More on Ron Paul and "Meet the Press"
MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln."According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."He might have emphasized that Lincoln did not forcibly prevent southern secession to end slavery but rather to preserve the Union and said that he would have maintained slavery had that been necessary to keep the Union intact.
REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..
MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.
REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased 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, 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.
But let his sink in. Russert didn't ask Ron Paul about Iraq but he asked him about the Civil War? What the hell is going on?
Here's the transcript.
Cross-posted at Free Association.
comments powered by Disqus
Sheldon Richman - 12/28/2007
Ron Paul's appearance with David Schuster, in which Lincoln and the Civil War were discussed for seven minutes, was a disaster. Why Ron Paul let it go on without insisting that they should be discussing a war that he could actually do something about, is beyond me. No one who is not already a Lincoln revisionist would have been impressed. Schuster and his producers wanted to leave the subliminal message that Ron Paul is not a serious candidate -- and Ron Paul played their game. A total disaster. Who's calling the shots in that campaign?
Bill Woolsey - 12/27/2007
The entire interview was an attack.
Most questions were aimed at exploring one of Paul's kooky positions.
A few were aimed at attacking Paul has a hypocrite.
I think that the MSM believes that Ron Paul's supporters and potential supporters deserve to know all of his "kooky" views. I do think that they beleive that he would have less support if people knew about all of these views.
With the subprime crisis and the large drop in the value of the dollar, few reporters are ready to challenge Paul on the Fed. (I am surprised that it didn't come up.)
I also am surprised that the budget issue was left with a drop of $1 trillion in revenue. But then, cutting the Federal government by 1/3 or 1/2 doesn't seem crazy to me.
And, of course, telling South Korea or Israel that they have to defend themselves against North Korea or Iran doesn't seem like a problem. (Why not Germany vs. Russia? Or India vs. China?)
Anyway, it looks like they are going to use Lincoln against Paul for a while. Perhaps they think it will hurt him in Iowa?
Anthony Gregory - 12/26/2007
As cynical as I was before of the MSM, they have been most shameless in their treatment/non-treatment of Paul.
- Did a historian who said he’s a victim of McCarthyism get the story wrong?
- Stephanie Coontz’s work on the history of marriage cited by the Supreme Court.
- How Does It Feel To Have One’s Work as a Historian Cited by the Supreme Court? Cool. Very Cool. Thank You Very Much.
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- David Hackett Fischer wins $100,000 prize for lifetime achievement in military writing