And we're back now with Congressman Ron Paul, who joins us from Fairbanks, Alaska, where it is the middle of the night. But there are 24 delegates up there for grabs on Tuesday. Congressman, thank you so much for joining us. Let me ask you this question. Where do you think that you can win on Tuesday night? Well, you know, my measurement of winning most of the majority of the delegates. And in that case, you know, we have about three states that we're still that we've already concluded that we may well win. And so next week here in Alaska, there's a very good chance we'll come out with a majority of the delegates in Idaho as well as North Dakota. Congressman, let me ask you this question. And I mean this is a serious question and I mean it with respect. Are you in this to the end? Do you really think you could actually win the nomination or is there a different purpose in your campaign and in your running? Yeah, I've answered this question a few times and I don't know why there has to be an either or. Matter of fact, if you're in a race to make a point or you know to promote a cause, the best way to do that is to win. So by the fact that I won 12 times in Congress and got the people that district to understand what true liberties are by and what a strict constitutional does and you know argue the case of sound money and a different type of foreign policy. So by my winning those election was very, very beneficial to promoting that cause. So it doesn't bother me. Do I believe I can win? Yes, do I believe the chances are slim? Yes, I do. But things happen in this world that we don't have total control of and we live in a world that's very much in flux, you know, internationally and monetarily that just might make the circumstances different. But I understand your question, but I think it should never be considered an either or issue. But I do take it from what you're just telling me this morning that your main purpose here is to make a point to underline why you think the libertarian point of view is the way to go. And I take it what you're trying to do here is strengthen libertarians rather than your main objective being to win the nomination. Well, no, I said something different. I said both are mutual. But I think what bothers so many people who seem to be in a quandary over this is that they run into so few people who are in it for something other than just a gaining power. See, I see what's happening in Washington, but Republican Democrats, everything has spent on gaining power because I don't see the difference in the foreign policy. Nothing changes, you know, with the oversea adventurism, nothing changes with the monetary policy, nothing changes with the deficits. Nobody seems to care about personal liberties. So when you run into somebody, it gets confusing. You say, well, he cares a whole lot about the issues. He could care about his power. Now I don't care about power, but I care about influence and the best way you can influence the nation and move a nation is by translating this into political action that is successful. So believe me, the people who come and support me are very, very determined to win. Were you a little bit surprised last week when Rick Santorum said he thought you were just in this because you were in Cajuj with Mitt Romney. And some have suggested that what you're trying to do here is create a situation where Romney might ask your son Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky to be his running mate. What did you make of that? Well, it sounds like he's trying to concoct his conspiracy. So I didn't know he was into the conspiracy business. Now I think that's all created, but I think the media is fed on that because they keep saying, you know, is there a deal? Is there a deal? Obviously not. He wouldn't do it. I wouldn't do it. And I think that's just, I think that's just saying to her, I'm trying to talk about something and he didn't have any issues to attack me on. So he had to go after me on something as silly as that. This whole thing that people down here in the lower 48 are talking about this morning, this fact that Russia Limbaugh apologized for calling the young woman from Georgetown who testified before Congress a prostitute because she testified in favor of government health care plans paying for birth control pills. He has apologized. Number one, what do you think about the fact that he apologized? And number two, does it kind of bother you when the campaign kind of wanders off into these social issues? Well, yeah, but I don't consider that strictly a social issue. I think he should have apologized. I had said he used very crude language and I think he gets over the top at time. But it's in his best interest. That's why he did it. He's very apologetic. He's doing it because some people were taking their advertisements off his program. It was his bottom line that was concerned about. Now I don't see this. I think when Santorum talks about birth control, he doesn't believe people should have birth control. He gets off into social issues. I, as an OB doctor, certainly endorse a whole idea of birth control. But this is something different. This is philosophically and politically important because does the government have a mandate to tell insurance what to give? So they're saying that insurance companies should give everybody free birth control pills. That strikes me as rather odd. What does that mean? That means that somebody who doesn't need birth control pills and they find that using birth control pills is an offense to them, they have to pay for the birth control pills to give somebody free birth control pills to be used. I don't see how anybody should accept that. I mean, when I first started biomedical insurance, you had a choice in whether you should have OB care or not. Why should somebody who's not going to have a baby be forced to pay for the OB care of a younger person? There's total destruction of the marketplace. This is mandate. This is a succession, you know, with Obama on mandating. Of course, the Republicans aren't a whole lot better on this either. But the market deals with these problems differently. There would never be a discussion like this. Who is going to be forced to pay for birth control pills? And since it's so closely related to abortion, it's the same principle. Why should we force people who are strongly right to life to pay money for, you know, for doing abortion and playing parenthood does that? And of course, it's ironic that Santorum actually funded playing parenthood and he pretends to be the champion of social values. That to be is rather bizarre and that's why I call him a fake conservative. All right. Well, Congressman, it's always good to talk to you and thanks again for getting up to early.