tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC May 15, 2012 1:00am-2:00am PDT
thank you. thanks to you at home for stating with us. we have elizabeth warren in a moment. we have the latest on ron paul not quite suspending his race for president but doing something that will look like he is suspending his race for president. we have an exclusive on tonight's show on the issue of reproductive rights. there's a political earthquake that's about to happen on that issue. we have the exclusive coming up tonight on the interview. that's all ahead this hour. we have a really big show. today in politics, was the day that president barack obama took the baton from texas governor rick perry. on january 9th this year, that was right after iowa and right before new hampshire, january 9th of this year, this was the campaign trail itinerary. san was in new hampshire. ron paul was in hollis, new
hampshire and rick perry was in greenville, south carolina. he decided to skip new hampshire where he didn't think he would do well, and he was right. he got less than 1%. he got 0.7%. while he was not focusing on new hampshire while everybody else was up north, he was focusing on south carolina. he was focusing there on his brand new message that he brought to the campaign starting that one lonely southern day. >> you go to gaffney and that little company down there that bain company shut down, they're people out of work because of what mitt romney and bain capital did. >> newt gingrich gets more credit than rick perry does for having gone after mitt romney's
career for all the factories he closed and people he laid off. newt gingrich gets more credit for that but rick perry is the one that pioneered it this year. he pioneered it in sometimes gross terms. >> i will suggest they're just vultures. they're vultures that are sitting out there on the tree limb waiting for the company to get sick. then they swoop in. they eat the carcass. >> just skipping the part about them vomiting the parts into the mouths of their young. you hit all the other details. not this venture capital but vulture capital. his record at bain, which was often about the opposite of job
creation. it was about firing people and bankruptcies and businesses closing that made him a profit. if you're going to say that bain is the reason you ought to be assessed as experienced enough to be president, if that's going to be the part of the record that you run on then the whole of that record is what you have to run on. >> is capitalism about the ability of hand full of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of people and walk off with the money or is that a flawed system? i'm for capitalism. i'm for people to go in and save a company. i'm for people to take real risks. if somebody comes in and take the money out of your company and leaves you bankrupt while they go off with millions, that's not traditional capital. >> mitt romney became ceo of bain capital the day the company was formed. his mission, to reap massive rewards for himself and his investors.
>> mitt romney and them guys don't care who i am. >> he's for small businesses. no, he isn't. he's not. >> the last clip there you saw with the ominous music was from the anti-mitt romney documentary called king of bain. remember that? newt gingrich's side used king of bain against mr. romney like a political cannon when they were heading into the south carolina primary. if you go to king of bain.com it redirects you to this happy red, white and blue, i love super pac. if you go to the cashed version, you can see what was there before. you can find the entire documentary called when mitt romney came to town. mr. gingrich is a supporter but before he was a supporter, at the time he was using this line of attack, frankly, newt gingrich was beating mitt romney by 13 points in south carolina.
the you want to talk about bain baton has been handed off from rick perry and then newt gingrich to now president obama's campaign. this new ad for which there's a six-minute version and a six-minute version was released today. it highlights a kansas city steel factory that mitt romney and bain capital shut down. >> they made as much money as they could. they filed for bankruptcy without any concerns for the families of the community. >> it was like a vampire. they came in and sucked the life out of us. >> it was like watching an old friend bleed to death. it makes me sick. they didn't have the money to take care of the very people that made the money for them. >> bain capital walked away with a lot of money that they made off of this plant. we view mitt romney as a job destroyer. >> the last time the details of
how bain did business was when senator ted kennedy used ads like this one against mitt romney in a massachusetts senate race back in 1994. this was a 1994 ad. >> scm, mitt romney's firm bought the company and fired all 350 workers. now some former workers talk about romney's business practices. >> he's cut our wages to put money back into his pocket. >> you're not creating jobs. you're taking them away from us to put money in your pocket. >> he just wants to take money out of your pocket and put it in his. >> i'd like to say to the people of massachusetts, if you think it can't happen to you, think again because we thought it wouldn't happen here either. >> mitt romney lost that senate race by 17 poibtnts. you can see the similarities there between the ad that president obama's campaign is running as of today and what ted kennedy did back in 1994.
right now in 2012, mr. romney does not want to run on his record as massachusetts governor. he wants to run on bain. he wants to run on what he did for america at bain. it's because he has put bain at the center of his campaign as his sole credential for the presidency, that explains why details can be so devastating. what he did at bain may be the most devastating things that will be said about mr. romney throughout the entire campaign. so, if that's the case, you have to wonder is the president's re-election campaign doing this too soon. it is only may, after all. you would think they would want to save the bain thing so it would be ringing through voters ears when people are going to the polls. turns out, don't worry. there's plenty more where this came from. one thing the ted kennedy campaign used back in 1994 is
the fact as they shut down these american factories and made tens of millions of dollars for themselves and put hundreds of americans out of work they sometimes shut down the factories and put people out of work and made sure that you, the american taxpayer, would have to cover the laid off workers pension costs. bain and capital profits. taxpayers had to clean up behind them. private profit, public risk. does that sound familiar? big action by big business. that is hugely profitable. when it goes bad the people who took those big risks, they didn't have been to pay for it. that's part of the romney at bain story that the obama campaign must be planning on rolling out later. the taxpayers having to pick up the pensions after romney and company ran off with the company's money. yeah, i think that's still to come. that story about the public
having to clean up after people in private business got very rich taking a big risk, that story is the exact same story of what caused the financial collapse in 2008, the great recession. the reason our economy still sucks even though it's getting better. big banks taking huge risks that they got rich off but when they went bad, taxpayers had to come to the rescue. all of the upside is private. all of the potential downside is public. that's a very special kind of capitalism, i mean socialism. i mean capitalism. since the wall street collapse at the end of the bush administration and the bailout of the financial sector, think what you will about that rescue, since the financial have got rescued public profits are at a record high. the combined earning of the fortune 500 corporations rose 16% to a record high of $825 billion last year.
record high. here is what the dow jones industrial average was when president obama took office in january of 2009. where is it now? oh, right. in terms of that whole too big to fail thing. before the crash you used to have a bunch of banks like jpmorgan chase and bear stern. after the crash you have jpmorgan buying those two banks just eating them up to form one super bank. the top five banks are bigger than they were before the crash. 13% bigger. financial power is more concentrated in the hand offense a few large firms before the disastrous collapse. they are bigger institutions when they were when we were all horrified to learn when they were too big to fail and their failure would destroy the american economy. since the rescue, since the collapse and the rescue, it's been happy days on wall street. the obama years have been good to wall street. they are doing better than they
have ever done. wall street has recognized and rewarded that by fleeing enmass to support mitt romney against barack obama. wall street has faired very, very, very, very, very, very well under barack obama, but mitt romney, frankly, is offering them too sweet a deal to look away from. he's offering to not only get rid of the new rules that were put in place but to wind the rules back even further, to make them even more lax than they were before wall street almost destroyed the entire american economy. the symbol of that on wall street is this guy who is the head of the biggest bank. he was famously a barack obama supporter back in 2008. he's so opposed to any new regulations that he describes himself as barely a democrat and he's been flirting with supporting mitt romney. his name is jaime dimon and his bank is jpmorgan. they had a small version of what took down the whole economy back in 2008.
it doesn't look like jpmorgan will need bailout. what they just did is the kind of thing that did trigger the system collapse and the need for bailout. the particular bank has been arguing since the financial collapse that there don't need to be any rules. there don't need to be anymore burdensome rules to stop us banks from doing this. there's no need for rules. we're fine. we can take care of it ourselves. it is fine until you can't take care of it and the taxpayers do. from the taxpayers perspective, if we're going to be the ones that will have to come to the rescue, then you sort of have to be constrained in way that will require rescuing. wall street, of course, would still prefer there be no rules at all. they get rescued all the time by us no matter what they do. they are supporting mitt romney
against barack obama. it means they are throwing their money hand over fist at one particular united states senator. a senator from massachusetts. the man who holds what used to be ted kennedy's senate seat. scott brown has taken more money from any other from the securities and investment sector, taken more money than any other senator from the venture capital and the private equity firms. he's taken more money from the hedge fund industry. this guy isn't even from new york. nope. wall street has a guy on the inside inside. his name is scott brown. in the first quarter of this year, the city of which he received more itemized donations than any other place is new york city, which is not in massachusetts. they call him one of wall street's favorite congressmen for a republican. they call him that for two reasons. you might remember what scott brown did when they were first writing the wall street rules.
you remember his specific contribution. they thought there was going to be $19 billion in implementation costs in rules. who should pay for it after it nearly destroyed the american economy? who should pay for that? it's going to be paid for by the banking sector. scott brown amended the bill so the banks would not have to pay the costs. you would. taxpayers would have to pay them. 19 billion. that alone probably worth wall streets investment in u.s. senator scott brown. more importantly, scott brown is the only thing standing between elizabeth warren and the united states senate. elizabeth warren is the founder of the consumer protection bureau. he's the democratic party against scott brown and she's making news today by saying the head of jpmorgan chase should step down on the board of new york fed where his job is to
plaque quickly starts to grow back. but new crest pro-health clinical plaque control reduces plaque and is clinically proven to help keep it from coming back. new crest pro-health clinical plaque control toothpaste. let's see what you got. rv -- covered. why would you pay for a hotel? i never do. motorcycles -- check. atv. i ride those. do you? no. boat. house. hello, dear. hello. hello. oh! check it -- [ loud r&b on car radio ] i'm going on break! the more you bundle, the more you save. now, that's progressive. it's a stupid thing that we should never have done, but we're still going to earn a lot of money this quarter. it isn't like the company is jeopardized. we hurt ourselves and our creditability.
>> jpmorgan chase jaime dimon talking his about company's massive, multibillion dollar trading loss last week. the reason he's saying it was a dumb mistake, this thing they did that they don't understand why they did it. it was just stupidity. nobody else would have done something this done. the reason i believe he is talking about it that way is he wants his company's mini-meltdown on wall street to seem like a one time deal. to seem like something that could never happen again. something we never need to take any precautions from stopping anybody else from doing. there doesn't need to be rules stopping anybody from taking on that much risk again. they don't need any new rules. joining me is elizabeth warren. thanks very much for joining us. it's nigh ce to see you. >> good to see you.
>> does what just happened at this giant bank should we be worried that wall street is as risky for the country, as out of control when they crashed the whole economy in 2008? >> here is how you have to think about it. they crashed the economy in 2008. we had to bail them out because otherwise we were headed for the stone age, financially speaking. what happened next? what happened was that the companies that brought the economy to its knees did not take any responsibility. all during the question about financial reform they fought it tooth and nail. they said we do it no matter what. they just moved to a war. it was to send in army of lobbyists, to weaken the rules and go light and describe to the
regulators that they intended less and less regulation and to say, you've got to do less. let's create this little technical part over here and another loophole. let's delay implementation. in a sense the banks have continued ed continued, these largest financial institutions have continued a business as usual. they will decide how much risk tyke take on. they will continue to take the profit off the top and they will continue to leave the risks out there for the american taxpayer while they fight off any regulation off to the side. so far, it's worked pretty well for them. the problem now is that jpmorgan has had to admit that, wow, it really did take on a whole lot of risk and that it really got
bitten by that risk, but it still wants to hold off any form of regulation. that's what it leaves us with. it leaves us in a situation where what we know for sure is there's no regulator who is really looking over the shoulder of these big financial institutions. there's no cop on the beat to say, wait a minute. you can't take those kind of risks especially if you plan to leave the american taxpayer holding the bag. that's the world we live in. the banks are still in charge of their own risk practices and that's dangerous for all of us. >> when you hear the republican president for candidate, mr. romney, talk about wall street, talk about regulation he says there's been so much post financial collapse regulation that it's choking off economic growth in this country. it tells the opposite story to what you're saying. he's saying it's overzealous.
what's your reaction to that? >> you know, you really want to say did he hear what jaime dimon just said. his own words were that this was stupid. this was sloppy. so stupid and so sloppy that it wasn't even picked up by a regulator. there was no one to say, wait a minute, i want to review your risk practices. i want to see the kind of risk that this huge financial institution is taking on. we're just about three and a half years past the time you took on so much risk that you brought this economy almost to its knees. the idea that mitt romney thinks that the banks are over regulated, it's an alternative reality. it's not true. the problem right now is there's not adequate regulation. >> you are running against scott brown who won his seat in a special election.
he's not be there for a full term. you will likely be the democratic nominee and will face him in november. why is it that he as a senator from massachusetts has become wall street's favorite senator? why is he the top recipient op donations from the securities industry? what is it about scott brown that's so attractive to the industry and what is he giving them for their money? >> this race will be about whose side you stand on. scott brown went to washington two years ago when he was elected holding the deciding vote on dodd-frank. as you described earlier, he traded that vote for $19 billion in breaks for the biggest wall street financial institutions. you can put a lot of money into someone's campaign and $19 billion is a heck of a rate of return.
scott brown has been out there voting for wall street's interests. he voted to protect bill oil subsidies. he's voted to protect those who get paid through stock rather than getting paid through pay checks through the buffet rule. scott brown has been reliable for wall street. you remember, at the same time that we're debating the financial reforms, i was out there on the other side. i didn't have a vote, but what i was doing was fighting for consumer financial protection bureau. i was worried about families that were getting hammered on mortgage, on credit cards, on student loans. i was saying we need accountability on wall street and arguing for tougher rules. it's a pretty clear choice. wall street, a lot of wall street, knows which side they want to invest on in that. >> elizabeth warren, likely
democratic candidate for senate in massachusetts. thank you very much for your time. it's nice to have you here. >> thank you for having me. >> we have invited senator brown many, many, many, many times. he's welcome any time he wants but he doesn't return the call. republicans focuses on rolling back women's health rights. couldn't be. they're the jobs, jobs jobs folks. more on that ahead.
it's rare that the most lurid thing on your local tv newscast is the story about politics. if you were watching kfor in oklahoma city this weekend, that rare lurid political thing came true. >> reporter: most of the contention was captured on cell phone video. >> this woman right here has physically assaulted me. >> reporter: the video you are watching is being recorded by a woman who said she was just hit in the back. >> with a fist to my back. >> i did not. >> yes you did. >> i have no idea if she most certainly did but what all that is about is just ahead. [ laughing ]
you know you could just use bengay zero degrees. medicated pain relief you store in the freezer. brrr...see ya boys. [ male announcer ] new bengay zero degrees. freeze and move on. >> the republican strategy so far for dealing with that party's for women, the problem of the presidential nominee being on the wrong end of a 12-point gap of women voters in swing states, the way republicans have tried to deal with that problem is to say it doesn't exist.
they say it was invented by democrats to try to make republicans look bad. >> many in mainstream media are trying to make an issue out of that straw man, straw women, this war on women that supposedly the gop is waging and making a big deal about that. >> the gop said we had war on caterpillars and every mainstream media outlet talk abdomen about we had problems with caterpillars. >> this is the latest plank on the war on women entirely created by my colleagues across the aisle for political gain. >> the describe republicans as anything as extraordinarily pro-woman is totally missing the mark. >> republicans are extraordinarily pro-woman. it's marvelous so says mitt romney. arizona's governor jan brewer agrees telling the associated press, we are the party of women
particularly here in arizona. we like women. what's the problem? we like them. the official republican line is the war on women idea is an idea cooked up by the democrats. republicans watch this program and will tell me this privately away from camera. i have something to tell you about this. if you're ready to give up the comfort of your conspiracy issue, i would like to help you understand where it's coming from. it's coming from a real place. it's not made up. here is what you are doing that makes it a coffee out the nose laugh line when you say you're extraordinarily pro-woman or the party of woman. here is the stuff you are doing to earn the war on women's title. it's tonight's inaugural edition of where the whole war on women idea came from. we're going to name it. we're going to start in jan brew's home state. on friday night she signed a bill to roll back access to
contraception. a new amended version of tell your boss while you're on the pill bill. last friday night she signed a bill to defund planned parenthood in arizona. it targets birth control and care for about 4,000 low income women. last month she signed into law a bill deciding when women can have abortions. last week in utah thanks to the republican governor, the state of utah has a three-day waiting period for women who are seeking an abortion. that's the longest waiting period in the country. it's because women are too dumb to know what an abortion means until they have been forced to think about it for three days and not to mention all the time off work. in alabama, the republican-led legislature banned coverage for abortion in the new insurance exchange pps s exchanges. in oklahoma it makes it easier
for doctors to be sued, but not all doctors. it makes it easer to sue abortion doctors. in kansas they approved a tax code to punish women who seek abortions. it include what is amounts to a new tax on abortions. it's also a personal style language in the kansas still that suggested a fertilized egg is a person. new restrictions on when you're allowed to have an abortion and new mandatory, anti-abortion script and reading materials. doctors will be forced to give to kansas women including the discounted myth that abortion can cause breast cancer and a measure that makes it legal for doctors to essentially lie to women about their pregnancies in
order to prevent them from seeking an abortion. that bill passed the kansas house last week. doing all of that and now it ie peer appears to be stalled. he said even though he had not read the bill, he'd probably sign it. regardless of what's in it? while we're on the issue of republicans rushing to sign off on any bill that wanders anywhere near them. georgia's republican governor signed it into raw this month. republicans who supported it were asked to explain that vote at a neighborhood forum. one republican lawmaker said he did have concerns about the bill, but he hoped that doctors could find way to make it work. quote, yes, i voted for it, but i had a lot of questions in my mind about what the implications are.
he didn't know what the bill would do, but he figured he could vote for it any way. i hope they can work it out. that's how they are supporting anti-abortion bills this year. slap an anti-abortion label on it and this year's model republican lawmaker will vote for it. this is what it's like when republicans are in charge. democrats did not make this up. this is how republicans are governing this year. republicans are prioritizing using that power to block women from having choices that they might otherwise have. it's true in the states. it's true in congress. roll call highlighting two different federal level republican efforts to force new restrictions on washington, d.c. because why not. isn't that what america sent this congress to washington to work on, new abortion restrictions for the district of columbia? steve king has just today introduced a bill to put new federal restrictions on medication abortions.
republicans. democrats did not make this stuff up. this is not a liberal plot to make it sound like republicans are prioritizing attacking women's access to health care and abortion. they really are. i could do a segment like this pretty much every other day. every week denial that you are doing this stuff does not count as a defense of this record. on the other side of the abortion rights fight there's been a major shakeup. the leader of the prominent and focused abortion rights group in the country has announced she's stepping down and for a surprising reason. that exclusive interview is next. )90%3g
we know we are better off when women are treated fairly and equally in every aspect of american life whether it's the salary you earn or the health decisions you make. [ applause ] >> president obama being very well received today giving the commencement address in new york. politics around women's health have been more of battleground over the last couple of years since abortion rights were supposedly guaranteed nationwide in this country in 1973. amid a record number of new laws in the states. look at this. we did not make this up. more restrictions passed last
year with republican lawmakers unrelenting priority of pushing back women's rights and even contraception has become essential to even president level politics. the president one of the most vocal and active rights in the country has announced after eight years she is stepping down at tend of this year. she says roe versus wade is 40 in january. it's time for a new leader to come in and be the next person in reproductive choice. she's president of pro-choice america. thank you for being here. >> my pleasure. thanks for having me. >> tell me more about the decision to step down now. you're giving people a lot of notice. why have you decided to do it and to do it with this message? >> there's two things a leader
can give an organization. one is the hard work, the dedication, the passion, the commitment and the heart and soul in doing the job. the second thing is to know when it's time for someone else to build on the accomplishments of the organization and for the next generations to tell their stories of choice for the next five, ten, 15 years. like you said i'm going to be around for the 2012 election. i wouldn't miss that to help reelect barack obama and build on our pro-choice champions that we have in the house and senate. >> in terms of that generational divide, i am the same age as roe versus wade. i'm three months younger. do you feel like having somebody of my generation and younger is going to make a material difference in how this fight is fought? >> i think it's about the future.
my generation was the generation that fought that our daughters and granddaughters would not have to fight about this. what we have learned is you always have to be vigilant. for me, the next generation will tell their own stories. their own stories about their lives, their experiences, not looking back at the anniversary of roe being 40, but looking forward and saying what is it about our generation that had to lead to protect this right. i think it all came home around the fight on contraception where it became real. for me, it's a wonderful opportunity to connect to the generation. these are the 18 to 30 year old who is are by 2020 going to be 40% of the voting population. it's a tipping point of this issue to talk about the stories of that generation moving forward.
>> i feel like the sunny side of this is for you to be stepping aside from this position specifically to make room for younger women leadership in this field is selfless and farsighted and i think is right about the politics in terms of where your advocacy policy is. on the other hand, we're in the middle of the greatest abortion rights since roe versus wade. you are the most experienced leader in the country on this issue. is it a good time for fresh blood? >> we have wonderful new leaders there now. it's not like waking up now expecting somebody to wake up. there are young women poised onds having been fighting and poised to that i can that reign of leadership in a different capacity. i want to go back to the stories because it couldn't be me sitting in front of me in ta panel talking about birth control and making the impact
that sandra fluke did. it is the face of the future. it is the face of the next generation and the stories that have to been told about the impact on their lives now. not on the lives 40 years ago. their lives today and the importance of being vigilant. >> do you think the next year is going to be as successful for the anti-choice, anti-abortion side? i know you from montana. there's small libertarian in montana. do you see the republican side dividing? >> i think the american public is going to speak. i don't care if it's at the courthouse to the white house level. i think the american public shares the values of freedom and privacy. i think they have seen the assault on women this past year. they have said enough. that voice is going to be heard at the ballot box, i think, in november. whether it's the importance of having a pro-choice president in barack obama.
whether it's the importance of having leaders in the house in the senate that have stopped some of this insanity that came out having a governor like we do in montana who vetoed this obnoxious legislation. that's the importance of connecting the personal to the political. we have to vote our values. i have great faith in the next generation of millennials that they will connect the personal to the political. >> the president of pro choice america through the end of this year. a lot of people have been curious about your decision and it's nice to hear it from you. >> up next, a political convention in oklahoma and a fist fight broke out and maybe it was a fist fight and a convention broke out. it was kind of hard to tell. we have the videotape next.
>> the oklahoma republican party held a convention this weekend and it was kind of a street fight. >> we are told police had to get involved when a 70-year-old mitt romney supporter punched a ron paul supporter in the head after they disagreed. most was captured on cell phone video. >> this woman right here has physically assaulted me. >> the video you are watching is recorded by a woman who said she was just hit in the back. >> with a fist to my back, yes you most certainly did. >> a woman struck me with her fist in the middle of my spine and said it's your own damn fault. >> this was not the only notion in the oklahoma convention. this ron paul supporter said he was hit in the head by a 70-year-old mitt romney supporter.
>> everyone is here instead of wasting time and i did appreciate how great the police were. >> this is not how modern republicans expect them to go. they are supposed to be gibsons by the pool with onions. don't eat the garnish. not this year. witness oklahoma where they booed and screamed at the governor when she said at the convention that the single goal was to elect mitt romney as president. >> sounds like we have obama lovers here. >> this is oklahoma. the reddest state in the union in presidential politics. there no obama loves there. they are the only state in which barack obama lost every single county to john mccain. if the republican governor of this super republican state cannot stump for the party's presumed nominee without getting
loudly booed, the republican party is truly having trouble conducting the most basic business. this weekend it was supporters of texas congress men who were lodging complaints about the way the convention was being run until the lights went out. >> they're said there was a lot of disagreement throughout the day, but things came to a halt when the lights were turned off and they closed on one group. >> my heart was totally broken when the convention just was put into shambles. they were turning mikes off and turned the lights off and pulled the walls across to prevent delegates from voting. >> after the punches and the booing and the walls being closed. the results seemed irrelevant, but rick santorum got 14 and ron paul whose supporters made up half, the last non-mitt romney candidate still in the race got
no delegates in oklahoma. we watched this year's supporters made a big splash at 1 r convention after convention. in arizona this weekend, the ron paul crowd booed and yelled at mitt romney's son, josh. mr. romney won the primary by 20 points in february. he won the alaska caucus by three points in march, but in april at the state republican convention in alaska, the crowd cheered a senator who dared to say they should support romney. they dared at all and elected a ron paul supporter as alaska's new party chairman. mitt romney won the caucuses in nevada and more than doubled up ron paul, but ron paul supporters took 22 of the 25 delegates that were free for the taking. in maine, mitt romney won a bigger mess than the caucuses in nevada. at the main convention, ron paul supporters grabbed most of the delegates.
the main caucuses and maine voted for ron paul. today he suspended the part of his campaign that had to do with giving speeches in primary states and will focus on those conventions and winning more delegates and will travel to minnesota and is scheduled to speak in iowa and washington state. his supporters are hoping for the best at the idaho precinct races tomorrow. we don't know for sure what ron paul hopes his growing stash of delegates is going to get him at the national convention. none of the possibilities is nearly as intriguing as watching mitt romney trying to win the hearts of his party faithful. republicans are not by and large crashing the doors over mitt romney the way they are for ron paul. what happens to all that enthusiasm? what happens to all that feeling? now that ron paul is dialling
back on the crowds and the headlines is admitting he cannot win, will ron paul republicans keep up the fight? the campaign saying dr. paul is concerned by supporters shouting people down at the convention all over the country. it concerns him and he wants to convey to everybody and the staff that we will lose more than we gain if we go when we are disrespectful. respect and decor um are important to dr. paul. whether or not that stated concern mean that is the ron paul strategy at the conventions will start to dry up too or whether the party at the state level will continue to be as astonishing as oklahoma was because of the ron paul enthusiasm remains to be seen. what will happen to the last candidate standing? it's a fascinating question, but at this point it's beyond standard pundit capacity. only the candidate himself can answer it. ron paul?