Congressman Ron Paul has appeared on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show twice before, but tonight (Sept. 26th) will be the first time Paul has appeared on the show since declaring his run for the 2012 U.S. presidential election.

In an interview in the most recent (Sept. 29th) issue of Rolling Stone magazine, Jon Stewart noted an unusual thing that makes Ron Paul different from the other candidates: Ron Paul doesn't contradict himself.

The Rolling Stone interviewer says to Stewart: "From the targets you go after on the show, it seems like what makes you maddest is when people aren't held accountable for their own words -- Jim Cramer acting like he's never made a wrong call, or Fox News repeating an outright lie over and over."

Stewart replied: "What annoys me the most is when people are being disingenuous. To be able to see them contradict themselves -- it's the magic of TiVo... You know a guy you'd have a hard time doing that to? Ron Paul -- because he's been consistent over the years. You may disagree with him, but at least you can respect that the guy has a belief system he’s engaged in and will defend, as opposed to people who will pull anything out of their ass if they think it will get them the advantage in that moment."

Anybody planning to watch The Daily Show tonight?

-- Nephele

We have it set up on the DVR so I'll be watching it when I get up tomorrow.

I wouldn't vote for the guy, but I am a fan of Ron Paul. Like Stewart said, at least he sticks to his convictions no matter what, which is why he;s never made it further in politics. He's simply not willing to play the game.

~spidey

Tonight's show started out with Stewart hilariously taking apart the recent Republican debate, while noting that the Republican candidates seem to be "at war with their talking points." Among other things, Stewart mentioned that the Republicans claim to be all about supporting the troops – yet when audience members boo'ed the soldier stationed in Iraq (who submitted the YouTube question about DADT), Rick Santorum (who took the question) didn't say a thing to chastise the audience for booing the soldier.

Too funny, when Stewart noted the humungous biceps on the gay soldier, and said something like (I don't remember the exact words): "Are you sure you want to boo someone who can crack your head like a peanut? When this guy turns into the Hulk, his arms don't get bigger, they just turn green."

The interview with Ron Paul was way too short, but I gather that there's going to be a video of an extended interview posted on The Daily Show's website tomorrow.

-- Nephele

I will have to look for this on youtube or something, as I don't have anything except Netflix right now. It sounds like it was a great show. I can't believe anyone would boo a solider, no matter their fucked up reasoning behind it.

Midi, just go to TheDailyShow.com website tomorrow. All the shows are posted there.

And, yes, it was disgraceful the way that soldier was treated at the Republican debate.

Oh! And this brings to mind one area in which Ron Paul did do a "flipflop" on an issue. Paul used to be for DADT, but (I think it was last year) he went against his party and decided he was for the repeal of DADT. Here's the reason he gave:



-- Nephele

I will make sure to check it out tomorrow. And I agree with Ron Paul. It is a financial waste. Not to mention a moral slap in the face (IMHO).

Changing your stance on an issue to better reflect a fair shake of the stick for all is a sign of character, even if you do hide it behind money talk.

Good point! While Ron Paul is always consistent on fiscal matters (and his position against our government's continual wars), his position has evolved on social matters. Most libertarians I have known are conservative on fiscal matters, and liberal on social matters. As opposed to the current state of the Tea Party and Republican Party, which is largely conservative on both fiscal and social matters. And also as opposed to the Democratic Party, which is largely liberal on both fiscal and social matters.

The videos for the extended interview over on The Daily Show site don't appear to be working, so I did a search and found the extended interview here.

While it seems that Jon Stewart is an admirer of Ron Paul, Stewart did state that he has "trouble trusting the market," and he mentioned the earlier, "rapacious" era of our history (the 1880s). Which Paul addressed with an example of how the railroads "got in bed with the government" when the government gave them free land to expand across the nation. Paul also stated his position on what he calls the "ridiculous" War on Drugs and how it has affected our civil liberties.

And then Jon Stewart asked the inevitable question about Paul's stand on government regulation:



My transcribing isn't the best, but here's what I was able to type from Paul's answer:



Ron Paul makes the case that government isn't as accountable to the people as we believe it to be, or as we trust it to be. Paul made it clear that, while he is pro-market, he is anti-corporatism, and he talked about how our government is in collusion with corporations, through bailouts and regulation exemptions.

It's an interesting interview. And, while many may think that Ron Paul's ideas are too "out there," I think they're worth considering.

-- Nephele

-- Tue Sep 27, 2011 3:20 pm --



I think I'd be inclined to vote for Ron Paul. But, as you say, Spidey, Paul won't play the game, so I don't think he'll get as far as the Republican nomination.

But if by some wild change of direction the Republicans were to choose Ron Paul as their presidential candidate for 2012, I would have to see who Paul's running mate was before I would consider casting a vote for him.

In the 2008 election, I considered voting for John McCain -- until he announced Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate. What with McCain being in his 70s, it would have been a very real possibility that he might die while in office, and then we'd have Sarah Palin stepping in as president. By the same token, 76-year-old Ron Paul's choice of vice presidential running mate would definitely influence my vote for him as president.

-- Nephele

I did like Ron Paul until he said Iran should be left to pursue a nuke program and we should end the "war on drugs" when the U.S. is one of the top consumers of illegal substances. Those are two pretty big issues that influence my vote greatly. The rest of his ideas are worth listening to that's true, but those two bad ideas pretty much spoiled the whole bunch for me.

I'm fine with Iran having nukes. They invade countries far less often than the people who have nukes.

Yes, even France.

So if countries that have many nukes invade more often, does that mean that countries that just got nukes but don't "invade" often use nukes more frequently? *cough* Pakistan, India, North Korea *cough*.

New criteria! A country that invades any particular region(s) a minimum of 3x per century is allowed to have nukes, as they are less inclined to use them than countries that invade less often.

On a serious note Iran "invades" less often because it lacks the means to wage a successful military campaign, not because it's peaceful (which it isn't btw). It resorts to unconventional and proxy warfare (which is using a 3rd party to do it's fighting for them), instead, by which it has done on a regular basis around the world. NATO does the same I know, but Iran has clear and defined goals that it's willing to kill men, women, and children in the name of survival of it's oppressive regime. That and it's anti-semitic views and regular attacks on Israel by using proxy organizations shows it won't be responsible with it's nukes.

Besides, Iran has shown it does not even have it's own people's best interests in mind what makes you think it will have the world's best interest in mind? That country doesn't need nukes, and a country like that needs to be kept at a severe disadvantage from a military standpoint.

I don't like the idea of Iran (or any nation) having nukes, but I also don't like the idea of us getting into yet another war in what may be a futile attempt to stop the inevitable.

I don't believe that our nation can sustain all these wars indefinitely, and I think that the U.S.'s days of being World Police are coming to an end.

-- Nephele

I hope it comes to an end too, Nephele. The world needs to take responsibility for what goes on in it's backyard, and I do mean the entire world. Though I don't really trust the U.N. with taking care of that job. I think when the U.S. backs off from that role the U.N. will have no choice but to get it's shit together.

If you are small government centric like Ron Paul is, then both of these points make sense. Using our resources to police the world is not a small gov't idea, and getting into people's personal business insofar as what they put into their own body is also not small gov't.


I don't agree with him on nukes per se, but fuck us and our whole idea that we don't want anyone ELSE to have nukes, but it's cool for us because we think we're the only ones who can keep our shit together enough to not get drunk and blow up the world...oh, wait....I'm remembering something about the US being the 1st country to actually drop a nuke in time of war....

As for drugs, fuck yes. Make them all legal. The government is going too far when they tell me that I can't alter my own consciousness.

~spidey

By the same token, I think the U.S. needs to take responsibility for what it's been doing in other people's backyards.

-- Nephele