MR. RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday -- our "Meet the Candidates 2008" series continues -- an exclusive interview with Republican Ron Paul. He has served in the U.S. House of Representatives for 18 years. In 1988, he was a Libertarian Party candidate for president. Since October, he has raised nearly $19 million, that is more than any other Republican candidate for president. Our guest, Dr. Ron Paul.
Then -- only 11 days until the Iowa caucuses. The candidates unveil special holiday political commercials.
MR. MIKE HUCKABEE, REPUBLICAN 2008 PRESIDENTAIL CANDIDATE: (From videotape.) What really matters it the celebration of the birth of Christ.
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY): (From videotape.) Where did I put Universal Pre-K?
MR. RUDY GIULIANI, REPUBLICAN 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: (From videotape.) It will be a really nice fruitcake. Put a big red bow on it.
MS. MALIA OBAMA, DAUGHTER OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA: (From videotape.) Merry Christmas.
MR. RUSSERT: The very latest polls and strategies with John Harwood of CNBC and the New York Times, and Chuck Todd, Political Director for NBC News.
But, first, we're joined by Dr. Ron Paul, Republican candidate for president. Dr. Paul, welcome to "Meet the Press".
DR. PAUL: Thank you, nice to be here.
MR. RUSSERT: Let's start right at the very top of the issues -- this is what you have been saying on the campaign stump: "I'd like to get rid of the IRS, I want to get rid of the income tax -- abolish it."
DR. PAUL: That's a good idea. I like that idea.
MR. RUSSERT: What would happen to all those lost revenues? How would we fund our government?
DR. PAUL: We'd have to cut spending. We can't get rid of income tax if you don't get rid of some spending. But, you know, if you got rid of the income tax today you'd have about as much revenue as we had 10 years ago, and the size of government wasn't all that bad 10 years ago. So there are sources of revenues other than the income tax. You know, you have a tariff, excise tax, user fees, highway fees, so there's still a lot of money, but the real problem is spending. But, you know, we lived a long time in this country without an income tax. Up until 1913, we didn't have it.
MR. RUSSERT: But if you eliminate the income tax, do you know how much loss of revenue that would be?
DR. PAUL: A lot, but --
MR. RUSSERT: Over $1 trillion.
DR. PAUL: That's good, but we could save hundreds of billions of dollars if we had a sensible foreign policy. If you're going to be the policemen of the world, you need that. You need the income tax to police the world and run the welfare state. I want a constitutional size government.
MR. RUSSERT: Would you replace the income tax with anything else?
DR. PAUL: Not if I could help it. You know, there are some proposals where probably almost anything would be better than income tax, but there's a lot of shortcomings with the sales tax, but it would probably be slightly better, the income tax, it would be an improvement, but the goal is to cut the spending, get back to a sensible-size government.
MR. RUSSERT: But if you had a flat tax, a 30-percent consumption tax, that would be very, very punishing to the poor and middle class.
DR. PAUL: I know, that's why I don't want it.
MR. RUSSERT: So you have nothing?
DR. PAUL: I want to cut spending. I want to get a -- use the Constitution as our guide, and you wouldn't need the income tax.
MR. RUSSERT: Let's talk about some of the ways you recommend: "I'd start bringing out troops home not only from the Middle East but from Korea, Japan, and Europe, and save enough money to slash the deficit." How much money would that save?
DR. PAUL: To operate on a total foreign policy, when you add up everything, there's been a good study on this -- it's nearly $1 trillion a year. So I would think if you brought out troops home, you could save hundreds of billions of dollars. You know, in six months or one year or two year, but you can start saving immediately by changing the foreign policy and not be the policemen of the world. We should have the foreign policy that George Bush ran on. You know, no nation-building, no policing of the world, a humble foreign policy. We don't need to be starting wars, that's my argument.
MR. RUSSERT: How many troops do we have overseas right now?
DR. PAUL: I don't know the exact number, but more than we need. We don't need any.
MR. RUSSERT: It's 572,000, and you'd bring them all home?
DR. PAUL: As quickly as possible. They do not serve our interests to be overseas. They get us into trouble, and we can defend this country without troops in Germany, troops in Japan. How can they help our national defense? It doesn't make any sense to me. Troops in Korea? Since I've been in high school? It doesn't make sense.
MR. RUSSERT: Under President Paul, if North Korea invaded South Korea, would we respond?
DR. PAUL: Why should we, unless the Congress declared war? Why are we there? South Korea -- they're begging and pleading to unify their country, and we get in their way. They want to build bridges and go back and forth.
Vietnam -- we left under the worst of circumstances. The country is unified.
They have become Westernized, we trade with them, their president comes here. In Korea, we stayed there and look at the mess. I mean, the problems still exist, and it's drained $1 trillion over these last 50 years. So stop -- we can't afford it anymore. We're going bankrupt. All empires end because the countries go bankrupt, and the currency crashes. That's what's happening, and we need to come out of this sensibly rather than waiting for a financial crisis.
MR. RUSSERT: So if Iran invaded Israel what do we do?
DR. PAUL: Well, they're not going to. That is like saying Iran is about to invade Mars. I mean, they have nothing. They don't have an army or navy or air force, and Israelis have 300 nuclear weapons; nobody would touch them. But, no, if it were in our national security interests, and Congress, as you know, this is very, very important, we have to declare war. But presidents don't have the authority to go to war. You go to the Congress and find out if they want a war, do the people want the war? But it's totally unnecessary. I mean, that, to me, is an impossible situation for the Iranians to invade Israel.
MR. RUSSERT: This is what you said about Israel: "Israel is dependent on us, you know, for economic means. We send them billions of dollars, and then they dependent on us. They say, 'Well, you know, we don't like Iran, you go fight our battles. You bomb Iran for us, and they become dependent on us.'" Who, in Israel, is saying "Go bomb Iran for us?"
DR. PAUL: I don't know the individuals, but we know that there are leaderships, you read it in the papers on it daily -- daily, you know, about Israel, the government of Israel encourages Americans to go into Iran, and people -- I don't think that's top secret that the government of Israel --
MR. RUSSERT: -- that the government of Israel wants us to bomb Iran?
DR. PAUL: I don't think there's a doubt about that -- that they've encouraged us to do that and, of course, the neo-conservatives have been anxious to do that for a long time.
MR. RUSSERT: Would you cut off all foreign aid to Israel?
DR. PAUL: Absolutely. But, remember, the Arabs would get cut off, too, and the Arabs get three times as much aid altogether than Israel. Why make Israel so dependent? Why do we -- if they give up their sovereignty -- they can't defend their borders without coming to us. If they want a peace treaty, they have to ask us permission. They can't -- we interfere when the Arab Leagues make overtures to them. So I would say that we have made them second-class citizens. I think they would take much better care of themselves. They would have their national sovereignty back, and I think they would be required, then, to have a stronger economy because they wouldn't have to pay their own bills.
MR. RUSSERT: You talked about September 11th in one of the Republican debates back in May, and this is what you said:
MR. RON PAUL, 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: (From videotape.) They don't come here to attack us because we're rich, and we're free. They attack us because we're over there.
MR. RUSSERT: "Because we're over there" -- then you added this on Tuesday: "But al Qaeda has determination. The determination comes from being provoked." How have we, the United States, provoked al Qaeda?
DR. PAUL: Well, the ringleader says, read what Osama bin Laden said we had a base, you know, in Saudi Arabia. That was in the front of their religion; that was blasphemy, as far as they were concerned. We were bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've interfered in Iran since 1953, our CIA has been involved in the overthrow of their governments. We're bought right now in the process of overthrowing that nation. We side more with Israel than Pakistan, and they get annoyed with this. How would we react if we were on their land -- if they were on our land? We would be very annoyed, and we'd be fighting mad.
MR. RUSSERT: So under your doctrine, if we had -- did not have troops in the Middle East, they would leave us alone?
DR. PAUL: Not immediately, because they'd have to believe us, but what would happen is the incentive for Osama bin Laden to recruit suicide terrorists would disappear. Once we left Lebanon in the early '80s, the French and the Americans and Israelis left Lebanon, suicide terrorism virtually stopped just like that. But while we were there, suicide terrorism killed our marines because we were in Lebanon.
So we have to understand that -- we have to understand how we would react if some country did to us exactly what we do to them, and then we might have a better understanding of their motivation, why somebody would join the al Qaeda. Since we've been over there, al Qaeda has more members now than they did before 9/11. They probably had a couple hundred before 9/11 --
MR. RUSSERT: You think the problem is al Qaeda -- the problem is the United States not al Qaeda?
DR. PAUL: No, it's both. Al Qaeda becomes violent. It's sort of like if you step in a snake pit and you get bit, you know, who caused the trouble? Because you stepped in the snake pit or because snakes bite you? So I think you have to understand both. But why produce the incentive for this violent, vicious thugs to want to come here and kill us?
MR. RUSSERT: Do you think there's an ideological struggle that Islamic fascists want to take over the world?
DR. PAUL: Oh, I think some, just like the West is wanting to do that all the time. Look at the way they look at us. I mean, we're in a 130 countries, we have 700 bases, how do you think they proposed that to their people, saying, "What does America want to do? Are they over here to be nice to us and teach us how to be good Democrats?"
MR. RUSSERT: So you see a mortal equivalent between the West and Islamic fascism?
DR. PAUL: Well, for some people. Some radicals on each side that, when we pose our will with force by a few number of people -- not the American people, I'm talking to people who have hijacked our foreign policy; the people who took George Bush's foreign policy of a humble foreign policy and turned it into one of nation-building, which he complained about.
MR. RUSSERT: The president himself?
DR. PAUL: The president himself has changed the policy? I like the program he ran on. That's what I defend, and -- but, all of a sudden -- and it didn't change after 9/11, it changed at the first meeting of the cabinet according to Paul O'Neill. He said immediately it was on the table. When were we going to attack Iran?
MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned on September 11th, a former aide of yours, Eric Dondero, said this: "When September 11th happened, he just completely changed," talking about you. "One of the first things he said was not how awful the tragedy was, it was 'Now we're going to get big government.'" Was that your reaction?
DR. PAUL: Well, I'm surprised you would quote somebody like that. He is a disgruntled former employee who literally was put out. But, yes, I thought --
MR. RUSSERT: He said he quit because he disagreed with you.
DR. PAUL: Yeah, no, the point is, Randolph Bourne says war is a healthy state. I believe that statement. When you have war, whether it's a war against drugs, war against terrorism, war overseas, war -- the mentality of the people change, and they're more willing to sacrifice their liberties in order to be safe and secure.
So, yes, right after 9/11, my reaction was, you know, it's going to be a lot tougher selling liberty, but I'm pleasantly surprised that I'm still in the business of selling liberty and the Constitution. There is still a lot of enthusiasm for it, so all the American people don't agree that we have to have the nanny state and have government taking care of it. So I have been encouraged, I might have been too pessimistic immediately after 9/11 because, in a way, it has caused this reaction and this uprising in this country and say, "Enough is enough.
We don't need more Patriot Acts; we don't need more surveillance on our people; we don't need national ID cards; we don't need the suspension of habeas corpus. What we need is more freedom."
So, in one way, I was pessimistic but in another way, now I'm more encouraged with the reception I'm getting with this message.
MR. RUSSERT: And you actually go further. You said this: "Abolish the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency and dismantle every other agency except the Justice and Defense Departments." And then you went on: "If elected president, Paul says he would abolish public schools, welfare, Social Security, and farm subsidies."
DR. PAUL: Okay, you may have picked that up 20 or 30 years ago. It's not part of my platform. As a matter of fact, I'm the only one that really has an interim program. Technically, a lot of those functions aren't constitutional, but the point is I'm not against the FBI investigation and doing a proper role, but I'm against the FBI spying on people like Martin Luther King. I'm against the CIA fighting secret wars and overthrowing government and interfering --
MR. RUSSERT: Would you abolish them?
DR. PAUL: I would not abolish their functions, but the --
MR. RUSSERT: What about public schools? Are you still --
DR. PAUL: Let's go with the CIA. They're involved in torture. I would abolish that, yes, but I wouldn't abolish their right and our requirement to accumulate intelligence for national defense purposes. That's quite different.
MR. RUSSERT: But if you eliminate the income tax, you take way half the revenues for the federal government. What you're left with is the Defense Department, Social Security, Medicare, and pensions. Everything else is gone. So you have to start making choices if you're going to keep --
DR. PAUL: All right, we can. The big one is overseas expenditure. You have to develop a transition, you have to start paying down the deficit, balance the budget, but you have to say, "I believe the most reasonable place to save is in foreign policy -- hundreds of billions of dollars -- because it gets us into trouble, it ruins our national -- our defense is poorer now. The Department of Education -- who -- we elect conservatives to get rid of the Department of Education. We used to campaign on that. And what did we do? We doubled the size. I want to reverse that. That's what I'm trying to --
MR. RUSSERT: What about public schools? Are you still --?
DR. PAUL: I've never taken the position -- is it in my platform?
MR. RUSSERT: When you ran for president in 1988, you called for the abolition of public schools.
DR. PAUL: I bet that's a misquote. I do not recall that. I'd like to know where that came from, because I've --
MR. RUSSERT: And Social Security, you're okay on Social Security now?
DR. PAUL: I think we need to get -- give -- offer the kids a chance to get out. But, right now, if we don't save the money, we can't take care of the elderly. For instance, Social Security -- I never voted to spend one penny of Social Security money. So I'm the one that has saved it.
Now, if I saved the money in this military operation overseas, I say take that money -- and I say this constantly -- don't turn anybody out in the street. The people we have conditioned, yes, technically, we shouldn't have them. It would be nice to get rid of them, but I would say take care of the people that are dependent on us. Let them -- and the only way you can do that is cut spending. If we don't, they're all going to be out in the street because right now Social Security beneficiaries are getting 2-percent raises, their cost of living is going up 10 percent, a dollar crisis is going to wipe them all out, that's my point.
MR. RUSSERT: I looked at your record. You talk about big government and how opposed you are to it, but you seem to have a different attitude about your own congressional district. For example, the Congress decided to send billions of dollars to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Guess how Ron Paul voted? "Is bailing out our people that choose to -- chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government," he asks, and you said no.
And yet this: "Paul's current district, which includes Galveston and reaches into the Brazoria county draws a substantial amount of federal flood insurance payments for your own congressional district. This at the Houston Chronicle: "Representative Ron Paul has long crusaded against the big central government, but he also represented the congressional district that's consistently among the top in Texas in its reliance on dollars from Washington. In the first nine months of the federal government's 2006 fiscal year, it received more than $4 billion, and they report, the Wall Street Journal, 65 earmarked, targeted projects, $400 million, that you have put into congressional bills for your district, which leads us to the Congressional Quarterly: "The earmarked dossier of Dr. No. There isn't much that Dr. Ron Paul thinks the federal government should do. Apparently, though, earmarks for his district are okay. Paul is staunch -- we have no fewer than 10 earmarks in the water resources bill, all benefiting his district, the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway, $32 million; the sunken ship you want to remove from Freeport Harbor; the Bayou Navigation Channel; they talk about $8 million for shrimp fishermen.
DR. PAUL: You know --
MR. RUSSERT: Why would you load up?
DR. PAUL: You've got it complete wrong. I have never voted for an earmark in my life.
MR. RUSSERT: No, but you put them in the bill.
DR. PAUL: I put them in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back, but it doesn't cut any spending to vote against the earmarks, and the Congress has the responsibility to spend the money. Why leave the money in the executive branch and let them spend the money?
MR. RUSSERT: That's like saying you voted for it before you voted against it.
DR. PAUL: Naw, come on, Tim. That has nothing to do with that.
MR. RUSSERT: You put it in the bill and get the headlines --
DR. PAUL: No, I make the request --
MR. RUSSERT: -- that Paul --
DR. PAUL: They're not in the bill.
MR. RUSSERT: Then you know it's going to pass Congress and say -- you don't refuse the money.
DR. PAUL: Well, of course, not. It's like taking a tax credit. If you have a tax credit, I'm against the taxes, but I take all my credits. I want to get that money back for the people.
MR. RUSSERT: But if you were true to your philosophy, you would say, "No pork spending in my district."
DR. PAUL: Naw, naw, that's not it. They steal our money -- that's like saying that people shouldn't take Social Security money. I don't advocate that. I try to save the system and make the system work. I'm not at it all mixed up. Now you're confused.
MR. RUSSERT: It's all fact.
DR. PAUL: You're confused.
MR. RUSSERT: This is the Wall Street Journal: You load up the bills with special projects --
DR. PAUL: No, no, no, no, you don't.
MR. RUSSERT: You do it, you do it. Do you deny that you have --
DR. PAUL: How many of them have ever got passed? But the whole point is we have a right to the --
MR. RUSSERT: They pass, you vote against them, but --
DR. PAUL: Tim, you don't quite understand.
MR. RUSSERT: Okay.
DR. PAUL: They take our money from us, and the Congress has these before you appropriate not the executive branch. And I'm saying that I represent my people, and they have the request. It's like taking a tax credit, and I put it -- the whole process is corrupt, so I vote against everything. I vote against it so I don't endorse the --
MR. RUSSERT: But when it passes overwhelmingly, you take the money back home.
DR. PAUL: I don't take it. That's the system. I'm trying to change that system. If you turn it around and say I'm supporting the system, I find it rather ironic and --
MR. RUSSERT: But when you stop taking earmarks or putting earmarks in the spending bills, then I think you're being consistent.
Let me ask you about this --
DR. PAUL: When you're --
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask this -- term limits. You ran on term limits. I think we should have term limits for our elected leaders. You've been in Congress 18 years.
DR. PAUL: But I never ran on voluntary term limits. There's a big difference. I didn't sign a pledge for voluntary term limits, as a matter of fact some of the best people that I work with who are the most principled came in on voluntary term limits. Some of them broke their promises, and some didn't, and they were very good people. So some of the good people left, and it's true. I didn't run on that, Tim, you're wrong on that. I support term limits. You know, and I voted all -- we had 16 votes one time on term limits, and I voted yes for them.
But voluntary term limits is a lot different than compulsory term limits. It's good to have a turnover, but that isn't the solution. It's the philosophy of government that counts.
MR. RUSSERT: But if you believe in the philosophy of term limits, why wouldn't you voluntarily --
DR. PAUL: Well, it's one of those things that's not-- I mean, you don't see that I'm campaigning on that. I mean, I don't think it's a solution. Philosophy is the solution. What the role of government ought to be so you have a turnover and the same people come in, and they believe in big government, nothing good is going to come of it.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about immigration, because that's a big issue here, and there has been a profound change in your thinking on that. Back when you ran for president in 1988, Libertarian, you said: "As in our country's first 150 years, there shouldn't be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work." You've changed your --
DR. PAUL: And during that campaign I remember I got into trouble with the Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion, and we have to treat it differently. And I think, in one sense, with the welfare state out of control -- see, my approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others -- mine is you deal with it economically. We're in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education, and the state. So you subsidize, and you have a mess. Our hospitals are being closed, conditions have changed, and I think that we should have -- and 9/11 has occurred -- why shouldn't we be looking at people coming in? So this means that we should look at immigration differently. It's an economic issue more than anything.
If our economy was in good health, believe me, I don't think there would be an immigration problem. We'd be looking for workers, and we would be very generous.
MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.
DR. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What the contradiction there?
MR. RUSSERT: So as the Constitution, as written, you want to amend?
DR. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional to do it. Besides, it was the 14th amendment, it wasn't in the original Constitution, and there's a confusion on the interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people -- individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government, and somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer -- you see, under the jurisdiction? And their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and as a matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a constitutional amendment to clarify.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about drugs and go back again to your 1988 campaign and see where you stand today. All drugs should be de-criminalized. Drugs should be distributed by any adult to other adults. There should be no controls or production supply or purchase for adults. Is that still your position?
DR. PAUL: Yeah, it's sort of like alcohol. Alcohol is a deadly drug, it kills more people than anything else, and today the absurdity on this war on drugs, Tim, it's just been horrible. We now, the federal government, takes over and overrules state laws where state laws permit medicinal marijuana for people dying of cancer. The federal government goes in and arrests these people, puts them in prison with mandatory, sometimes life, sentences.
This war on drugs is totally out of control. If you want to regulate cigarettes and alcohol and drugs, it should be at the state level. That's been my position, and that's where I stand on it. But the federal government has no providence on this.
When they wanted to outlaw alcohol, they had enough respect for the Constitution to amend the Constitution. Today we have all these laws and abuse, and they don't even care about the Constitution. I'm defending the Constitution on this issue. I think drugs are horrible. I teach my kids not to use them, my grandchildren, and my medical practice -- prescription drugs are a greater danger than hard drugs.
MR. RUSSERT: But you would de-criminalize?
DR. PAUL: I would -- at the federal level. I don't have control over the states, and that's what the Constitution says.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about race, because I read a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, and you said this: "Contrary to the claims of the Civil Rights Act of '64, the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom instead. The forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights of '64 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.
DR. PAUL: Well, we should do this at a federal level, it's a federal lunch counter would be okay or for the military. Just think of how the government, you know, caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II. But when it comes, Tim, you're not compelled in your house to invade strangers that you don't like. So it's a property rights issue, and this idea that all private property is in the domain of the federal government, I think, is wrong.
I think even Barry Goldwater opposed that bill on the same property rights position and now this thing is totally out of control.
If you happen to like to smoke a cigar, you know, the federal government can come down and say you're not allowed to do that.
MR. RUSSERT: But you would vote against the Civil Rights Act if it was today --
DR. PAUL: If it were written the same way where the federal government has taken over property has nothing to do with race relations. It just happens, Tim, that I get more support from black people today than any other Republican candidate, according to some statistics, and I have a great appeal to people who care about personal liberties, and to those individuals who would like to get us out of war, so it has nothing to do with racism. It has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.
MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war. There were betters ways of getting rid of slavery.
DR. PAUL: Absolutely -- 600,000 Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the Republic. I mean, it was an iron-fisted --
MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.
DR. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery would phase out in every other country of the world, and the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British Empire did. You buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed? So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.
MR. RUSSERT: You're running as a Republican on your website and your brochures, you make this claim: "Principle leadership -- Ron was also one of only four Republican congressman to endorse Ronald Reagan for president against Gerald Ford in '76." There's a photograph of you, Ronald Reagan on the right, heralding your support of Ronald Reagan.
And yet you divorced yourself of Ronald Reagan. You said this: "Although he was once an ardent supporter of President Reagan, Paul now speaks of him as a traitor leading the country into debt and conflicts around the world. 'I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan administration.'" And you go on to the Dallas Morning News: "Paul now calls Reagan a dramatic failure."
DR. PAUL: Well, I'll bet you any money I didn't use the word "traitor." I'll bet you that's somebody else, so I think that's misleading -- but a failure, yes. In many ways, the government didn't shrink. Ultimately, after he got in office, he said all I want to do is reduce the rate of increase in the size of government. That's not my goal. My goal is to reduce our government to a constitutional size -- completely different.
I think that -- as a matter of fact, he admitted in his memoirs that he had a total failure in Lebanon, and he said he relearned the Middle East because of that failure. And so, you know, he --
MR. RUSSERT: But if he was a total failure, why are you using his picture in your brochure?
DR. PAUL: Well, because he an on a good program, and his idea was limited government -- get rid of the Department of Education, a strong national defense.
MR. RUSSERT: George Herbert Walker Bush, this is according to Ron Paul: "Bush is a bum," Paul wrote in the November 15, 1992, issue of his newsletter, 'The Ron Paul Political Report.' And asked about the current President Bush, whether he voted for him in 2004, Paul says, 'No, he misled us in 2000.' Asked if he voted for Bush in 2000, 'No, I didn't vote for him then, either, I wasn't convinced he was a conservative.'" And, actually, in 1987 you submitted a letter of resignation to the Republican Party -- 'I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card.
If Reagan is a failure, Bush 41 is a bum, and you didn't vote for Bush -- 41 is a bum and 43 you didn't vote for, and you resigned from the Republican Party, why are you running as a Republican candidate for president?
DR. PAUL: Because I represent what Republicanism used to be. I represent the group that wanted to get rid of the Department of Education, the part of the Republican Party that used to be non- interventions overseas. That was the tradition of the Robert Taft wing of the party. There was a time when Republicans defended individual liberty and the Constitution and decreased spending.
So the radicals, the ones who don't really belong in the Republican Party while the Republican Party is shrinking, why the base is so small, is because they don't stand for these ideals anymore. So I stand for the ideals of the Republican Party. I've been elected 10 times as a Republican, I've been a Republican all my life except for that one year that I ran as a Libertarian but, no, I represent the Republican ideals I think much moreso than the individuals running for the party right now.
MR. RUSSERT: If you do not win the Republican nomination for president, will you run as an independent in 2008?
DR. PAUL: I have no intention to do that.
MR. RUSSERT: Absolute promise?
DR. PAUL: I have no intention of doing that.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, but "no intention" is a wiggle word.
DR. PAUL: Okay, I won't -- I deserve one wheedle now and then, Tim, I mean, what the devil --
MR. RUSSERT: So no firm on that statement -- "I will not run as an independent."
DR. PAUL: Well, I can be pretty darn true it -- I have no intention, no plans of doing it, and that's about 99.9 percent of the truth. I don't like people who are such absolutists -- "I will never do this," or "I will win, I'm going to come in first." I don't like those absolutist terms in politics.
MR. RUSSERT: But the door is open a little bit?
DR. PAUL: Not very much, it really isn't. I don't -- Tim, we just raised $10 million in two days. We haven't even had a race. We have February 5th coming up. We have a campaign to run. Why -- do you ask all the other candidates -- how many other candidates have you asked, "Are you going to run as a third party candidate if you don't win?" Have you asked John McCain that?
MR. RUSSERT: Well, if someone has a history of running as a third party candidate, sure. You ran in '88 as a Libertarian. It's a logical question.
DR. PAUL: Well, yeah, I know, but their independents -- so I'd ask them, too.
MR. RUSSERT: I will. Before you go, Mike Huckabee, Republican candidate for president, ran this commercial for Christmas, and many thought that the shelf in the back looked like a cross. You were asked about it on CNN, and this is what you said:
DR. RON PAUL, 2008 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: (From videotape.) It reminds me of what Sinclair Lewis once said -- he says when fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag carrying a cross.
MR. RUSSERT: What does that mean?
DR. PAUL: What -- fascism or a definition of fascism?
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that Mike Huckabee is --
DR. PAUL: No, I didn't say that. I said it reminded me -- as a matter of fact, they caught me completely cold on that. I had not seen the ad, and they just said there was a cross there, and, you know, it was an instantaneous reflex because I knew of Sinclair Lewis about being cautious, because, you know, what prompts this is things like the Patriot Act.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me go back --
DR. PAUL: No, no, if you're not a patriot --
MR. RUSSERT: But let me go back to this ad -- you do not believe that Mike Huckabee, that ad, commercial, represents the potential of fascism in the form of a cross?
DR. PAUL: No, but I think this country -- a movement in the last 100 years is moving toward fascism. Fascism -- today, the softer term, because people have different definitions of fascism, is "corporatism" -- where the military industrial complex runs the show; when they, in the name of security, pass the Patriot Act, you don't vote for it, you know, you're not patriotic America. If you don't support the troops, and you don't support -- if you don't support the war you don't support the troops. It's that kind of antagonism.
But we have more corporatism and more abuse of our civil liberties, more loss of our privacy, national ID cards, all this stuff becoming has a fascist tone to it. And the country is moving in that direction. That's what I'm thinking. This was not personalized. I never even used my opponents' names, if you noticed.
MR. RUSSERT: So you think we're close to fascism?
DR. PAUL: I think we're approaching it very close. There's one documentary that's been put out recently that has generated a lot of interest called "Freedom to Fascism." If we're moving in that direction, we're not moving toward Hitler-type fascism, but we're moving toward a softer fascism. Loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business, so you have the military industrial complex, you have the medical industrial complex, you have the financial industry, you have the communications industry. They go to Washington and spend hundreds of millions of dollars. That's where the control is. I call that a soft form of fascism, something that is very dangerous.
MR. RUSSERT: For the record, the Sinclair Lewis Society said that Mr. Lewis never uttered that quote.
DR. PAUL: But others refuted that and put them down and said they found the exact quote and where it came from.
MR. RUSSERT: To be continued. Dr. Ron Paul, be safe on the campaign trail. Thanks for sharing your views.
DR. PAUL: Thank you, it's nice to be here.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT