core constituency of the 2008 Presidential campaign: the NASCAR dad or soccer mom of the cycle.

I call it --wait for it-- the Catholic stoner, the voter who wants an end to Roe v. Wade as well as legalized hippie lettuce. It should make for interesting campaign stops.

And, BTW, a lesson for the Muslim "comics:" that's how make fun of the people of your religion without denegrating your own religion. Making other people making fun of your religion is NOT the same thing.

Sent by Matthew Scallon | 12:51 PM | 11-29-2007

Examples of the Federal Government's Safety Net:
FEMA - Failed in New Orleans
FDA - Failed to protect consumers from toxic imports.
Social Security - Will likely fail my generation

Remove the false assumption that the federal government's safety net is effective and you have little resistance in banning it.

Sent by Chris | 12:53 PM | 11-29-2007

Mr. Paul is one of the few candidates who respects the constituition for it's true meaning and purpose. America has been derailed by subversive financial interests which the founding fathers and many others along the way warned us about repeatedly. We ignore these warnings at our peril and the risk of loosing our rights as a free society. One only has to look into the level of subversion of our rights to understand why Mr. Paul's message is so potent.
The claims of WMD in Iraq, so-called investigations into 9-11, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and others are neon beacons that we are in big trouble. Mr. Paul is the only one talking about the Federal Reserve and dollar issues. These are well suppressed in the media, and for good reason. We have given control of our currency to a foreign corporation in violation of our own constituition. These are more than simply debate points, these are fundamental to how we either keep or loose our freedoms. Why do other candidates omit this issue?
I simple recipe founded the country, we will need to follow the same recipe to keep it.

Go Ron Go!

Sent by Guesswhotoo6 | 1:39 PM | 11-29-2007

Anyone who is paying attention knows Ron paul is the only answer to the problems we are facing. Stop being a lame israel-firster with the name calling and blatant lies. Americans can see through this BS thats going on with the media.

Sent by Mike | 1:51 PM | 11-29-2007

There was a safety net well before the government took it over. People used to donate freely to good causes like the Salvation Army and what not for helping the poor or victims of some disaster. Taxes have become so excessive that I can't afford to donate anymore, so in fact ... not only has the government done a worse job of managing the causes we donate to ... but made sure theirs is the only one in town.

Sent by JamesM76 | 1:53 PM | 11-29-2007

I am a bit surprised that Ron Paul is not getting more attention on NPR. He is fighting to get out of Iraq, restore Habeas Corpus, repeal government spying, and is a real different voice.

Why are you shutting him out?

Sent by Paul Valentine | 2:13 PM | 11-29-2007

While Tucker may yearn for a so-called "goverment safety-net" (I know employment as a second-rate journalist can be unstable, after all), there are plenty of us out here who have enough of a sense of personal responsibility to understand that we need to have our own "personal safety-net" and not be reliant on the government to be our caretakers. I think the vast majority of Paul supporters I've met are fully capable of critical thought, despite Tucker's assertion that they haven't thought their position through. This country was founded by self-reliant people who were glad to trade a little bit of perceived security for more freedom, and I think that spirit still resides in the hearts of many Americans - I know it does in mine.

Sent by Rob Tyree | 4:43 PM | 11-29-2007

Ron Paul would return the decision on abortion to the 50 states. He would allow New York and Utah to enforce divergent laws on this issue.

Sent by Bodhi Densmore | 9:38 PM | 11-29-2007

If Americans today care more about safety than freedom, perhaps we should change the words to the national anthem, so that instead of closing with "the land of the free, and the home of the brave," it refers more accurately to "the land of the fee, and the home of the safe." Of course as Benjamin Franklin pointed out, purchasing safety at the price of liberty will in the end make you neither safe nor free.

Sent by starchild | 11:25 PM | 11-29-2007

Government Safety Net is not effective, not equitable and not efficient. For example, my sister has medical problems and is on social security insurance income. It is minuscule amount. I contribute three times as much to SS from my paycheck each month. If I didn't, I could take care of my system better than the government can.

In addition, if the taxes were eliminated too, I could take better care of my aging parents too, and contribute more to my church, which in turn could have more generous/stable charity programs.

All of this costs much less to manage than the government Juggernaut called Social Security Administration.

So when you think about it, Ron Paul does make sense.

Let's not forget that nothing is free. The safety net costs money. The key is to find a mechanism that is the most efficient to provide that safety net. The government has proven time and again that it is not efficient in anything other than "stealing" money from people for the special interest.

So stop insulting people by telling them that they cannot take care of themselves. A friend of mine has a 8-year old daughter born with spina-bifida who has been on permanent ventilator since her birth. For the last 8 years all the medical bills have been paid by private charitable contributions (including coin jars in local grocery stores). Social security or an insurance (government or private) does not want to touch any of this. So stop taking from us and let us take care of ourselves. You are killing us.

Sent by Val Bryson | 12:21 AM | 11-30-2007

Wow, this article certainly shows NPR's true colors. The whole pimp endorsement thing was a set-up by Carlson and his bosses. It was a media stunt, trying to distract from real issues and discredit Ron Paul. For NPR's article to focus on this shows how thin the veil over the illusion of our two party system has become. NPR dishes out corporate propaganda geared towards people who consider themselves "liberal". National Propanganda Radio.

Sent by iswuzwilby | 2:13 AM | 11-30-2007

I absolutely do not want a government saftey net and I don't want to pay for anyone elses. I work too hard to watch my wealth or lack thereof redistributed, and poorly done at that. I hate Communism and love freedom. That's easy enough to comprehend.

Sent by SOB.USAF | 2:23 AM | 11-30-2007

'Allo BPPers,

I was very skeptical when I heard that Tucker was going to be on, but I enjoyed his comments. He was very respectful of Paul, more than I had expected him to be. I respect Ron Paul a lot, but I'm not a supporter because I'm afraid he's a little too, well, radical. I happen to agree with Tucker, both in that Paul's supporter's are some of the smartest out there, but also that *some* may not realize *all* the potential implications of his policies.

The same could be said of any or indeed all of the candidates out there, no doubt. I don't know who I'll support yet, I like Paul about as much as Obama or Clinton. It's tough to fully support a candidate (like Kucinich) when it already appears that the (at least Democratic) nominee is already chosen.

Sent by David Newberry | 3:29 AM | 11-30-2007

Tucker thinks we don't understand the difference between theory and practice. He thinks we're not as smart as he and his friends. He thinks we're like the old Reagan quote about communists being people who read marx and anti-communists being the people who understand marx.

Tucker thinks we read paul and yet HE understands paul. This is rather pretentious on his part.

Sent by Rhys | 4:34 AM | 11-30-2007

David Lienemann & Laura Conaway might want to put on their dunce caps for failure to research a simple subject on what dr. paul believes versus what he advocates the federal government have power over.

"...platform includes...opposing both abortion and..."

if you haven't heard that doc opposes federal authority over the abortion issue, then you are reprimanded to the corner. you'll find a lot of company there....

Sent by number9 | 11:54 AM | 11-30-2007

I'd have to be responsible for myself and not rely on the government!!! oh wait..that's exactly what I want. Thanks Tucker.

Sent by Aaron | 2:06 PM | 11-30-2007

Wow. It appears no matter how hard one tries, they never do us RP supporters enough justice.

We need to maybe calm down a little here. This piece was not even close to being a hit peice on Ron Paul, sure most of us are agitated by the use of Tucker Carlson's boneheaded thoughts...but all in all I have seen far worse articles written about Ron Paul.

NPR, thank you and keep an eye on Ron Paul. The movement is growing and most of us supporters know this is likely our last chance at restoring our Constitutional Republic which is absolutely the only reason the support is so rabid. Time is running out and we all know it.

Give me liberty or Give me death!

Sent by TL | 2:33 PM | 11-30-2007

Great posts, everyone! Thanks NPR for covering Dr. Paul (finally). This is so exciting! I even registered as a Republican (yuck!) so I can vote for Paul in the primaries. It didn't hurt that bad.

Sent by Kyle in San Francisco | 4:36 PM | 11-30-2007

Hey Tucker, the government cannot provide citizens anything without first taking it away from them. I have thought that through completely and it is EXACTLY WHY I am for Ron Paul. Our society suffers from a severe bout of monetary ignorance, which wasn't exactly alleviated in this program. 5 more megabytes of watered-down, dumbed down media wafting through the unprovoked minds of America.

"lower taxes" = super conservative
"overturn patriot act, no war" = liberal
"you would guess he is polling zero percent"
"not up there with rudy and mitt"
"gold standard??? really??" hahaha!
"are they onboard with his EXTREME positions"?
"You may find his beliefs repugnant"
"Where is the leftover campaign cash going to go?"
"That's the big question to me. They are raising all this money. FOR WHAT?"

You're a pal!

Sent by Matt | 5:06 PM | 11-30-2007

A govenment safety net is only appropriate at the state or local level. One size fits all fits nobody. States can still be free to have programs that work cooperatively with other states. For me, this is not about being against government and social programs, but about where the power resides.

Sent by Glen in Petaluma | 5:17 PM | 11-30-2007

Tucker get with it we know what that means and Ron Paul is the best!

Sent by Danielle | 5:27 PM | 11-30-2007

re: "...never...enough justice..."

a beating with a wet noodle is torture now?

why settle for the few crumbs from the table that the king offers when you have your sights on the king himself! there's a lot of seeds of misinformation spread so as to give the msm uninitiated a reason to maintain the status quo.

here are just a few gleaned from a recent state of the union: "wow, he wants to give everyone the right to carry a gun on a plane?" or, "[waving the index finger] hear me, and hear me well; paul, that man, i heard tucker say he is gonna take my social security away" then the ever squemish, but always effective: "paul wants wimen to go back to back-alley, coat-hanger abortions."

so, why scwabble over a few untruths...

spreading a few truths while distorting the big picture is a great scheme that the devil is well-acquainted with. of course, the msm requires me to include the following disclaimer: "no one is being accused of working for, or with, the powers of the underworld, things that go bump, or bill o'reilly. the power to corrupt is not solely the domain of liberals, neo-cons, loofah fetishists, anarchists, members of peace and freedom, the greens, nadar's raiders, nazis, commies, rainbow coalition, open borders crowd, aipac lobbyists, or whore-mongering evangelicals called home during a fund raiser."

when business is business, it's always good to be appreciative, but not pandering, when the very least is being done. a sincere thank you to npr!! ok, you can pander a little...

Sent by number9 | 5:36 PM | 11-30-2007

"even if they aren't presented in the most gracious manner"???

Sorry if some seem blunt but when you see the bias and propaganda spread about a good man you most people will not take it anymore. You and the ones who continually spread information that is half truths and hearsay still don???t understand. There is a passion out there for honesty and straight talk. Dr Paul could give a fire side chat that would put FDR to shame. I am 52, live in western Kansas, and was raised in a Republican household. I have been involved with politics since my Daddy told me to support Goldwater in my third grade class.

I have been a Ron Paul supporter since I first heard him back in April. Since then I have devoured everything I could about this man because I don???t trust politicians as they are just an evolutionary step above detritus. So understand my feelings when I read his books. I feel a real kindred spirit to those people who understand Ron Paul. Reading how he affects them bring real tears to my eyes. He is the flame freedom and the constitution that our founding fathers sacrificed so much for 200+ years ago.

People say he is against this or against that but they never bother to read anything for themselves anymore. All information is all spoon feed to them by network propaganda. I think it is time people begin to read if they can and understand what he says. I think it is time NPR returned to it roots of good un-biased journalism and stop feeding the propaganda machine by spreading half truths to the un-informed that count upon you for information.

Oh and you might mention that there is legislation out there to impeach Cheney for treason.

Sent by David Earl | 6:02 PM | 11-30-2007

Ron did not "hold" the Nov 5 fund raising event. We held the event for Ron. This is a true grass roots movement.

Sent by Matt | 6:34 PM | 11-30-2007

First and foremost, Tucker Carlson needs to remember his roots. Do you remember sir that you voted for Ron Paul back in 1988. That's right folks, before Carlson became jaded by politics and indoctrinated into the MSM, he was and individual with ideals about liberty. Secondly, no Mr. Carlson, I don't want a safety net, and yes I understand fully that Ron Paul wants to do away with this communist idea. I would rather keep all the money I work hard for. The government provides no real "safety net" anyway. Ask yourself, when was the last time you or I ever got $1,000 from the FED... Never! Our money is a "safety net" to special interests and to bureaucrats, not real people. So this is just communism and it needs to end. Freedom means keeping the fruits of your labor, not some freak with an agenda stealing your money right out of your check.

Sent by . | 6:45 PM | 11-30-2007

I'm curious: why is it preferable to some for power to reside with the state gov't rahter than federal? Is there an assumption that state gov't is somehow more responsive or more accountable?

Sent by Maura | 6:49 PM | 11-30-2007

safety net ask those who died in Katrina about a government safety net.He doesn't seek to limit government so much as to limit FEDERAL government.

Sent by demus | 7:00 PM | 11-30-2007

Its not that you have to agree with everything implied in a Ron Paul Presidency. What we are witnessing is a voter disgust with the lack of integrity, bland platitudes, and ego before country attitudes of the other candidates on both sides that is driving The Ron Paul Revolution. The young have the most to gain from Ron Paul.. You NPR folks should get on board.

Sent by Yeah Sure you betcha | 9:31 PM | 11-30-2007

Don't forget that a Supreme Court that votes to Federally legalize abortion can just as easily vote to ban it. They can overturn any ruling and make any ruling they want -- if they are given that power. Dr. Paul wants to remove the Federal government from those decisions best left up to the States to decide. We The People, remember? Maybe we don't want abortions legal. Maybe we do. The Constitution can be amended if we're so worried about it. Otherwise, Dr. Paul is wise to let the States make up their own minds. Not all of them will agree, either way. That's the beauty of the Constitution. It allows for protection of the rights of each individual, and of the rights of the States. Big Federal Government doesn't know best.

Sent by Julie | 10:33 PM | 11-30-2007

I don't want a safety net. Ron Paul's followers know that there would be no safety net. Well, actually, the safety net is that we get to be free from government and corporate oppression. Free from corporations manipulating our lives so that they can increase their bottom line. Free from government tyranny so that it can get a bigger cut of the world pie. Free to succeed, fail, or do nothing as we see fit. That IS the safety net.

Sent by Ben | 10:52 PM | 11-30-2007

re: "why is it preferable to some for power to reside with the state gov't rahter than federal?"

glad you asked. local control of matters not delegated to the feds by the constitution will always be more responsive to local needs. the more local (state, county, city, king of the castle), the better the response - assuming, of course, people give thought to those they put into authority.

after all ms. maura, when you've put in a hard day of cleaning, cooking, and industrious homemaking, isn't it more satisfying to know that the ultimate human authority over your well-being is just an arm's length away?

so, whadaya say? can we all join the r3VOLution? you can even vote on it - for now...

Sent by number9 | 12:11 AM | 12-1-2007

America can't afford any more designer presidents. I learned of Ron Paul while doing research for our retirement and long-term health care. Maybe that's why so many boomers and their kids are finding Ron and joining The Revolution!

Sent by Patricia Redstone | 2:10 AM | 12-1-2007

State governments should provide the safety nets.

Sent by Jesubub | 3:28 AM | 12-1-2007

Where in the Constitution, besides in the 2nd Amendment, are we guaranteed a "safety net"? Americans must realized individual liberty demands responsibility

Sent by Mike S. | 8:56 AM | 12-1-2007

allow me to make an amendment...big government doesn't ALWAYS know best...it certainly knew best when it came to pursuing the civil rights issues...when it comes to these themes that are so ripe and pregnant for being guided by deep prejudice and ignorance, then i hope we can always rely on our very wise and courageous congress and supreme court...that said, let me also wish with my heart and head that someday very soon we will elect and maintain such a body of enlightened, brave souls who understand what the right thing is to do and DO IT.

Sent by jan | 9:10 AM | 12-1-2007

Paul specifically doesn't want a FEDERALLY mandated safety net. I don't know that he'd have such a strong objection to a state created one.
Paul believes in limiting the scope of the federal government according to LAW (i.e. the constitution). As stated in the constitution anything not specifically granted as powers of the federal government is left to the people and the states.
Why have people forgotten that we HAVE state governments and that they are supposed to be our primary government? The purpose of federal government is predominantly for common defense and to PROTECT liberties... not take them away.

Sent by Lisa C | 9:34 AM | 12-1-2007

We Ron Paul supporters seem to understand quite well, (great posts!), that a "safety net" only provides for a wasteful bureaucracy while raising taxes, limiting free markets and raising costs of the services. Download the Bastiat collection (free pdf) from the Mises Institute. It is a clear read on why socialism does not, and can not work - and so much more.

Sent by Zeke Dawdy | 10:11 AM | 12-1-2007

What I see is that the so called "safety net" has in fact become a noose. The Orwellian climate being created in this country that wants Big Brother to have a camera on every street corner, a bug in every computer and phone, and a microchip in every hand to "solve our problems" is not the answer to them and citizens are increasingly seeing that. Liberty (coupled with opportunity) is the greatest gift and I think at heart that unites most of us Dr. Paul supporters. The question in my mind is not if people should receive a hand up when it's needed, rather it's how to best do that and when. The Federal Government? LOL! Look at the looting of our treasury (and personal incomes),the homeless wandering our streets,the downsizing of any *middle class*, the highest prison population in the world, the homicide rates and decay of many of our cities, etc. and tell me any 'safety net' is working.Dr, Paul is simply the best, brightest, and most sincere of any presidential candidate IMO that I have seen in many many years. I think he could do more to unite America in spirit (and by extension the world)than any other presidential candidate running and he has my vote of confidence.

Sent by This Amercan | 10:24 AM | 12-1-2007

Tucker is wrong when he says "a concept almost unimaginable to most voters. "I think if some of them thought that through, they would no longer be on Ron Paul's side," Carlson says."

Dr. Paul (rightly) does not support a federal safety net. This does not in anyway prevent States from creating and maintaining safety nets, not should it.

Be careful -- when examining Dr. Paul's position on limited federal govenment -- to avoid confusing lack of support for federal programs with a lack of support for the programs themselves. Many program should carry on, on the state level.



Sent by Suzanne Chandler | 4:19 PM | 12-1-2007

This is amazing - the amount of genuine posts on this forum. I am in shock. I get more and more excited for Paul's presidency every day.

One thing I am concerned about, and have not heard yet is: What do you think Ron Paul believes about the notion of "Tragedy of the Commons." For instance, if we let the free market reign on deep-sea fishing, how do we regulate to ensure that people do not overfish the ocean and extinct that population? Meaning, people would have no more fish to eat since everyone was trying to get a share of the profits. Do the states regulate? what about international waters? How is human tendency to over-compete in the business world without federal regulations? I am concerened...

Sent by Justin Page Wood | 3:08 AM | 12-2-2007

tucker carlson, the cnn political analyst and staunch msm soldier? "turncoat" carlson, who sold out his youthful libertarian ideals for a paycheck? we are supposed to take his "journalism" seriously? who is saying it is often times much more important than what is said, huh?

Sent by w s bowen | 3:12 PM | 12-2-2007

number9, thanks for the response. And although I prefer (even on my mid-level income) to pay other people to do my cleaning and cooking, I take your point.

To answer your question, I'm not sure whether I prefer authority that resides more locally. I fear that to whatever extent Washington is bloated and bureaucratic, that may be because the power and money are there. If the power and money were here in my state, I suspect there would be more people seeking to latch onto it locally. And I don't have much reason to beileve that the average voter in my state is any less likely to vote for lousy representatives than the average voter in our nation is.

Sent by Maura | 7:17 PM | 12-2-2007

maura, thanks for taking the tongue in cheek jab without putting me in my place.

the whole point of states rights vs. federal can be summed up into one idea: if the federal gov't takes authority (which the constitution does not grant it) there is the likelihood that powers continue to accumulate at the top level and will eventually bring with it a police state.

corruption exists at all levels of humanity. some parents that are cruel or delinquent in providing for their children, is one example. yet can a group of politicians simply usurp the authority of the constitution to drive the government to nanny state? was it the government's right to express its "concern" by outlawing alcohol? substitute any other present taboo for alcohol.

the constitutional law which dr. paul defends does require individuals to be more responsible for themselves, but i don't believe that most feel they are getting their money's worth from the present system. americans who keep the fruits of their labor are the true safety net of the nation's families and singles. we are still in a time where dissent of corrupt power can be expressed, but the winds of change are blowing.

the fear-mongers in the media want everyone to fear a cataclysmic change to the way we do business. in truth, a paul administration would rely on the people to persuade their congress leaders to support orderly transitional periods. we are on a bloated ship and it takes a good amount of persuasion to turn the rudder around.

as a closing comment, i will simply offer you to think about living in a state or town where you are totally at odds with the local leaders and restrictions. now, consider the same scenario, but on a national level. which is easier to change, or perhaps even to move away from?

good luck on your decision...

Sent by number9 | 11:24 PM | 12-2-2007

Tucker, you admitted voting for Ron Paul way back when he was the Libertarian candidate for President. You must have been aware what he stood for then. Those who support Ron Paul now know exactly what the good doctor believes in. Limited government that is rolled back to constitutional levels, personnel responsibility coupled with individual freedom. Any government sponsored safety net is inevitably full of holes anyway. Better to have no safety net but no government obstructions impairing a citizen's progress either. My Father is 89 years old and worked hard all of his life. If he had the right to invest all of the money he paid into social security he would be much better off today. Cutting down a socialist sponsored safety net only works if government gets out of the way and doesn't regulate the ability for Americans to build a net, wall, fence or shield. I do not want government???s help but I do need government to get out of my way if there is any chance of securing my own life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Tucker you are one of the few libertarian voices in the media. Stay true to your convictions and principals and realize that those who support Ron Paul's opponents are the real misinformed.

Sent by Jeffersonianideal | 12:11 PM | 12-4-2007

Poll numbers are not valid...Ron Paul will surprise NH and Iowa.

He's also raised more money than any of the GOP candidates this quarter.

There is no support for Huckabee (show me the money!) but his media attention is contrived.

Sent by NH | 2:47 PM | 12-9-2007

How many of the InfoTainment followers spewing what amounts to absurdly oversimplified anti-government viewpoints have actually benefited in great ways from public services? Indeed, they have, in more ways than they could ever know or account for - but of course they are not economists. It is saddening to know that not many of them understand what a public service is. Do they even know what the term "market failure" means? Because a governemt offers public services, it does not make it a "socialist" "welfare state". It is not all their fault; cult news personalities have and will always rely on such polemic abstraction to make their own fortunes while the denialist masses chew on it like they would a stick of Bazooka Gum. If truth be assessed simply by numbers, then America blew it's wad on rockets, submarines and aircraft carriers, not on it's people's domestic health or ability to find food or housing, and sure as heck not on immigrant populations. If we were a welfare state, I doubt I'd be viewing so many war-veterans, without family, wandering the streets, with illness but little hope of meaningful rehabilitation, just trying to see the the light of morning.

Sent by SW | 2:27 PM | 12-25-2007

What safety net is it that people are so frightened to lose? Our government is in debt because of exuberant spending; squandering the money that we give it without having say in what is done with it! The most democratic thing going on right now is the special interests and lobbyists' abilities to sway governement policies with their contributions. The will of the people has become the will of the dollar.

Sent by Tina N. | 5:10 PM | 12-25-2007

Ron Paul all the way!!!!

Donald in Hawaii

Sent by Donald | 3:42 PM | 1-18-2008

I am a Canadian Citizen living in Toronto, Ontario. I can only dream that the American people make the right decision in this 2008 Election. Don't flush our country away with yours by voting for a puppet politician or war monger. Save your United States of America!

Ron Paul for Prez!

P.S. I wish I could vote, but I do not have US Citizenship.

Sent by James B | 7:31 PM | 1-31-2008

NPR has these annoying ads right now... I am proud to say I withdrew my pledge after noticing their UNFAIR and UNBALANCED approach to covering the election and omitting Dr. Ron Paul. Why listen to NPR... the free internet has the real news and the real pulse on what is going on... I don't need some interpreter to tell me what they think I should be thinking... I have a brain.

I fortunately also have a vote, and if I must it will be a write-in for Dr. Ron Paul for President. Do you trust these rigged elections and primaries... why do they exist anyway... to get money for the party. Ron Paul will not be supported by the party or the media... he is for the people and we will support him without the corrupt system's help or the corporate media's help!

I speak an open and disinterested language, dictated by no passion but that of humanity. To me, who have not only refused offers, because I thought them improper, but have declined rewards I might with reputation have accepted, it is no wonder that meanness and imposition appear disgustful. Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good..
- The Rights of Man (1791)

Man is not the enemy of man but through the medium of a false system of government.
- The Rights of Man (1791)

Sent by Thomas Paine | 8:08 PM | 2-8-2008

Your slanting is criminal, all he wants is for the government to follow the constitution, stop enslaving the Americans, selling us off for their own benefit and start minding our own business! If we stopped sending all of our money to other countries, we may have a chance to survive and possibly improve the nightmare that has become the USA. Get with the truth! Stop the lies, dont be part of the corruption.

Sent by Cynthia Gallagher | 1:40 PM | 2-12-2008

Once again Tucker Carlson damns Dr. Paul with faint praise. As evidenced by the "Brothel owner endorsement" scam that he orchestrated, his agenda is obviously aimed at sabotaging Ron Paul's campaign. Shame on NPR for spotlighting a report by this shill for the establishment.

Sent by John Bowery | 11:03 AM | 2-14-2008

Safety net? HAHAHAHAHAHA! He said "safety net!"

Don't you mean "take over half your money and send your children to foreign wars? What country are you in?

Sent by Sovereign11 | 5:38 PM | 2-14-2008

I suspect Tucker Carlson's comments are somehow being taken out of context. I've seen him gush over Ron Paul. It's practically a love affair (not that there's anything wrong with that!...).

I echo the sentiments of the poster who is put off by the insinuation that we Paul supporters don't REALLY know what Dr. Paul stands for. We know all too well. That's why we like him so much.

There is no secret agenda. I doubt I could say that for any of the others. Maybe that's why the media gives him so little coverage. They know he means real change and is a staunch opposition to the globalist agenda. If he became well known, most Americans would line up with him and things might finally change. And some very powerful people would be considerably less powerful. And so this man who wins most straw polls, all internet polls, and sets fundraising records is treated as those he isn't there. It's better than trying to refute his message, since that can't be done.

Sent by Simon9 | 2:58 PM | 2-15-2008

I do believe that people should be responsible for their actions. I have thought it through and I still support him.

Sent by Butler Stoudenmire | 11:30 PM | 2-23-2008

I don't want to keep tooting the same horn. I'm a full supporter of Dr. Paul and offer all the same arguments. I just want NPR to know this is still being read. While I'm glad they at least reported on Dr. Paul, I hope there will be more reporting in the future focused on educating the public about Dr. Paul as opposed to casting doubt on his supporters. You're not going to sway a Paul supporter and there's a fundamental, solid reason for that which we all share.

For any other late comers to this article like myself, there's a good video at www.ronpauldvdproject.com that you can download (or order if you prefer) and show to those who might not have much access to RP info. That's what I'm doing with my family and friends.

Sent by KevenFranks | 5:49 PM | 3-19-2008

NPR thanks our sponsors

Become an NPR sponsor

Support comes from