LLR Pages

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Neal Cavuto Much More Civil with Ron Paul

Neal Cavuto with Ron Paul Part 1:

Neal Cavuto with Ron Paul Part 2:

The Ron Paul Revolution is certainly affecting Fox News anchor Neal Cavuto. Just tonight Cavuto had Ron Paul on his show talking about his campaign on his Cavuto on Business show. (See videos in two parts above.)

While Cavuto wasn't necessarily supporting Ron and his campaign, he was much nicer to and more positive towards Ron on the air than some of the collectivistic Neo-Con yahoos by which Ron has been interviewed. At the start of the segment, Cavuto congratulates Ron for being listed as GQ Men of the Year in GQ Magazine. Ron said that he didn't know what to make of it, but he said that he was pleased with it.

Cavuto asked Ron some fair questions, right up until Cavuto started to go into it with Ron on foreign policy, the War on Terrorism, and Iraq.

The following exchange went like this:

CAVUTO: What would prompt a President Ron Paul to attack another country?"

Ron answered reluctantly, but did so anyway:

RON PAUL: Well, I would never attack another country if they haven't attacked us. 77 percent of the people now agree with me that we ought to come home, and therefore that's a very, very popular position.

Cavuto, interrupting Ron in mid-thought, then asks him:

CAVUTO: But is there any, any method, sir, to a preemptive strike against someone you know hates you and would probably want to do something to you?

RON PAUL: No, no, I mean, uh..there's

CAVUTO: (interrupts) So you would only react if acted upon?

RON PAUL: Or imminently so. But we never had this in our whole history where somebody was under imminent attack because the president has actually the authority to respond without going to the Congress if you were under attack or if there's an imminent attack.

CAVUTO: So, so on, on World War II, Congressman, would you have intervened then?

RON PAUL: Sure, I mean we were attacked, we went to know, Roosevelt went to the Congress and they had a proper declaration of war. I argue, I argue..

CAVUTO: War included, as you know Congressman, Germany then saying, "We're at war with you now, United States." So it escalated, right?

RON PAUL: And they declared war against us, so...

CAVUTO: And you would react to that and declare war on them.

RON PAUL: Sure, if they declared war against us, this is different - they're going to attack us, you know? Uh, and actually, there was a lot of fighting and sinking of ships even before then.

CAVUTO: Right.

RON PAUL: So, um, no, under the...I'm, I'm as concerned about the process and the rule of law as I am about the issue. They're both very important. But we go to war and we have been going to war since World War II without declarations, and we still have troops in, in Korea, and we lost in Vietnam. And this thing's going to go on for years and years and years. No Republican or Democrat offering a program other than myself of bringing them these troops home very soon and ending this war.

God bless Ron for his principled stand on the war, even despite some of the silly questioning coming from Fox News' own Neal Cavuto.

(Lew deserves great praise for bringing this to light on his blog.)