"Face the Nation" transcript: March 4, 2012

GINGRICH: I think the reason Governor Romney can't convert all of his financial advantages, six years of campaigning, $40 million of personal donations, outspent of rest of us probably 10 to 1, he can't convert it into closing the deal because there's a breathtaking scale of dishonesty underlying the Romney campaign.

This is the perfect example. What he said was perfectly reasonable. Here's a guy who did a great job going to Washington. He is the consummate insider. He is the establishment candidate. He should thank the American people for saving the Winter Olympics, because it's their money he used to do it.

That's fine. But then he has the gall to turn to Rick Santorum and me for doing what he's so proud he did. And I think this is the kind of fundamental dishonesty that has just continued to come back and bite the Romney campaign.

Every time they ought to close the deal, the American people stop and say, wait a second, there's something fundamentally false about his premise.

The other example is this fight with the Catholic Church. Governor Romney insisted that Catholic hospitals give out abortion pills. It came out of the governor's office. And what he said in the last debate about it was just fundamentally false.

Eventually all of these falsehoods catch up with you. That video is a perfect example. And it's really sad. I mean, if he had just run as who he really is, he might well get the nomination, and he would have gotten it authentically as the person he is, not the person he's pretending to be.

SCHIEFFER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for being with us this morning. I hope you'll come back to see us again.

We'll be back in a minute where we'll go north to Alaska and talk to Ron Paul.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHIEFFER: 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?

PAUL: Well, you know, my measurement of winning is 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.

SCHIEFFER: Congressman, let me ask you this question, and I mean this as 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?

PAUL: Yes, I've answered this question a few times. And I don't know why there has to be an either or. As a 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've won 12 times in Congress, and got the people of that district to understand what true liberty is about and what a strict constitution does, and, you know, argue the case of sound money, and a different type of foreign policy. So by my winning those elections, it was 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 is 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.

SCHIEFFER: 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.

So I take it what you're trying to do here is strengthen libertarians rather you're your main objective being to win the nomination?

PAUL: 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 gaining power.

See, I see what's happening in Washington, the Republicans and Democrats, everything is 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 deficit. Nobody seems to care about personal liberties.