New Ron Paul Radio Interview...WHO Radio: Jan Mickelson.

Hey guys,

Thought this was a pretty good interview as we don't see many radio interviews by RP. He addresses some concerns and I have a few observations of my own but just throwing this out for those that are interested.

www.youtube.com...



Here's a link to a CSPAN video which has different parts but the YouTube one is better, IMO.

www.c-spanvideo.org...

Enjoy!

For once the ATS search spared me from posting a previously posted topic, lol.

This was an EXCELLENT interview, no rushed question or answers, no obvious hostility on the part of the interviewer. Just a good Q&A session with some call in questions to boot.

I especially loved the remarks made by Paul regarding the topic of the economy and foreign policy - how they are treated as separate entities by all the politicos and pundits, but Paul states (correctly) they are one and the same - we CAN'T keep up our current foreign policy because it is bankrupting Americans, they are LINKED to one another, so you can't have an economy and a foreign policy on divergent tracks.

He also makes some common sense remarks about the cost of all these overseas military personnel and bases - how this pumps millions of American tax dollars into foreign economies, when bringing those soldiers and sailors home to our stateside bases would result in a huge boon to the local economies.

If you're tired of seeing Paul sandbagged in useless excuses of interviews on FOX 'news' or other MSM, then by all means set aside a few minutes and give this one a listen.

OK....I have a very large issue with one particular statement he makes in this video.

Regarding his stance on abortion, he relates an account of him, while in med. school residency in Detroit in the late 1950's, 'walking in' on an apparent late-term abortion. He then goes on to state that the '2lb baby was crying and was placed in a bucket and left to die.'

Except that I don't think this could've happened. At all.

Abortion was completely illegal in Michigan during the time Paul was there. He either witnessed an illegal medical procedure and did nothing about it, in which case he should be prosecuted, he's willfully fabricating this to score political points, or he has invented the whole thing in his head and has convinced himself it's real. None of those are particularly attractive in a presidential candidate.

He had my vote until this, and this is completely irrespective of my views on abortion. This 'story' stinks to high heaven.

reply to post by samcrow


I guess if that's all it takes to wipe away your support...then what can anyone say?

Good luck..

reply to post by PaxVeritas


lolwut.

So if he popped up tomorrow and started running ads saying he helped Lincoln draft the Emancipation Proclamation that wouldn't raise any questions with you?

reply to post by samcrow


It didnt happen in the 50s, I listened to the interview and he said it was 1965. Ron Paul went to Duke university for his medical degree according to wikipedia. North Carolina reformed abortion laws in 1962.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by samcrow
reply to post by PaxVeritas

 

lolwut.

So if he popped up tomorrow and started running ads saying he helped Lincoln draft the Emancipation Proclamation that wouldn't raise any questions with you?

The intelligent or 'logical' thing for you to do would be MAYBE to think that Ron Paul actually did see what he claims he saw, instead of jumping immediately to a conspiracy frame of mind after watching a video where you caught ONE THING that jumped out to you as odd.

Like I said, if that's all it takes, what do you want me to say?

"Please fellow Anonymous Ron Paul supporter, please stay on the train, we need you desperately"?

Seems like a tiny historical disagreement with you and his story convinced you to drop your support.

So..............good luck. What more can anyone say?

reply to post by filosophia


Thanks for sourcing some historical truth.

Our friend "SAMCROW" is done with Ron Paul though. He found a conspiracy in the video that made him fall off the Ron Paul train...

It's very tragic.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by samcrow

 

It didnt happen in the 50s, I listened to the interview and he said it was 1965. Ron Paul went to Duke university for his medical degree according to wikipedia. North Carolina reformed abortion laws in 1962.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

edit on 30-12-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)

You're right on the '50's thing....my mistake.

That said, his dates create even more problems for this story.

First of all, NC's laws were changed in 1967 following Colorado's lead. The 1962 date you're seeing comes from the ALI Model Penal Code upon which it was based.

The host says "1960...uh...1960's...."

Paul initially agrees, says that it was "while he was a resident" (resident is different than full-hire MD), then later starts to say it was in 1968, and then corrects himself and says it was in 1965.

Ron Paul completed course work at Duke in 1961. His initial residency was at the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, MI from 1961 to 1962. He was an AF doctor from 1963-1965, and then did additional OB/GYN training at Pittsburgh from 1965-1968.

He seems sure it's post-1965, so let's say it happened in the three years he was in PA (likely, given that's when his specialization training in obstetrics was happening). Even during this time it was completely illegal in PA. The closest 'legal' state was New York, but that didn't happen until 1970 and it's unclear why Pittsburgh med students would've been wandering around in a NY hospital when there are plenty in their own neighborhood. Unless, of course, he did a second residency elsewhere. However, there would only be a very limited number of states where a hospital abortion could have happened during this time, and nowhere in any of his biographical material is any second residency mentioned.

This story stinks.

reply to post by PaxVeritas


No conspiracy, really. If I'm completely wrong, I'll readily admit it. I'm still waiting for that to be proven. You're lambasting me for a 'lack of faith' when the argument could be made that your 'blind' faith is just as troublesome.

This should be a big deal. Not because of prima facie historical inaccuracies, but because Paul is resting on an oft-told, rarely corroborated meme about the horrors of late-term abortion. Listen to the story the guy is telling: He was 'wandering' around in an OB/surgical ward and 'happened' to conveniently walk in to a living, breathing, crying, baby in a bucket that was left to die. Riiiiiiiiiiight. These types of abortions have happened, but they're pretty rare statistically, and it's very unlikely that a formal, 'real' hospital would've been doing it during this time period.

The date thing is secondary to the story, but is important in that it probably proves the story is fabricated, which most people with an iota of common sense would suspect anyway.

YMMV, etc.

reply to post by samcrow


You're getting all worked up over what you think is a story by Paul, but you have no idea from his brief description under what circumstances this abortion occurred back in 1965 that he is relating about, it could have been a medical emergency to save the mother's life - and being in a hospital with interns and residents around I would wager that was more likely the case than some fickle Mother deciding on a late-term abortion simply because she didn't want the baby. (There would have been a lot more privacy in that case).

As a medical doctor he is fully committed to preserving life even to the unborn. As he explains he acknowledges that seems to conflict with his libertarian views, but as he sees it he is defending the baby's right to choice as much as the mother's. I don't agree fully with his pro-life stance, but abortion is a complete non-issue. This is not having any impact on America or it's economy or it's foreign policy.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Well but if it was a save-the-mother situation (still illegal in most states in the late 1960's anyway), then it needs to be contextualized. It's a much different story if it is "I witnessed a fetus die to save it's mother" than if it is "I saw a baby die in a bucket."

This is a garbage story told in a very specific way and thus intended for one purpose and one purpose only: pandering to the demographic that is concerned about a candidate's views on abortions. In other words, he's pandering to the numb-nut social conservatives that that want the big government intrusion Paul claims to be against. Regardless of how you spin it, it's a really stupid, really bizarre thing to come out with.

reply to post by samcrow


We're talking about a recollection oh his from 45 years ago, that he related as an anecdote about his views on abortion. Give the guy a break, he wasn't filling out a police deposition. Just out of curiosity where do the aborted fetuses go? In a bucket I'd guess, probably the sort of think a young medical resident isn't likely to forget the first time they see that.

Paul's doesn't hide his religious stance but he really doesn't throw it in your face the way his ideologue evangelical rivals do.

Look at the priorities - are you voting for a president based on their abortion stance? Or on their economic, foreign policy, and military stance? Paul's stance on the banks and the federal reserve and America's vast military build-up across the globe trumps any of the other candidates, regardless of their stances on abortion.

Just for the record,

I'm a Pro Choice Atheist who believes Gay's should be allowed to be married.

And I'm an avid Ron Paul supporter since 2003.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by samcrow

 

You're getting all worked up over what you think is a story by Paul, but you have no idea from his brief description under what circumstances this abortion occurred back in 1965 that he is relating about, it could have been a medical emergency to save the mother's life - and being in a hospital with interns and residents around I would wager that was more likely the case than some fickle Mother deciding on a late-term abortion simply because she didn't want the baby. (There would have been a lot more privacy in that case).

As a medical doctor he is fully committed to preserving life even to the unborn. As he explains he acknowledges that seems to conflict with his libertarian views, but as he sees it he is defending the baby's right to choice as much as the mother's. I don't agree fully with his pro-life stance, but abortion is a complete non-issue. This is not having any impact on America or it's economy or it's foreign policy.

The point is why tell the story at all? Why make a commercial devoted entirely to telling it? It didn't happen the way he claims, and if it did and he did nothing, he shouldn't have a medical license. Period.

Everybody knows Paul is a physician. Why not, to answer the question of his stance on the issue, simply say "I'm a doctor and as a doctor it is my duty to preserve life at all times and in all cases." He has all the credibility on the issue any candidate could ever hope for right there. Why the need for this garbage anecdotal story that really does nothing other than plagiarize a page from 70's anti-abortion propaganda?

That's my issue with this. Believe what you want, just don't legislate your morality. Paul doesn't like abortion. Big deal. However, it really seems like he's going out of his way with a lie to pander to people that are, politically, not in the same universe as him. Why? To win the votes? Isn't that exactly what he claims to be running against? Isn't the whole point of his campaign that he's far removed from the current conservative ideology? What does blatantly pandering to that base against his own repeatedly espoused beliefs on the role of government mean for his potential presidency?

reply to post by samcrow

The point is why tell the story at all? Why make a commercial devoted entirely to telling it? It didn't happen the way he claims, and if it did and he did nothing, he shouldn't have a medical license. Period.

So you were there, that you could make such a proclamation? And where did he make a 'commercial devoted entirely to tell this'? It's a radio interview and the topic barely took a few seconds of time for him to relate about one of the reasons he doesn't support abortion.

I personally fully support a woman's right to choose (but only to a very limited extent), family planning, planned parenthood, and the use of contraceptives, and the whole topic of abortion is just a non-issue.

There's a whole lot of other fish to fry, and right now the only one with a skillet is Ron Paul.

Originally posted by BlackmarketeerSo you were there, that you could make such a proclamation? And where did he make a 'commercial devoted entirely to tell this'? It's a radio interview and the topic barely took a few seconds of time for him to relate about one of the reasons he doesn't support abortion.

I don't have to 'be there' in order to see that this is all a bunch of malarkey aimed at pandering to the social conservatives. The serious problems with the time/place of these alleged events are outlined fairly clearly in my above posts. Also, I don't at all buy the 'well it was so long ago his memory is fuzzy.' He has said in several interviews and implies it in the ad that this was a major, defining moment in his life. I'm supposed to believe that such an important event can't even be pinpointed to the right part of the decade? Really?

Again, this has nothing to do with his actual stance on abortion, but on his willingness to put out a story that's either willfully or inadvertently fabricated in order to pander to the social conservative votes that currently reside with people like Santorum, et. al. who advocate a legislation and legal action against those who disagree with their ideas of Christian ideology and practice. This from a candidate that all I hear is 'But he wants FREEDOM!' So, he's either disingenuously pandering to get those votes making him no better than any other politician out there or he's OK with their views on legislation, which makes him disingenuous to his supporters and his platform. Neither one is particularly attractive to me.

Again, there is absolutely NO reason to run an ad like this. His credibility lies with his profession, not this story. Unless, of course, you're a guy that's playing politics and implying things that go against your stated platform in order to secure a few more votes.

Here's his commercial on the topic:



You guys aren't all that up on your own candidate.

dupe

post

reply to post by samcrow


I stand corrected, I didn't realize it was an actual commercial. Maybe it is pandering to the social conservatives, he is after-all a Republican and he still has to win the nomination against other social conservatives. As to whether it ever actually happened? We really can't say, can we? He was there and this is his story, if you don't believe him then he obviously isn't going to win your vote. There's a lot of things I don't like about RP, such as his stance on the EPA, but those are greatly diminished compared to the things I do like about him, such as his fiscal and foreign policies and military policies.

There's no such thing as a perfect candidate, but in my humble opinion Paul is close, very close...

PS thanks for keeping the debate civil, in spite of my obstinate posts above. Cheers!