# Liberty Movement > Grassroots Central >  OFFICIAL : Meet The Press thread : Sunday Morning!!

## StateofTrance

Live Video Streaming ? - Couldn't find one yet. Sorry.





> As of April 2006, Meet the Press has been the number one Sunday-morning interview show for five years straight, beating CBS's Face the Nation, ABC's This Week, Fox News Sunday, and CNN's Late Edition.[4]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet_the_Press




> Full Video Archive of previous presidential candidates :
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21654394/





> Watch the latest "Meet the Press" in its entirety, free of charge, on-demand and online beginning at 1:00 pm, ET on Sunday afternoons at www.mtp.msnbc.com





> "Meet the Press" is seen on the NBC Television Network from 9-10 a.m. ET in most markets. In Washington D.C. and New York City, the broadcast is seen from 10:30-11:30 a.m. ET.

----------


## StateofTrance

Check your local NBC affialites' listing for MTP.

----------


## StateofTrance

The show is sponsored by Boeing. Although I don't want anybody to take this seriously, but Boeing would love to have Ron Paul as the next president because further good relations with "West-hating" countries would lead to open market for more defense equipments. Neo-cons are controlling these defense industries badly.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

I'm under the impression that Boeing would wind up with a huge net loss if we stop providing milatary equipment to countries all over the world and curb federal spending in general.  I have absolutely no figures to back that up.

----------


## Captain Shays

What time is the friggin show on?

----------


## Lois

*9:00 ET.*

(You don't have to swear)

----------


## Nihilist23

The airtime is different everywhere.  It's 10:30 EST where I live.

----------


## OferNave

> *9:00 ET.*
> 
> (You don't have to swear)


no, but he chooses to.  and not really, since he said 'friggin'.

----------


## conner_condor

This in the AM? I usually sleep in on sundays but up early today.

----------


## conner_condor

How did I not see the am post?

----------


## Seth M.

Here in Houston its airing on channel 2 KPRC and will be on at 9:00am  that is cst 

I have dish network and it shows it will be on again: channel 209 MSNBC at 5:00pm

----------


## Falseflagop

here in NYC at 10:30 am that sucks!

----------


## Lois

*Hey, am I the only one watchng this right now?  Or is there another thread to critique it? *

----------


## scottincr

Florida 10:00 am

----------


## Lois

*"So if Iran invaded Israel, what would we do?"  It's all about Israel and Iran now.  Israel love fest right now.*

----------


## orion846

it's on at 10:30am for me in NJ

----------


## Falseflagop

I sure hope he mentions ISRAEL has 300 nukes and can defend herself!

----------


## Lois

*"So Israel want's us to bomb Iran"

"So would you give up all foreign aid to Israel"

All the world is Israel.*

----------


## Falseflagop

SO TIM isowned by AIPAC too?

----------


## Lois

*Yes, he definitely said that and said how Iran can't attack anybody and saying Iran can bomb Israrel is  like saying Iran can bomb Mars.  

He's doing great. *

----------


## Ozwest

Thanks for the blow by blow guys.

----------


## Lois

*"So you think the problem is the United States, not Al Queda?"

Really attacking him.

"Do you think....Islamofascists want to take over the world?"
*

----------


## BLS

WTF?  It's on in your area already??

----------


## Lois

*Now they're quoting Eric Dondero -- sheesh*

----------


## hazek

Great! The more they try to paint him as this bad big crazy monster of a candidate the more he shines with logic and common sense.

I can't wait to see this.

----------


## mrchubbs

Dondero???  Is that the best they can do?  Jeez.

----------


## Bowie

> Yes, he definitely said that and said how Iran can't attack anybody and *saying Iran can bomb Israrel is  like saying Iran can bomb Mars*.  
> 
> He's doing great.


A nice pithy retort, but I'm not sure that was the best analogy -- I mean, Iran could attack Israel, but Israel would retaliate... whereas Mars can neither be attacked nor retaliate.  Or did I miss something clever?

----------


## Lois

*Yes, I'm in Charlottesville, and it's on now.   Ron Paul's doing great, and they're really throwing it at him, I think. 

Ron Paul's on the defensive*.

----------


## TheEvilDetector

Tim is tough on everybody, you guys remember the grilling he gave to Julie Crossdressiani?

This is normal for Tim and Ron has a lot of experience dealing with difficult questions.

----------


## Pharoah

Does the Israel lobby own EVERYBODY?

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> A nice pithy retort, but I'm not sure that was the best analogy -- I mean, Iran could attack Israel, but Israel would retaliate... whereas Mars can neither be attacked nor retaliate.  Or did I miss something clever?


I think he meant to imply that it is futile.

----------


## Lois

*Talking about what he wants to abolish -- talking about Social Security right now.*

----------


## Lois

*Talkng about how his district is getting Federal funds and earmarks, but how Ron Paul criticized Katrina aid.*

----------


## Lois

Ron is getting a bit tense.

----------


## hazek

Tell us how he's defending him self?

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> Ron is getting a bit tense.


This is going to be tough for Ron, Tim is mild but deadly.

----------


## rancher89

updates??? this is killing me, not on here until 11:00 am

----------


## Lois

*But he's smiling - they're interrupting each other.  

Talking about term limits now.

Ron Paul said he supports term limits. 

Now asking about immigration.*

----------


## Dary

Like always, Ron's brain is going faster than his mouth.

----------


## mrchubbs

Lois,

What is your opinion of Ron Paul's responses to these attacks???

----------


## USCLaw2010

Russert is raking him over the coals.

----------


## Lois

*"You want to amend the Constritution to say that children born here can't become citizens"

Talking about legalizing drugs now.
*

----------


## hazek

Yea tell us, how is he doing in your opinion?

----------


## krott5333

well, hows it going?

----------


## Bowie

> Like always, Ron's brain is going faster than his mouth.


It's objectively a good sign for a politician, but unfortunately it doesn't come off well for the uneducated; he really ought to hire a Charisma Advisor when he wins the nomination.

----------


## Ozwest

> well, hows it going?


+1

----------


## mrchubbs

I need to know if this is something that I should let my "on the fence" in-laws watch.

----------


## Lois

*Talking about Ron Paul criticiziing the Civil Rights Act.

*

----------


## Lois

*He's doing great, defending himself, very articulate, regained his composure, he's on a roll.

Talking about Ron criticizing Abe Lincoln and Civil War.  
Wow.  This is great.

"Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world"  "Come on, Tim"...*

----------


## quickmike

OMG!!!!!!

Ron just called Tim a SMARMY PUNK!!!!!!


jk

----------


## Lois

*Showing Slim Jims with Ronald Regan and saying that Paul now is criticizing Ron Regan and saying that Ron says Ronald Regan is a failure.  Wow.*

----------


## RJB

So far I don't think any politician came out looking good after getting interviewed by Russert.   Huckabee wouldn't even go on... 

I don't get to see it for another 30 minutes but I can't see Ron Paul doing worse than flip flop Romney or giggling Giuliani.

----------


## Bowie

> *Talking about Ron Paul criticiziing the Civil Rights Act.
> 
> *


Russert seems to be covering a LOT of ground pretty swiftly! (So he's clearly done his homework.) Is it Ron Paul's succinct and logical answers that are moving the questions forward, or is Russert ruthlessly trying to overwhelm him and not giving him enough time to formulate decent responses?

----------


## bclemms

He is handling himself well but this is not an interview that is going to win anyone over. Tim is doing everything he can to try and make him look bad.

----------


## JoshLowry

> I need to know if this is something that I should let my "on the fence" in-laws watch.


qft, thanks for the play by play

----------


## Cyclone177

Russert is tough.  Anyone watch him disembowel Giuliani?  Hopefully Ron won't be letting out any uncomfortable school girl laughs before he answers.  

If they are going back to Abe Lincoln's era to get tough with Ron, this should be rwnage to the max.

----------


## Lois

*"Why are you using his picture in your brochure?"

Saying that Ron said "Bush is a bumb" and telling how he criticizes Bush, etc.  "Bush is a bumb"

This is too much.*

----------


## quickmike

> He is handling himself well but this is not an interview that is going to win anyone over. Tim is doing everything he can to try and make him look bad.


Of course he is. He does that to every candidate. Why would Ron be any different?
Everyone needs to relax and realize that Tim isnt going to softball questions to anyone.

----------


## hazek

Lois, omg please don't just say what they talk about, but how Ron is doing as well!!

----------


## GoRon2008

youtube?!?

----------


## hypnagogue

> youtube?!?


 It'd be wonderful if we could youtube while something happened. Maybe someday!

----------


## Lois

*He's wearing Ron down a bit.

Will you run as an independent in 2008?  Absolute promise? 

No, he won't promise.  "99.9999%.  I don't like absolutist terms in politics."

"Have you asked the other candidates that?  Ask them, too"

Asking about Mike Huckabee Cross commercial now.

Showing Ron being asked about the commercial and saying how "when Fascism comes, it will be wrapped in a cross, etc..."*

----------


## Ozwest

> Lois, omg please don't just say what they talk about, but how Ron is doing as well!!


+1

----------


## kevinblack

The tougher the questions the better. At least now Ron has a chance to defend himself.

Any of the issues posted so far in this forum could have been really bad if they appeared out of thin air the day before the election.

----------


## Lois

*"This was not personal..." (commercial of Huckabee) 

"Do you think we're close to Fascism?"

"I think we're very close, we're moving in that direction"*

----------


## Lois

*To be continued, next Sunday Huckabee and Obama on Meet the Press next Sunday.*

----------


## krott5333

its over?

----------


## tyler477

ha!
"ask the other candidates that too!"
way to stick it to him Paul!

----------


## pacelli

He got 30 minutes?  WTF ?

----------


## PINN4CL3

> He is handling himself well but this is not an interview that is going to win anyone over. Tim is doing everything he can to try and make him look bad.



Oh I disagree. This is the best interview of any of the candidates that I've seen, and I've been watching meet the press for years. I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone go after Tim on the quotes like Ron has. He was absolutely fearless, and answered every question.

He also came up with a huge highlight reel speech earlier, talking about how "we don't need the patriot act, we don't need surveillance...etc." I think that resonated with alot of people. 

I am incredibly impressed.

----------


## azminuteman

30 minutes for the Dr.  Now to break him down by the pundits.

Tim didn't give him enough time to respond to the earmarks either.

----------


## Rex

All Tim did was quote Newspaper articles like they were truth....

Terrible interview IMO

----------


## Forefall

Ron Paul was awesome.

----------


## Ozwest

That's all the time he got?

----------


## tyler477

hey guys! put it on youtuuuuuube!

----------


## sluggo

Ron Paul handled himself very well. I feel better about this interview than I did about Beck's.

----------


## RPatTheBeach

> qft, thanks for the play by play


If the in-laws are thinkers, it won't hurt.

If they are susceptible to sensationalism, steer clear!

----------


## Cyclone177

> Oh I disagree. This is the best interview of any of the candidates that I've seen, and I've been watching meet the press for years. I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone go after Tim on the quotes like Ron has. He was absolutely fearless, and answered every question.
> 
> He also came up with a huge highlight reel speech earlier, talking about how "we don't need the patriot act, we don't need surveillance...etc." I think that resonated with alot of people. 
> 
> I am incredibly impressed.



Yes!!  This is the perfect way to start my Sunday.  MTP is just right for Ron.

----------


## Trassin

> That's all the time he got?


Yeah but sounds like Huck and Obama will only get a 1/2 hour each next week too.

----------


## Lois

*Sorry, but it was hard to type and listen and watch at the same time.

It's on a commercial now.  Ron Paul did great, except for he was a bit thrown for a loop at the beginning when Russert started in straight away attacking him -- wow.

You're gonna love this.  I did.  

Anyway, like I said, he quickly regained his composure and started to defend himself very well and kept in lock step answering each accusation greatly.*

----------


## RPatTheBeach

Quote of the interview

"How many other candidates have you asked this question to? Have you asked John McCain if HE'S going to run as independent?"

----------


## Eponym_mi

UGH...very high winds today and my cable has been out.  Its a conspiracy!!

----------


## tyler477

> Oh I disagree. This is the best interview of any of the candidates that I've seen, and I've been watching meet the press for years. I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone go after Tim on the quotes like Ron has. He was absolutely fearless, and answered every question.
> 
> He also came up with a huge highlight reel speech earlier, talking about how "we don't need the patriot act, we don't need surveillance...etc." I think that resonated with alot of people. 
> 
> I am incredibly impressed.


sounds to me like a good interview...... this from the guy that asked bush and kerry about skull n bones!

----------


## Ozwest

> Oh I disagree. This is the best interview of any of the candidates that I've seen, and I've been watching meet the press for years. I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone go after Tim on the quotes like Ron has. He was absolutely fearless, and answered every question.
> 
> He also came up with a huge highlight reel speech earlier, talking about how "we don't need the patriot act, we don't need surveillance...etc." I think that resonated with alot of people. 
> 
> I am incredibly impressed.


Relief!!!

Thank you.

----------


## Lois

Russert said they're going to discuss the various candidates commercials when they come back.

----------


## ne1buthilary

only caught the second half but RP did excellent!!!  my family was sitting around watching it and they all agreed

----------


## JMO

I felt Ron Paul did very well. I don't think Tim understood what Ron Paul was saying about earmarks and then Tim cut him off without letting him finish.

----------


## shadow26

> Yes!!  This is the perfect way to start my Sunday.  MTP is just right for Ron.


Now they'll spend half an hour ripping him apart without Paul in place to defend himself...

----------


## Cyclone177

You want to watch something Ugly and uncomforatble?  Wath next week when Huckster meets his maker.  THOSE are going to be some tough tough questions.

----------


## tyler477

> Quote of the interview
> 
> "How many other candidates have you asked this question to? Have you asked John McCain if HE'S going to run as independent?"


HAHAHAH!!! this is so freakin' CLASSIC 
WAY 2 GO PAUL!!!

----------


## Jimmy

He did EVERYTHING he could tto make Ron Paul look bad.....every question was a hard ball.....Ron handled it all pretty well....I'll say this, if the other candiates would have been drilled like that they would have been up under the table....but Ron answered everything pretty well. Nothing that would win sheep over but I thought it was pretty good overall.

----------


## kimosabi

Live Feed ==> http://www.justin.tv/ronpaulcolorado

----------


## evadmurd

> I felt Ron Paul did very well. I don't think Tim understood what Ron Paul was saying about earmarks and then Tim cut him off without letting him finish.


Oh, I'm sure he understood.  Russert is an expert at realizing what is getting traction and what is not.  Sounds like that may be why they are moving so quickly through the topics.  I can't wait to see it.

----------


## Lois

*Yes, it was a great interview.

Showing all the numbers of the various polls now.

New Hampshure - 10% Huckabee, Ron - 8%

"No Frontrunner" says the red headed guy.*

----------


## bclemms

> Oh I disagree. This is the best interview of any of the candidates that I've seen, and I've been watching meet the press for years. I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone go after Tim on the quotes like Ron has. He was absolutely fearless, and answered every question.
> 
> He also came up with a huge highlight reel speech earlier, talking about how "we don't need the patriot act, we don't need surveillance...etc." I think that resonated with alot of people. 
> 
> I am incredibly impressed.



I don't watch Meet the Press so you may be right. However, he had Dr. Paul on the ropes several times. He got him to say he was misquoted several times. He had Paul say Reagan was a complete failure then Tim asked Paul why he tries to associate himself with Reagan if he was a complete failure.

I'm not saying Dr. Paul will lose votes over this but I don't see him gaining any ground. 

I may have just higher expectations after watching the Politics and Eggs meeting the other day where Paul was the best I have seen him.

It was a very tough interview and Paul handled it well I just think he hit a sacrifice fly instead of the home run I am used to seeing.

----------


## JMO

I felt the quote of the interview was when Tim Russert pressed him on "whether we would defend Israel if Iran attacked them". In Paul response he said that it isn't going to happen, that's like saying what if Iran attacks Mars.

----------


## USCLaw2010

The staff should have done a better job in prepping Ron for Russert's attacks. Obviously you can't prepare for everything, but you knew some of that stuff was gonna be used. Ron did good, but it woulda been better to refute the attacks with concrete facts.

----------


## krott5333

> You want to watch something Ugly and uncomforatble?  Wath next week when Huckster meets his maker.  THOSE are going to be some tough tough questions.


Huckabee has so much dirt on him that if Russert actually does his homework, Huckabee is DONE

----------


## MindStalker

30 Minutes was what was given to the other canidates as well.  Calm down

Watch the other interviews at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

----------


## familydog

I wouldn't suggest showing this interview to people in order to get them to know Paul's position on issues. This is more of showing it to someone incase they think Paul is inconssistent on some issues. This is good to show to refute those inconsistancies. I'm not suprised by the interview. This is the way Russert does all of his segments so it's not just some anti-Ron Paul thing. I can't say that it hurt him, and it might have helped him to get some things aired out. Overall, good job.

----------


## Lois

*They're criticizing Romney now -- said Romney will say anything to get the nomination...


Showing Democrat polls*

----------


## Xanax Nation

Frustrating that Tim wouldn't let Ron get some of his points across...

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> Huckabee has so much dirt on him that if Russert actually does his homework, Huckabee is DONE


Huckabee will self-destruct.

----------


## rightcoast

This is not an interview to let "on the fence" relatives watch. I watch MTP on occasion, and you never, ever send anyone to a Russert interview if you want them to have a good impression of your guy.

Paul handled himself fairly, but I don't think he had the benefit of knowing some of those quotes were from 88, though some he did know that.

He should have hammered the Dondero point home more. Fired. I fired him because he was a bad employee, and he is now very bitter.

He should have stuck to Reagan more. Something like "People need to understand, when you are mad at a friend you will be more direct than with people you don't agree with or know. I was very mad at Ron and it showed." then went on to explain why he said those things.

A fair interview. I think before anyone gets to bent out of shape ... wait until you see what this guy does to Huckabee. Huckabee is toast.

----------


## Mike S.

I guess it is what I expected.  Russert digging up stuff and confronting.  But that is what he does with all the candidates.

----------


## literatim

The kinda people that watch Meet the Press are the kind that are used to this maliciousness of Russert. I believe he gained ground. It showed Ron Paul's mental agility in answering unexpected questions.

----------


## webber53

I think in light of our candidates age, the schedule that he has
maintained and the endless onslaught of negative mainstream
media, I just witnessed our champion just slay another dragon!
This man never ceases to amaze me. Everyone please keep 
Ron Paul in your prayers. We would also do well in sending 
Dr. Paul a note telling him how proud we are of him!

----------


## ifthenwouldi

> The staff should have done a better job in prepping Ron for Russert's attacks. Obviously you can't prepare for everything, but you knew some of that stuff was gonna be used. Ron did good, but it woulda been better to refute the attacks with concrete facts.


You don't have to prepare Ron Paul because he actually believes in his answers.  

This was an "okay" interview for Paul, and I think it made Russert look worse.  If I were running for president, I would refuse to answer a four-word quote (not even a complete sentence, much less a paragraph) from over a decade ago.  That's not journalism.

Ron took a hit on the "earmark" question because he didn't articulate his stand on that as well as he should have.  Not sure I agree with him there, either.

----------


## Dieseler

Anyone have a youtube link?

----------


## kevinblack

I am listening to the live feed now, it seems to be going AWESOME by Meet the Press standards!

----------


## Alabama Supporter

I'll bet the quotes about facism/corporatism won't make the headlines.  He hit the medical, miliary, communications, and government industrial complex square on the head this morning with a great couple of sentences.

----------


## IHaveaDream

Dr. Paul has the right idea, but he simply does not convey "leadership" quality. He was not as prepared for Russert's questions as he should have been. For instance, when asked how many troops he would bring home, or how much the total income tax revenue is, RP didn't know...but Russert did.

In the post-interview discussions, the pundits haven't even mentioned RP's name so far. As far as they're concerned, he's a joke.

Dr. Paul has the right message, and I respect his integrity, but they will eat him alive if he doesn't improve his ability to communicate his thoughts and ideas.

----------


## werdd

Youtubbeeee

----------


## PINN4CL3

> The kinda people that watch Meet the Press are the kind that are used to this maliciousness of Russert. I believe he gained ground. It showed Ron Paul's mental agility in answering unexpected questions.


I agree, I'm not sure what people are expecting. Tim is a tough interviewer. People that are watching are watching how Paul recovers, and continues to get his points across.


He did very well at that. I've literally seen candidates self-destruct on that show - just this year alone Giuliani, Romney, and Richardson. Paul had reasons behind all of his choices, and showed that he actually had a platform worth running on. 


That's what people who watch MTP are going to take away from this.

----------


## literatim

This is great because I am sure those neocons were salivating over what Russert would dig up. They've got no dirt on the good doctor, but what they fabricate in your own collective mind.

----------


## familydog

> The kinda people that watch Meet the Press are the kind that are used to this maliciousness of Russert. I believe he gained ground. It showed Ron Paul's mental agility in answering unexpected questions.


Yes, it made Paul look like he can handle these tough questions. I've seen Russert completely melt down other candidates (i.e. Santorum last year for Senate) when Russert asked if you believe life begins at conception and abortion is the murder of a human being why don't you arrest the pregnant women who have them and charge them with murder. It's art, really it is.

----------


## JMO

Two questions I was surprised he did not ask were about the racist quotes that showed up 17 years ago in Texas Straight Talk, and the $500 donated by Don Black.

----------


## Lois

*Oh, sh** -  the guys are saying Huckabee's commercial was the first and the best.*

----------


## Ozwest

> Live Feed ==> http://www.justin.tv/ronpaulcolorado


Thanks for that kimosabi.

He sounded pretty good to me. Spirited.

----------


## Alabama Supporter

If you are interested MTP does have a video and audio podcast they will release today or tomorrow maybe.

----------


## kevinblack

> For instance, when asked how many troops he would bring home, or how much the total income tax revenue is, RP didn't know...but Russert did.
> .


I worry about this too, the numbers are so good that it is surprising that he does not whip them out whenever he can.

1999 Budget 1800 billion
2006 budget 2700 billion
________________________
difference:  900 billion

2006 Income Tax 900billion

If all we do is roll back budgets to 1999 levels we can cut income tax.

----------


## kimosabi

> Thanks for that kimosabi.
> 
> He sounded pretty good to me. Spirited.


No Problemo...

----------


## garrettwombat

its coming on for me in 10 minutes at 10am... i didnt want to read the thread for spoil alert reasons. but is it a good interview? i dont want to watch it if its a ron paul smear parade.

----------


## JMO

> Dr. Paul has the right idea, but he simply does not convey "leadership" quality. He was not as prepared for Russert's questions as he should have been. For instance, when asked how many troops he would bring home, or how much the total income tax revenue is, RP didn't know...but Russert did.
> 
> In the post-interview discussions, the pundits haven't even mentioned RP's name so far. As far as they're concerned, he's a joke.
> 
> Dr. Paul has the right message, and I respect his integrity, but they will eat him alive if he doesn't improve his ability to communicate his thoughts and ideas.


It is always easy to know the answer if you know exactly what you are going to ask
and research it. I doubt many if any candidates know the answer to that question. You will never know the answer to every question.The only remark I can ever fault Ron Paul for not knowing was when he didn't know who Johnny Sutton was, and that wouldn't be a big deal if he was the congressmen for New York, but the Sutton situation was in Texas.

----------


## JMO

> its coming on for me in 10 minutes at 10am... i didnt want to read the thread for spoil alert reasons. but is it a good interview? i dont want to watch it if its a ron paul smear parade.


I enjoyed it and I think Ron Paul did well, better than Romney and Rudy G.

----------


## i2ambler

> Dr. Paul has the right idea, but he simply does not convey "leadership" quality. He was not as prepared for Russert's questions as he should have been. For instance, when asked how many troops he would bring home, or how much the total income tax revenue is, RP didn't know...but Russert did.
> 
> In the post-interview discussions, the pundits haven't even mentioned RP's name so far. As far as they're concerned, he's a joke.
> 
> Dr. Paul has the right message, and I respect his integrity, but they will eat him alive if he doesn't improve his ability to communicate his thoughts and ideas.



Yes, Im unsure why RP would not know how many troops are overseas, or how much our income tax revenue is, especially when that is a big part of his platform. Hell, I knew how many troops were overseas, and Im not running for president.  He has great ideas, he just needs to solidify this stuff.  This interview was not impressive, for me.  if I wanted to bring the troops home, and cut the IRS - i would know some facts.  He REALLY should have known those numbers. I think he is a bit too abstract in his thinking - its ok on one side, but he needs FACTS to back up this abstract stuff.

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> Dr. Paul has the right idea, but he simply does not convey "leadership" quality. He was not as prepared for Russert's questions as he should have been. For instance, when asked how many troops he would bring home, or how much the total income tax revenue is, RP didn't know...but Russert did.
> 
> In the post-interview discussions, the pundits haven't even mentioned RP's name so far. As far as they're concerned, he's a joke.
> 
> Dr. Paul has the right message, and I respect his integrity, but they will eat him alive if he doesn't improve his ability to communicate his thoughts and ideas.


I think your post touches upon a fundamental point. 

In the beginning Paul's main concern was to simply provide the message, which is essentially a philosophical shift in governance.

Having established traction and gained a healthy measure of support, he ought to now move into phase 2 where he starts to grapple with some specifics applicable to his policies.

I do not blame him for lacking certain specifics during the interview because you have to remember, all this time his main concern was to provide the philosophical fundamentals.

You are right, he now ought to bring some specifics to the discourse (although not too much, since this can also work against you) to help solidify his stances.

General Budget numbers, troop numbers, federal department staffing numbers and other things of similar nature would help his argument.

----------


## CAT5 Cane

It was a vintage hard-hitting interview by Tim Russert.  He must have had his researchers working overtime to dig up dirt on Ron.  Sickening, but not surprising.  Ron is now being treated as a threat by the corporate establishment and their media mouthpieces.

Paul handled himself well under Russert's bright-light interrogation.  They did not pull out his fingernails on camera.

CAT5 Cane

----------


## Rob

> It'd be wonderful if we could youtube while something happened. Maybe someday!


Oh great we've got another toaster on these forums. This one looks like it's of the old-school variety though. If there's anything these forums have taught me, it's that Cylons are surprisingly individualistic. Maybe that's good news for Adama & co; I'll make sure I send the Admiral the memo.

----------


## wfd40

I think this interview will show us what the heck HQ has been up to (or not been up to) for the past week or so...

(I swear to god, if they did not prepare the good dr. well enough, I will go awall)

----------


## USCLaw2010

> You don't have to prepare Ron Paul because he actually believes in his answers.  
> 
> This was an "okay" interview for Paul, and I think it made Russert look worse.  If I were running for president, I would refuse to answer a four-word quote (not even a complete sentence, much less a paragraph) from over a decade ago.  That's not journalism.
> 
> Ron took a hit on the "earmark" question because he didn't articulate his stand on that as well as he should have.  Not sure I agree with him there, either.


What I mean by prepping is by working with the candidate to make sure he has accurate information at his fingertips to refute attacks. Nobody can remember every quote and stat thrown at them. The reason you get a staff is so they can give that stuff to you.

----------


## kimosabi

> It was a vintage hard-hitting interview by Tim Russert. He must have had his researchers working overtime to dig up dirt on Ron. Sickening, but not surprising. Ron is now being treated as a threat by the corporate establishment and their media mouthpieces.
> 
> Paul handled himself well under Russert's bright-light interrogation. They did not pull out his fingernails on camera.
> 
> CAT5 Cane


It was great how Ron Paul associated Corporatism with Fascism at the end.

I love it when the F Bomb is Dropped...

----------


## FrankRep

> It was great how Ron Paul associated Corporatism with Fascism at the end.
> 
> I love it when the F Bomb is Dropped...


Who dropped it?

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> Oh great we've got another toaster on these forums. This one looks like it's of the old-school variety though. If there's anything these forums have taught me, it's that Cylons are surprisingly individualistic. Maybe that's good news for Adama & co; I'll make sure I send the Admiral the memo.


I am sorry, but can you please translate your post for me?

----------


## kimosabi

> Who dropped it?


Fascism Bomb, not the other F Bomb...

----------


## MsDoodahs

Watching it now.

----------


## PINN4CL3

Oh man, some guy is shouting out Ron on the Chris Matthews show!


Chris has a segment on "best move" of 2007. Ron Paul was not given as a choice, but the last guy went out on his own, and said Ron anyway!

Props to that guy, whoever he is.

----------


## hypnagogue

> I am sorry, but can you please translate your post for me?


 It's nerd speak

----------


## azminuteman

> 30 Minutes was what was given to the other canidates as well.  Calm down
> 
> Watch the other interviews at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/


I watched the Guiliani one and he had about 50 minutes

----------


## ValidusCustodiae

Go Dr. Paul!  He is so polite, he knows just how to get his point across without being rude.  Some of Dr. Paul's responses this morning were obviously more than Russert could comprehend.  Hell, Russert was assuming lonely newspaper quotes were 100% factual.  

While I agree this interview probably didn't win many people over (especially anti-pauls) I'm sure it exposed him to a lot of people who were previously unaware of him.  We'll get a little more support thanks to this one.

I, too, am surprised that white supremacy or abortion didn't come up.

----------


## FrankRep

> Go Dr. Paul!  He is so polite, he knows just how to get his point across without being rude.  Some of Dr. Paul's responses this morning were obviously more than Russert could comprehend.  Hell, Russert was assuming lonely newspaper quotes were 100% factual.  
> 
> While I agree this interview probably didn't win many people over (especially anti-pauls) I'm sure it exposed him to a lot of people who were previously unaware of him.  We'll get a little more support thanks to this one.
> 
> I, too, am surprised that white supremacy or abortion didn't come up.


Ron Paul's secret weapon is his humbleness.

----------


## ValidusCustodiae

> Oh man, some guy is shouting out Ron on the Chris Matthews show!
> 
> 
> Chris has a segment on "best move" of 2007. Ron Paul was not given as a choice, but the last guy went out on his own, and said Ron anyway!
> 
> Props to that guy, whoever he is.


Youtoob, er it didnae happ'n laddie!

----------


## Libertarian

Youtube?  pleeeeeeeeeeze!

----------


## bighairycaveman

That interview was sooooo intense... my armpits were sweating and I couldn't stop shaking.  But, as always...Ron Paul pulled through and made Russet look like an idiot. (especially about amending the constitution)

----------


## Ozwest

> I watched the Guiliani one and he had about 50 minutes


And he got "carved up" in that 50 minutes.

----------


## MsDoodahs

I think Ron is doing fine, they are now on the Israel question.

----------


## hocaltar

*youtube???????????????????????????????????????????  ?????*

----------


## ValidusCustodiae

By the way, Russert did mention Ron Paul's Christmas ad with all the singing grandkids.

Someone should politely inform them, though, that Mike Huckabee's Christmas ad wasn't the first one.

----------


## ValidusCustodiae

> That interview was sooooo intense... my armpits were sweating and I couldn't stop shaking.  But, as always...Ron Paul pulled through and made Russet look like an idiot. (especially about amending the constitution)


Yes, that was classic.  "You're a strict Constitutionalist, but you'd amend the Constitution?"  "Well yes, amending the Constitution is Constitutional!" (((DUh Tim  Get with the program!)))

----------


## MsDoodahs

This is really good so far IMO.

I may be too familiar with the ideas, but honestly, Ron is speaking TRUTH and that RINGS inside humans.

----------


## ValidusCustodiae

Looks like Central is getting to watch now.

----------


## kylejack

I can't believe Dondero got quoted.

----------


## Rex

Already came on Central.

----------


## runderwo

> Yes, Im unsure why RP would not know how many troops are overseas, or how much our income tax revenue is, especially when that is a big part of his platform. Hell, I knew how many troops were overseas, and Im not running for president.  He has great ideas, he just needs to solidify this stuff.  This interview was not impressive, for me.  if I wanted to bring the troops home, and cut the IRS - i would know some facts.  He REALLY should have known those numbers. I think he is a bit too abstract in his thinking - its ok on one side, but he needs FACTS to back up this abstract stuff.


On the other hand, if he quotes a figure, the media will find some other equally plausible figure and use it to "show" that he doesn't know his numbers...

----------


## MsDoodahs

Ron is BRILLIANT.

I swear to God that man is BRILLIANT.

----------


## krott5333

im watching it now, it started at 10..  

so far, Ron Paul is on FIRE! woooohooooo

----------


## llepard

This is killing me.  

It doesn't start here for another 10 minutes.

Dondero, ugh, they are out to smear him.

Overall, someone summarize.

Is this good for RP or bad.  One to ten scale how did RP do?

----------


## stefans

is anyone youtubing it?

----------


## Rob

> It's nerd speak


I intentionally made that as esoteric as possible, looks like I did a good job. 
It was interesting seeing the old school ones on Razor, wasn't it? Or are you not a fan of the new series?

----------


## parocks

> Two questions I was surprised he did not ask were about the racist quotes that showed up 17 years ago in Texas Straight Talk, and the $500 donated by Don Black.


They're gonna need that for later.  It ain't too bad though.

----------


## jeff_from_VA

I saw a lot of people say Ron did great. I thought he had his ass handed to him.  I watched it in horror. It was the worst Ron Paul interview I have seen to date.  I have not watched Tim before, so don't know if that is par for the course, but he seemed brutal.

----------


## AMack

James Ostrowski from LRC seems to think that Ron did fantastic. In his words, an A+++

----------


## hypnagogue

I haven't had cable in years, so I haven't seen much of the new series. I hear good things mostly.

----------


## MsDoodahs

Now they're doing earmarks.

----------


## RPFTW!

So how did Ron do and how did the interview go on a scale of 1-10?

----------


## DealzOnWheelz

youtube anyone?

----------


## LibertyRevolution

Yeah this interview is very pushy. and they are trying to rape him. pointing out his earmarks

----------


## LinearChaos

I shook my head when I saw a quote from Dondero, lol.  What a joke that guy is.

Dr. Paul did fine.  It was a tough interview.  

I really liked when Russert pressed him about the independent run, and the last thing Paul got out was, "Why don't you ask John McCain that question when he comes on."  That was awesome because there are whispers of McCain/Leiberman trying something like that.

----------


## MsDoodahs

Ron defended the earmark issue perfectly.

----------


## LinearChaos

I would score it 8/10, and not because of Dr. Paul, because of the questions russert asked.

----------


## stevedasbach

> Oh man, some guy is shouting out Ron on the Chris Matthews show!
> 
> 
> Chris has a segment on "best move" of 2007. Ron Paul was not given as a choice, but the last guy went out on his own, and said Ron anyway!
> 
> Props to that guy, whoever he is.


Andrew Sullivan. He endorsed Ron for the Republican nomination.

----------


## ValidusCustodiae

He knocked the curve balls out of the park and left Tim scurrying to throw the next ones.  Tim tried to make him look incompetent, but while Ron Paul may be getting on in years he is far from ready for the pasture.  Unless it's the White House lawn, that is.

----------


## rooteroa

No, he made Ron Paul look pretty bad. My parents who are undecided think it's going bad so far. We're just biased.

----------


## jeff_from_VA

> Ron defended the earmark issue perfectly.


What? He got owned on the earmark issue.

----------


## Trassin

> So how did Ron do and how did the interview go on a scale of 1-10?


I don't think you are going to be able to find any two people who will give you the same score.  It is by far RP's most "forceful" interview but at the same time Tim is a professional and very very good at his job.  RP takes a lot of hits from things he is quoted as saying during the '88 campaign.

One plus is that he gets plenty of time to explain why he takes the positions he does.

----------


## LinearChaos

Yes, by the end of the Interview Russert looked wierd.

----------


## Bossobass

> Hell, I knew how many troops were overseas, and Im not running for president.


Since Blackwater's mercenaries, the CIA and other civilian subcontractors are not included in any estimates of the total US occupation force, no, you don't know the numbers. You're probably off by 6 figures.

Black ops money, oil companies' involvement, details of the 14 permanent bases, the total number of the American presence, troops from other countries that are there at the behest of the US, etc., etc., are not common knowledge. When RP says we should come home, he means we should come home. As commander-in-chief he would deal with the withdrawal in detail with the joint chiefs and the various intelligence agencies involved to make that happen.

His knowing the exact numbers or the exact withdrawal plans for Tim Russert's (or anyone else's) gratification is irrelevant, and not an appropriate question, IMHO.

The same goes for the elimination of the IRS. Since the military's massive budget is intertwined with many agencies and includes trillions of 'lost' dollars, it would be lunacy to describe the exact timetables for such an historic achievement.

It suffices to say that the plan would be to drastically cut military and other Empire expenditures (which a President can move unilaterally to do) before turning to domestic spending cuts which can only be achieved by consensus and working with Congress.

Do you really think Russert would have allowed the proper time to discuss these issues?

Bosso

----------


## whutaboutbob

Mixed feelings really, Russert had his facts in front of him.. Ron did not?

----------


## Rob

> I haven't had cable in years, so I haven't seen much of the new series. I hear good things mostly.


Did you know the last 2-hour special was all about the old Cylons?

----------


## Trassin

> What? He got owned on the earmark issue.


I think he did a good job considering there isn't really a good way to handle that.  

He laughed about it and basically said that he is just trying to get his constituents money back for them.

----------


## ValidusCustodiae

> What? He got owned on the earmark issue.


How did he get owned?  If anything, he defended his position perfectly.  Tim didn't really give him a chance to explain himself, but he got it in anyway.

----------


## rooteroa

Is Russert stupid? He implies amending the constitution is unconstitutional?

----------


## merrimac

I haven't seen it yet (can't wait) but if there's anyone who has seen and wishes he had done better, watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35s17704Qsw

It will make you feel better.

----------


## i2ambler

> What? He got owned on the earmark issue.


I dont know, I thought Ron got his ass kicked on that one too, but my girlfriend isnt political and said his answer made sense.. use the earmark like a tax credit and try and give back to his constituents.

----------


## krott5333

> So how did Ron do and how did the interview go on a scale of 1-10?



so far?  7

----------


## wfd40

anyone else notice the color totally return to Paul's face???

He was waaaaay off in the early 5-10 minutes... but then, THE COLOR Returned...

And he's been on ever since.. AMAZING

----------


## werdd

we are likely much more critical than the average every weekend MTP viewer. 3 million of them mind you.

----------


## Trassin

> Is Russert stupid? He implies amending the constitution is unconstitutional?


That's not what he implied.  What he was going for there was pushing RP towards the position of looking like he just wants to change the constitution when he doesn't agree with it.

----------


## Duckman

Saw it...  not sure if it was good or bad.  I'll have to watch it again.  It definitely started out good, but RP started stammering at a few points and contradicting things that I didn't think at the time he should contradict.

----------


## sunny

the doc was brilliant - again! he handled himself just fine.
he was spirited and got me chuckling quite a few times.
he was at the top of his game i think and came back well with all the barbs.
i loved it when he waved his hand and told russert a few times
he was confused. he was right.

russert was trying to slime with msm media quotes - what a joke!
newsflash tim - it's msm bs.

i really loved the one "iran invading israel is like iran invading mars..."
it ain't gonna happen...

----------


## Ozwest

This interview has to be taken in context.

Compared to other Presidential candidates I've seen interviewed by Russert, Ron did extremely well.

He also came across as "genuine," which the other candidates did not achieve.

----------


## joelfarm

Russert is like a D.A. attacking a defendant on the stand when he wants, gives puff-pieces when he wants. Fawned all over queen hillary, watch next week, Obama will not face half of what Dr. Paul withstood. 
   HE is a great Statesman and as all of us, learns from life and yes, sometimes we have to reavauate or thought process. THAT is what makes us human! Has none of the other Presidential candidates NEVER changed their position on an issue?? I hope they do not go up there and refuse to listen to someone with a belief different from theirs? The great thing is if we have a doubt, GO to the document. Go to the Constitution. THAT will answer your question as to if something is right.

----------


## Jimmy

> So how did Ron do and how did the interview go on a scale of 1-10?


It went as well as could considering ALL the questions were aimed at trying to paint Paul in a bad light. Paul handled it pretty well...especially when you consider he was cut off serveral times ...once Ron Paul started turning it around....he'd get cut off and Tim would move on to another smear attempt. I'd say it went very well...considering.

----------


## mavtek

> They're gonna need that for later.  It ain't too bad though.


No, it's just nothing a real jounalist would use. These will never be used by a real newspaper or news agency as they are totally baseless and not confirmable.

----------


## jeff_from_VA

> How did he get owned?  If anything, he defended his position perfectly.  Tim didn't really give him a chance to explain himself, but he got it in anyway.



When someone who campaigns against earmarks is shown to have used them himself 65 times, and then tries to take the position that he was trying to relieve the taxes of his district by taking some back, I call it pure pwnage.  

He got caught with his hand in the same cookie jar everyone else's hand is in.   Only it's worse for Ron Paul to have his hand in that cookie jar, as he is campaigning that we need to be on a diet.

----------


## hocaltar

Everyone send a thankyou note to Tim Russert.  If all interviewers grilled politicians this hard, there would be a lot less $#@! bags in D.C.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

what time did this orignally air? 
im eastern time watching it at 10-11am.

Why didnt pual just say that you dont get your rights from being part of a group you get them from your creator as an individual and thus the 14th amendment is useless.

----------


## squandertime

scale of 1 - 10 
10 being the best 

i give it a 9!!!!

he enjoyed it!
he knew the grilling he was going to get- and he knew tim would be in control and he knew it was intentional to try to get him to get angrty or trip up.  he did get fustrated- but he was honest- HE WAS HONEST!!- it showed clearly.  the end was the best the smile- that confident ron paul - sincere smile- telling everyone he enjoyed the interview.  

i love it that he put forward freedom to facsism!!
how mant more wil see it now!!

)

----------


## LinearChaos

Tim Russert Quoted Dumbdero.  How Did Tim Russert Not Own Himself!?

----------


## parke

Would Somebody Post A Link Please????

----------


## LibertyRevolution

is there no comericals in this show?

----------


## stefans

> When someone who campaigns against earmarks is shown to have used them himself 65 times, and then tries to take the position that he was trying to relive the taxes of his district by taking some back, I call it pure pwnage.  
> 
> He got caught with his hand in the same cookie jar everyone else's hand is in.   Only it's worse for Ron Paul to have his hand in that cookie jar, as he is campaigning that we need to be on a diet.



I haven't seen the show yet, but ron paul never campaigned against earmarks.
he defended them, as long as they are discussed in the open and not inserted late at night, a short time before voting on the bill.

he thinks that getting rid of earmarks entirely transfers the decisions of how the money is spent in detail to the executive and he's against that.

----------


## jeff_from_VA

> is there no comericals in this show?


no

----------


## IHaveaDream

A lot of supporters here just love Ron Paul and would rate that interview a 10 no matter what. I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but I'm also a long-time political observer with a strong tendency to avoid the "bandwagon" mindset.

In the real world of politics it was not a good interview. Maybe a 4 or 5 at best. He was completely ignored during the post-interview discussion. That says it all.

Ron Paul clearly has the best message, but people do not elect messages. They elect leaders, and RP does not convey leadership. You may not like these comments, but that's reality. He needs to sharpen his communication skills and go on offense with a noticable increase in strength and confidence. 

Otherwise, he needs to pass the baton.

----------


## JMO

> I dont know, I thought Ron got his ass kicked on that one too, but my girlfriend isnt political and said his answer made sense.. use the earmark like a tax credit and try and give back to his constituents.


It made sense to me. Ron Paul was saying he was just trying to get back some of the money taken from the people he represents rather than have it taken from them and giving it to someone else. What Ron Paul wants is to make it so that no money is taken from anyone, so he won't be forced to work within the current corrupt system of trying to get the money back from the people he represents. Until then he has to work within the system, just like you and I, even though we don't believe in the income tax we claim our tax credits to get the money back that was taken from us, we don't claim 0 out of principle, that would be silly to claim 0 and let the government spend my money instead of me.

----------


## kevinblack

> When someone who campaigns against earmarks is shown to have used them himself 65 times, and then tries to take the position that he was trying to relive the taxes of his district by taking some back, I call it pure pwnage.  
> 
> He got caught with his hand in the same cookie jar everyone else's hand is in.   Only it's worse for Ron Paul to have his hand in that cookie jar, as he is campaigning that we need to be on a diet.


we need to look into this in more detail.

As far as I remember from the last time I looked at this earmark issue it goes something like this.

First the bill gets designed, at this time Ron Paul gets in earmarks that will help his constituents. This is his JOB.

Then the final bill is constructed and it gets passed out to vote. At this time Ron Paul looks at the whole bill and decides whether it is constitutional or not and votes accordingly. This is his JOB.

As far as I was able to see he ALWAYS voted against the bills with his earmarks. 

To me this just makes him look good. Can somebody confirm I am not way off base here? If this is correct we need to market it for extra votes

----------


## Ozwest

> When someone who campaigns against earmarks is shown to have used them himself 65 times, and then tries to take the position that he was trying to relieve the taxes of his district by taking some back, I call it pure pwnage.  
> 
> He got caught with his hand in the same cookie jar everyone else's hand is in.   Only it's worse for Ron Paul to have his hand in that cookie jar, as he is campaigning that we need to be on a diet.


Go research Ron Pauls answer to that question, when he has the sufficient time needed to respond.

----------


## LinearChaos

> Otherwise, he needs to pass the baton.


Who the hell are you?  Exactly who is he going to be passing this baton to?

----------


## rp08orbust

> When someone who campaigns against earmarks is shown to have used them himself 65 times, and then tries to take the position that he was trying to relieve the taxes of his district by taking some back, I call it pure pwnage.


I haven't seen it yet, but did he point out that he ultimately votes against the earmarks by voting against the appropriations bill as a whole?  If every Congressman voted like Ron Paul, then there would be no pork.

----------


## jeff_from_VA

> What Ron Paul wants is to make it so that no money is taken from anyone, so he won't be forced to work within the current corrupt system of trying to get the money back from the people he represents.


Had he used that as an answer, he would have done well with the question.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

ok, 31mins i been agrevated by the host. now the fascism question. OMG  GO RON GO! WAKE UP AMERICA!

----------


## mavtek

> When someone who campaigns against earmarks is shown to have used them himself 65 times, and then tries to take the position that he was trying to relieve the taxes of his district by taking some back, I call it pure pwnage.  
> 
> He got caught with his hand in the same cookie jar everyone else's hand is in.   Only it's worse for Ron Paul to have his hand in that cookie jar, as he is campaigning that we need to be on a diet.


You clearly don't understand what Earmarks are, or you aren't really a Ron Paul supporter. Earmarks is money pre set aside for districts, it's going to be used regardless of whether Ron Paul has any say in it. You let your constituents tell their Representative (Ron Paul) what they want them used for. Ron Paul always votes against them though, but he will forward the request of his constituents to congress, it is his job in essence.

----------


## wfd40

DAMNNNN.. the end

----------


## jufreese

cant believe they didnt show the polls

Edit: spoke too soon

----------


## LinearChaos

> Had he used that as an answer, he would have done well with the question.


Isn't that what he meant when he said that was ironic that Russert was trying to paint him as part of this corrupt system when that is what his campaigning against?

----------


## crasster

> That's not what he implied.  What he was going for there was pushing RP towards the position of looking like he just wants to change the constitution when he doesn't agree with it.


That's fine, the constitution allows you to amend it if you don't agree with it.  Ron advocates amending it correctly and constitutionally.

----------


## stefans

> we need to look into this in more detail.
> 
> As far as I remember from the last time I looked at this earmark issue it goes something like this.
> 
> First the bill gets designed, at this time Ron Paul gets in earmarks that will help his constituents. This is his JOB.
> 
> Then the final bill is constructed and it gets passed out to vote. At this time Ron Paul looks at the whole bill and decides whether it is constitutional or not and votes accordingly. This is his JOB.
> 
> As far as I was able to see he ALWAYS voted against the bills with his earmarks. 
> ...


that's how he explained it in the past. not this time?

----------


## Ozwest

> A lot of supporters here just love Ron Paul and would rate that interview a 10 no matter what. I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but I'm also a long-time political observer with a strong tendency to avoid the "bandwagon" mindset.
> 
> In the real world of politics it was not a good interview. Maybe a 4 or 5 at best. He was completely ignored during the post-interview discussion. That says it all.
> 
> Ron Paul clearly has the best message, but people do not elect messages. They elect leaders, and RP does not convey leadership. You may not like these comments, but that's reality. He needs to sharpen his communication skills and go on offense with a noticable increase in strength and confidence. 
> 
> Otherwise, he needs to pass the baton.


I and many others would disagree with your analysis most vememently!

----------


## Lois

*Jeff From Va and I Have a Dream --

Who's side are you on, anyway???*

----------


## cska80

Was there even one question that wasn't aimed for putting a negative spin on him the entire interview?

----------


## Dieseler

Ron has to represent his district with those earmarks, if he doesn't his district would get screwed when it comes to money, He usually ends up voting no on the bills anyway, but knowing the pigs will pass it anyway he has to represent.

----------


## FrankRep

I'm a Ron Paul junkie and I need my Youtube fix.

----------


## tsopranos

Don't feed the trolls.

----------


## TheHand

To be shown at 8:00am pacific time on NBC Ch. 11 on Directv. Bay Area.

----------


## AlexMerced

Overall, I thought Ron Paul did an awesome job of being aggressive

----------


## krott5333

Okay, the interview is over.  

My overall thought?     Very good!

----------


## alsis8xmy

Wow he mentioned the freedom to fascism documentary!  On balance, I thought it was a great interview, Ron hit all the major points and defended himself very well

----------


## jeff_from_VA

> Don't feed the trolls.


Who is trolling?

----------


## garrettwombat

whats after the 30 minute interview??? worth watching???

----------


## JMO

> When someone who campaigns against earmarks is shown to have used them himself 65 times, and then tries to take the position that he was trying to relieve the taxes of his district by taking some back, I call it pure pwnage.  
> 
> He got caught with his hand in the same cookie jar everyone else's hand is in.   Only it's worse for Ron Paul to have his hand in that cookie jar, as he is campaigning that we need to be on a diet.


I think thats a very ignorant statement you made, and I fear many people who do not know better will think the same. The money has already been taken from the people, that won't change. It's a question of who will get the money, the people Ron Paul represents, or someone else. Ron Paul wants to change that system, using your example take away the cookie jar, until the cookie jar is gone he is going to make sure he gets money back for the people he represents. I think Ron Paul response was very good. I just wish Tim Russert didn't cut him off and move on to the next topic, so people could better understand how corrupt the system is and how he has to work within the system to get his local thier fair share of the money, that was stolen from them in the first place. Rons first choice would be no money taken from his local and no money given, but money taken from his local and given somewhere else is not acceptable.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> A lot of supporters here just love Ron Paul and would rate that interview a 10 no matter what. I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but I'm also a long-time political observer with a strong tendency to avoid the "bandwagon" mindset.
> 
> In the real world of politics it was not a good interview. Maybe a 4 or 5 at best. He was completely ignored during the post-interview discussion. That says it all.
> 
> Ron Paul clearly has the best message, but people do not elect messages. They elect leaders, and RP does not convey leadership. You may not like these comments, but that's reality. He needs to sharpen his communication skills and go on offense with a noticable increase in strength and confidence. 
> 
> Otherwise, he needs to pass the baton.


You're wrong about that.  

Americans do not like slickster politicians, and Americans have a history of electing men who are NOT slick and who are NOT seen as insiders, especially at points where people are looking for change...like now.

----------


## hypnagogue

> Ron Paul clearly has the best message, but people do not elect messages. They elect leaders, and RP does not convey leadership. You may not like these comments, but that's reality. He needs to sharpen his communication skills and go on offense with a noticable increase in strength and confidence.


 That is certainly a fair political assessment, however, there are reasons that I believe this election may not follow political wisdom. You say people elect leaders and not messages. I ask you then, when was the last time they had a message as an option? 

While strength and confidence are noble qualities, there are still others. In the case of Dr. Paul thoughtfulness and honesty. Those are the things I see in his humble speech. I can not say what others see.

----------


## literatim

Earmarks go on before they tack on all the other junk that makes the bill horrible. They are nothing but redirection of funds already in the system.

----------


## hocaltar

THE YOUTUBE IS HERE!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saDw03JXigA

----------


## wfd40

why not the full hour??

Again.. anyone else notice this..

there was a specific moment when the color returned to Dr. Paul's face and he began to take his stride.. pretty amazing to see how different Paul can be when he feels "confident/comfortable"

----------


## kevinblack

> that's how he explained it in the past. not this time?


He was cut off 
rather, he went off on a tangent and then he was cut off. It is hard to stay on message.

Still, it did not come out badly. He could have kicked it out of the park.

----------


## cska80

So suprised he mentioned Aaron Russos film. I'm also not suprised the entire interview was basically set up to be some sort of hit piece. I think he navigated the minefield pretty well.

----------


## RlxdN10sity

I thought it went really well. There did not seem to be any "got ya" moments that Russert is famous for. I was actually impressed to be honest.

----------


## Ozwest

> Had he used that as an answer, he would have done well with the question.


Well then, criticize his answer, instead of accusing him of wrong-doing!

----------


## AlexMerced

Imean Russet job is to be a political hitman, this interview was very tame and positive compared tot he slaughter Romney and Giuliani suffered

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Was there even one question that wasn't aimed for putting a negative spin on him the entire interview?


No, the entire interview from the first question out of Russerts mouth was an attempted hit/smear.

----------


## theshadowranger

Pretty good interview. I'm glad that Tim was tough on Dr. Paul. Dr. Paul handled himself quite well. The absolute best part is when he asked Tim how many other guys does he ask if they will run third party. Tim said that he would ask them that.

----------


## Suzu

I thought he did very well. My only criticism is sometimes the way he speaks, it sounds like he doesn't have enough saliva, or maybe too much... whatever it is, keeps him from getting the words out smoothly.

----------


## stefans

> THE YOUTUBE IS HERE!!!!!!
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saDw03JXigA


I was almost sure this was rick roll...but thank you!

----------


## FreeTraveler

> I saw a lot of people say Ron did great. I thought he had his ass handed to him. I watched it in horror. It was the worst Ron Paul interview I have seen to date. I have not watched Tim before, so don't know if that is par for the course, but he seemed brutal.


LOL, yeah, you haven't watched MTP before. Tim Russert is probably the toughest interview out there. Go watch some of the other candidates roll over and play dead under Russert's withering glare. The good doctor did GREAT!

Saying it was the worst Ron Paul interview to date is probably very accurate though... but there's no such thing as a good interview with Russert!

----------


## wfd40

> Overall, I thought Ron Paul did an awesome job of being aggressive


right on man... when Tim came at him for the classic 3rd Party question, Paul's aggressive response had me up on my feet.

I've been waiting for that for quite some time.. and whats more, he was rather charming with his answer

----------


## ValidusCustodiae

> When someone who campaigns against earmarks is shown to have used them himself 65 times, and then tries to take the position that he was trying to relieve the taxes of his district by taking some back, I call it pure pwnage.  
> 
> He got caught with his hand in the same cookie jar everyone else's hand is in.   Only it's worse for Ron Paul to have his hand in that cookie jar, as he is campaigning that we need to be on a diet.


No, because it's not fair for all the other earmarks for all the other districts in all the other states to get funding while his district gets taxed just like the rest and receives none.  He runs against earmarks AND federal income tax, you take care of both and they cancel each other out.

----------


## IHaveaDream

> Who the hell are you?  Exactly who is he going to be passing this baton to?


I'm a voter who believes in Ron Paul's message. Dr. Paul is an exceptional man, but unfortunately, he is not a good communicator. If he can't find a way to sell himself more effectively, he should consider finding someone who enthusiatically shares his message and let them carry the torch for this movement.

----------


## Driftar

> Don't feed the trolls.


Yeah, seriously.  The earmark issue is so obvious.  If anyone dislikes him for that, go join hannity forums perhaps.

Example:  I dislike the idea of federally sponsered WIC checks (women/infant/children).  My wife and i have a combined income of 50,000+ (not bad for students working part time).  The federal govermerment sends us WIC checks for free babyfood, saving us tons of money.  Are we going to take advantage of it even though we disagree with the program?  HECK YES!!!  Why?  Because we pay tons of income tax/social security/medicare.

----------


## Incrimsonias

Anyone else think it was a bit eerie how Russert said Be Safe on the campaign trail?

----------


## alsis8xmy

Just compare the substance of the two interviews between Rudy and Ron.  Rudy's was very slanted toward corruption and scandal.  Ron's was heavily on ideology, philosophy and the role of a constitutionally limited government.  It was like night and day, Ron won hands down.

----------


## Ron2Win

that was grilling. At least we got trough the Anal probe without dying.

----------


## constituent

> LOL, yeah, you haven't watched MTP before. Tim Russert is probably the toughest interview out there. Go watch some of the other candidates roll over and play dead under Russert's withering glare. The good doctor did GREAT!
> 
> Saying it was the worst Ron Paul interview to date is probably very accurate though... but there's no such thing as a good interview with Russert!


The Paul rocked it, but russert was a jerk. 

tellin' ya, go back to 02-03 and watch him with Cheney as Cheney
lies and double talks his way into war....


and don't forget the memo that said they'd announce the false intel.
on meet the press b/c russert was an.... whatever term they used.

----------


## garrettwombat

are they going to talk about paul at all after the interview... i really dont feel like watching them gab on about romney and MLK

----------


## jeff_from_VA

I am not trolling, those are my honest opinions of what happened.

----------


## paul_v

Boy that was a tough interview. Some of the quotes Russert dug up made Dr. Paul look bad. I loved how Dr. Paul handled it though. It wasn't the best interview but most of the questions seemed relevant.  The civil rights thing was a big ouchie though. All most Americans will hear "Civil Rights" "Voted Against" and not take the time to listen to the reason.

----------


## deedles

I thought he did very well, as did my husband.  He had us laughing a couple times... 'federal lunch counters'..

It was good ....

Especially like the fascism discussion towards the end.  That hit home..

----------


## constituent

> I am not trolling, those are my honest opinions of what happened.


don't sweat it man.

----------


## LinearChaos

> I'm a voter who believes in Ron Paul's message. Dr. Paul is an exceptional man, but unfortunately, he is not a good communicator. If he can't find a way to sell himself more effectively, he should consider finding someone who enthusiatically shares his message and let them carry the torch for this movement.


LOL.  So what?  He communicates just fine to me.  

When are they going to carry this torch?  Four years from now?  We don't have that long and Dr. Paul is right now.

----------


## PINN4CL3

Keep in mind that Ron is answering questions, and tackling issues that most candidates are not willing to even touch. Even if Ron stumbles a bit here and there, that kind of honesty takes courage. I think there is a huge number of people that will recognize that kind of courage when they see it.

Again, Russert is a tough interviewer but Ron's message got out. People will respond to this.

----------


## constituent

you hear chuck todd talkin' about me right now?

----------


## MsDoodahs

> I'm a voter who believes in Ron Paul's message. Dr. Paul is an exceptional man, but unfortunately, he is not a good communicator. If he can't find a way to sell himself more effectively, he should consider finding someone who enthusiatically shares his message and let them carry the torch for this movement.

----------


## rg123

I thought overall it was a good interview. I actually think he got the best of Russert many times. He had no shifty eyes at any point in the interview. He did better than any of the other candidates Russert interviewed. He was correct on Reagan when Regan was president he wasn't really running the show Bush was
much like Cheney is to the current Bush. Reagan was not only the first amnesty but he bloated the fed immensely.

----------


## ValidusCustodiae

> Anyone else think it was a bit eerie how Russert said Be Safe on the campaign trail?


He said the same thing in the clip i just watched of him telling Giuliani goodbye

----------


## krott5333

> Boy that was a tough interview. Some of the quotes Russert dug up made Dr. Paul look bad. I loved how Dr. Paul handled it though. It wasn't the best interview but most of the questions seemed relevant.  The civil rights thing was a big ouchie though. All most Americans will hear "Civil Rights" "Voted Against" and not take the time to listen to the reason.



actually, his comment that "more blacks support me than any other republican" really stood out I think

----------


## constituent

hey, has anyone seen the Ron Paul "A New Day In America" banner displayed on the forum adverts right now?

for libertymaniacs.com...  it looks great!

----------


## Suzu

> *youtube???????????????????????????????????????????  ?????*


Don't you have a television that gets NBC?

----------


## grizzums

> Yes, Im unsure why RP would not know how many troops are overseas, or how much our income tax revenue is, especially when that is a big part of his platform. Hell, I knew how many troops were overseas, and Im not running for president.  He has great ideas, he just needs to solidify this stuff.  This interview was not impressive, for me.  if I wanted to bring the troops home, and cut the IRS - i would know some facts.  He REALLY should have known those numbers. *I think he is a bit too abstract in his thinking - its ok on one side, but he needs FACTS to back up this abstract stuff.*


I am pretty much in agreement with you.

I was going to give Ron a 5/10 on this...but thinking about it again, Id give him a 6.  Russert is good at what he does and our Dr. for the most part handled it well, imo.  I think RP did better than several that Ive seen on MTP (Guliani, Romney, HC, McCain). Someone else mentioned that he hit a sac fly on this rather than a home run, and I think that is a good analogy.  Overall, I am pleased.  Could have been better, could have been much worse.   With RP, for me, it has always been the message and the conviction behind it...the delivery is somewhat flawed and I'm not sure how much it can be polished as RP is simply himself (which I respect immensely).  Unfortunately, I think far too many people in this country pay more attention to the sizzle rather than the steak and I just hope the message is powerful enough to resonate in those folks heads.  I think the fact that there is no clear front runner and all the candidates are flawed in one sense or another means that people will have to have more of an open mind when looking at the candidates.  With that door to the mind being cracked open (even just a little), it may be just enough for Paul's message to slip through it.

Our turn out needs to make history.  Its not that the young folks and the disenfranchised are Paul's only support but that segment NEEDS to be registered and they NEED to turn out for Paul to pull this off.  I bring registration forms with me to work everyday (at the UW) and am doing everything I can.   Everyone else is too...let's continue to sprint to the finish line.

----------


## constituent

> I'm a voter who believes in Ron Paul's message. Dr. Paul is an exceptional man, but unfortunately, he is not a good communicator. If he can't find a way to sell himself more effectively, he should consider finding someone who enthusiatically shares his message and let them carry the torch for this movement.


jeff in va.... ^that is trolling.

----------


## Ozwest

> I'm a voter who believes in Ron Paul's message. Dr. Paul is an exceptional man, but unfortunately, he is not a good communicator. If he can't find a way to sell himself more effectively, he should consider finding someone who enthusiatically shares his message and let them carry the torch for this movement.


Go tell the thousands of supporters who drive for days to see him speak and give him standing ovations that he's not a "good communicator."

----------


## BucksforPaul

Dr. Paul hit this interview out of the park because the regular viewer of MTP is used to candidates self-destructing which was not the case today.  A few comments were grand slams such as the one about ammending the constitution; if Russert ever asked anyone else if they would run on a third party ticket, and the refutation of Sinclair Lewis quote.  He adressed every other issue pretty well and will definitely sway some of MTP audience.  Does any one know the demographic of the viewers?

----------


## qednick

I thought RP did incredibly well and it was a good interview.

----------


## paul_v

> actually, his comment that "more blacks support me than any other republican" really stood out I think


That's right he did say that. Forgot about that...that quote saved the question

----------


## LibertyEagle

> When someone who campaigns against earmarks is shown to have used them himself 65 times, and then tries to take the position that he was trying to relieve the taxes of his district by taking some back, I call it pure pwnage.  
> 
> He got caught with his hand in the same cookie jar everyone else's hand is in.   Only it's worse for Ron Paul to have his hand in that cookie jar, as he is campaigning that we need to be on a diet.


For you...

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst061807.htm

----------


## freedominnumbers

This interview was a steaming pile of waste.

I'm embarrassed that I popped the cherry on my new DVR recording it.

----------


## LinearChaos

seriously, did anyone expect Russert to ask questions like how many puppy dogs Ron Paul is going to give to everyone?

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> A lot of supporters here just love Ron Paul and would rate that interview a 10 no matter what. I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but I'm also a long-time political observer with a strong tendency to avoid the "bandwagon" mindset.
> 
> In the real world of politics it was not a good interview. Maybe a 4 or 5 at best. He was completely ignored during the post-interview discussion. That says it all.


Oh please.  Ron Paul did a great job today.

Paul has had bad interviews, and I've said so when they happened.  This was not one of them.  Against Russert Paul was quick on his feet, spoke clearly and even seemed to "nail" Russert himself on the Sinclair quote.

----------


## ValidusCustodiae

I disagree with the person that thinks numbers are so important.

Principles are what's important.  Being right is important.  The numbers just serve to solidify the reality of things that are happening, but whether you kill 6,000 or 600,000 innocent Iraqi's, or whether there are 15,000 or 500,000 troops stationed abroad is irrelevant.  The policy is flawed, domestic and foreign, and both have to change before we collapse.

----------


## BucksforPaul

In my opinion, Dr. Paul is the best speaker as compared to the rest of the politicians simply because he is the only one speaking the truth.

----------


## paul_v

> seriously, did anyone expect Russert to ask questions like how many puppy dogs Ron Paul is going to give to everyone?


LOL. Now you have me curious...how many puppy dogs did Dr. Paul give out for Christmas?

----------


## robpriv

I liked it. Only damaging thing was the stuff about Reagan and if you understand what he meant by his "failures", it's all good.

----------


## IHaveaDream

> *Jeff From Va and I Have a Dream --
> 
> Who's side are you on, anyway???*


What irony. Ron Paul is all about individual liberty, but some Ron Paul supporters oppose any criticsm of Ron Paul. 

Healthy dialogue requires the inclusion of differing viewpoints. If you disgree with that, then you are supporting the wrong candidate.

----------


## literatim

> When someone who campaigns against earmarks is shown to have used them himself 65 times, and then tries to take the position that he was trying to relieve the taxes of his district by taking some back, I call it pure pwnage.  
> 
> He got caught with his hand in the same cookie jar everyone else's hand is in.   Only it's worse for Ron Paul to have his hand in that cookie jar, as he is campaigning that we need to be on a diet.


Ron Paul does not campaign against earmarks because earmarks aren't an issue.

----------


## vpimark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saDw03JXigA

----------


## LinearChaos

> LOL. Now you have me curious...how many puppy dogs did Dr. Paul give out for Christmas?


100,00,000.  One for every troop and contractor in the empire!  See, he knows the numbers!

----------


## 0zzy

It went decent. He did a few questions great, a few questions meh, and Tim Russert tried to smear him with other journalist quotes from 20 years ago.

----------


## rfbz

you guys have made it sound pretty bad..just got done with part 1 so far so good. The snakepit analogy was perfect.

----------


## whutaboutbob

I am still digesting this, it was not good. But it was not enough for me to lose my support of him and what he stands for. The media want this message to end, so we are going to get shots at us. Russert dug up anything he could to undermine us, Paul stood his ground.

Still a Ron Paul supporter!

----------


## wfd40

> I am pretty much in agreement with you.
> 
> I was going to give Ron a 5/10 on this...but thinking about it again, Id give him a 6.  Russert is good at what he does and our Dr. for the most part handled it well, imo.  I think RP did better than several that Ive seen on MTP (Guliani, Romney, HC, McCain). Someone else mentioned that he hit a sac fly on this rather than a home run, and I think that is a good analogy.  Overall, I am pleased.  Could have been better, could have been much worse.   With RP, for me, it has always been the message and the conviction behind it...the delivery is somewhat flawed and I'm not sure how much it can be polished as RP is simply himself (which I respect immensely).  Unfortunately, I think far too many people in this country pay more attention to the sizzle rather than the steak and I just hope the message is powerful enough to resonate in those folks heads.  I think the fact that there is no clear front runner and all the candidates are flawed in one sense or another means that people will have to have more of an open mind when looking at the candidates.  With that door to the mind being cracked open (even just a little), it may be just enough for Paul's message to slip through it.
> 
> Our turn out needs to make history.  Its not that the young folks and the disenfranchised are Paul's only support but that segment NEEDS to be registered and they NEED to turn out for Paul to pull this off.  I bring registration forms with me to work everyday (at the UW) and am doing everything I can.   Everyone else is too...let's continue to sprint to the finish line.


Agree with you on Paul not knowing the Stats/Facts.. I mean, how can HQ not have him dialed in on that stuff??!! There's only the war issue and IRS to worry about right?

As for no sizzle.. come on man, the very end of the fascism question was a walk-off home run IMO. Eloquent, charming.. and brutally honest. I think that will register with voters.

----------


## hatefalseweight

I thought he was great ... scoffing at Tim "ah c'mon, Tim"  ... he got plenty of time to refute all those out of context 1988 quotes and give several responses on privacy / fascism, a reasonable immigration policy, the point that the budget / dollar can only be saved by cutting the military ... "
"We just raised $10 million in two days ....  we haven't had the primary yet .... do u ask John McCain " about 3rd party... very good, I'm pleased  .. . Now I'm not too pleased about excluding him in the poll the panel is talking about ... here we go state polls are better ...  good quote from the guy who had Lou Dobbs on his table - giving up on republicans and will never vote for Hillary - that's a Ron Paul voter.

----------


## sunghoko

amending the constitution is unconstitutional? what was that?

----------


## MsDoodahs

> you guys have made it sound pretty bad..just got done with part 1 so far so good. The snakepit analogy was perfect.


Yeah, I loved that one.

----------


## constituent

> As for no sizzle.. come on man, the very end of the fascism question was a walk-off home run IMO. Eloquent, charming.. and brutally honest. I think that will register with voters.


+1000

it will take finesse, but i believe this is the win/lose issue of the election...

it just hasn't been framed quite right (yet).

----------


## AlexAmore

Ron Paul Is F#@&ing Rocking This Interview So Far!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## literatim

> amending the constitution is unconstitutional? what was that?


I laughed at that one.

----------


## LinearChaos

Hopefully regular viewers of MTP will put this in context and match them up the other interviews.

----------


## rfbz

wheres part 2,3, and 4, anybody?

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> This interview has to be taken in context.
> 
> Compared to other Presidential candidates I've seen interviewed by Russert, Ron did extremely well.
> 
> He also came across as "genuine," which the other candidates did not achieve.



I agree.  Paul is starting to look quite cool under pressure.  Maybe the biased media coverage thus far has hardened him.  That's a good thing.  And yes, he did come accross as genuine.

----------


## JaylieWoW

Awesome analogy regarding American foreign policy vs. Al Queda:




> If you step in a snake pit and get bit, who's fault is it that you got bitten?  You because you stepped in the pit or the snakes because they bit you?


That was just from part 1 of 4.  I didn't really think he was much off during the first minutes.  He delivered as his usual unemotional manner.  Of course, I can see how this might be a "turn off" for voters who want a great deal of worthless and meaningless passion.

----------


## tonyTheBest

> THE YOUTUBE IS HERE!!!!!!
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saDw03JXigA


Ron Paul  responded very good in this segment

----------


## Ron Paul Fan

I rate Ron Paul's performance today 10/10.  He answered every question the best that he could and did a good job in doing so.  That liberal hack Russert quoted the fired Eric Dondero and newspapers from 20 years ago, but Ron Paul was ready for it!  He didn't self destruct like Giuliani.  He did a good job turning around Russert's attacks.  And he came off very well.  Anyone that says different is demented and hates liberty.

----------


## The Only Woj

that comment about Iran/Isael ... I think he said "invade" not "attack". Iran INVADING Israel is like Iran INVADING Mars. It's not going to happen. Israel is the one with the military and arms to do such a thing, not Iran. Iran has no conventional military that could pose as a threat to ... anyone.

but that quote he made was great.

----------


## grizzums

> Agree with you on Paul not knowing the Stats/Facts.. I mean, how can HQ not have him dialed in on that stuff??!! There's only the war issue and IRS to worry about right?
> 
> As for no sizzle.. come on man, the very end of the fascism question was a walk-off home run IMO. Eloquent, charming.. and brutally honest. I think that will register with voters.


Actually yes, I thought the ending was RP's best part.  Explaining how this country was moving in the direction of "soft" fascism was articulated beautifully.  If I were to talk about what segment he hit a home run on, that would be it.  I also like how that was the ending of the interview as it might be what is left in the minds of many viewers.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

No pundit smear job after the interview.  That's what I was REALLY worried about.

----------


## PatriotG

He's hit every curve ball pitched to him!

GO RP.

----------


## JAHOGS

He would ask questions from stories 20 years ago, but couldn't look up where everywhere Ron Paul goes he answers the third party question. 

Hey Tim, If you can dig up quotes from 20 years ago it looks like you could find one from last week to answer your own question.

----------


## Oliver

> wheres part 2,3, and 4, anybody?



Obviously still uploading ... :">

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> LOL, yeah, you haven't watched MTP before. Tim Russert is probably the toughest interview out there. Go watch some of the other candidates roll over and play dead under Russert's withering glare. The good doctor did GREAT!
> 
> Saying it was the worst Ron Paul interview to date is probably very accurate though... but there's no such thing as a good interview with Russert!


Its like a fraternity/sorority initiation, a rite of passage.

All pollies need to go through this, that is how they prove their manhood (or womenhood).

----------


## LinearChaos

> He would ask questions from stories 20 years ago, but couldn't look up where everywhere Ron Paul goes he answers the third party question. 
> 
> Hey Tim, If you can dig up quotes from 20 years ago it looks like you could find one from last week to answer your own question.


*But it's the donderooooo0o0o0o0olololololol!!!!!*

----------


## ladyliberty

> I rate Ron Paul's performance today 10/10.  He answered every question the best that he could and did a good job in doing so.  That liberal hack Russert quoted the fired Eric Dondero and newspapers from 20 years ago, but Ron Paul was ready for it!  He didn't self destruct like Giuliani.  He did a good job turning around Russert's attacks.  And he came off very well.  Anyone that says different is demented and hates liberty.


I thought it was an excellent appearance - Tim Russert hit him with everything he could and Ron Paul stood up to every single question with very thoughful and reasonable answers! GO RON PAUL!!!

----------


## Swmorgan77

> I'm under the impression that Boeing would wind up with a huge net loss if we stop providing milatary equipment to countries all over the world and curb federal spending in general.  I have absolutely no figures to back that up.


Yeah.  Companies like that are not interested in the free market.  They are corporatist and want to use the levers of government for payouts and to reinforce their market dominance.

----------


## dougkeenan

He did just fine.  Lost none gained some.

Thanks for mentioning medical, Dear Doctor!

----------


## musicmax

> As far as I remember from the last time I looked at this earmark issue it goes something like this.
> 
> First the bill gets designed, at this time Ron Paul gets in earmarks that will help his constituents. This is his JOB.


No, his job is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.  His job does not change when in committee, or when being doctored with unconstitutional appropriations.




> Then the final bill is constructed and it gets passed out to vote. At this time Ron Paul looks at the whole bill and decides whether it is constitutional or not and votes accordingly. This is his JOB.


Omnibus budget and appropriations bills are ALWAYS passed, so his "no" vote is a legislative sleight-of-hand.




> To me this just makes him look good.


No, it makes him look like a slick politician.  It's one of very few indefensible things he's done in Congress.

----------


## Charles Wilson

I thought the interview went very well for Ron Paul under the circumstances. He answered every question well when he was given time to reply. The rapid interrogation tactics used by Russert did not phase Ron Paul. Ron Paul is brilliant.

Russert attacked Giuliani in a similar fashion and Rudy could only giggle (nervous) without giving answers that vindicated him. While Ron Paul was masterful in his responses, Rudy came off terrible. 

Hopefully next Sunday when Russert interviews Huckabee he will use the same tactics (rapid fire hardball questions) he used on Ron Paul. We shall see.

----------


## FreeTraveler

> Anyone else think it was a bit eerie how Russert said Be Safe on the campaign trail?


Oh, yeah, that was probably a dire warning from the Illuminati or the Trilateral Commission or the Elmer Fudd Gun Squad or something. We better get the word out to Alex so he can have something to talk about on the air today!!!

----------


## Mithridates

> A lot of supporters here just love Ron Paul and would rate that interview a 10 no matter what. I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but I'm also a long-time political observer with a strong tendency to avoid the "bandwagon" mindset.
> 
> In the real world of politics it was not a good interview. Maybe a 4 or 5 at best. He was completely ignored during the post-interview discussion. That says it all.
> 
> Ron Paul clearly has the best message, but people do not elect messages. They elect leaders, and RP does not convey leadership. You may not like these comments, but that's reality. He needs to sharpen his communication skills and go on offense with a noticable increase in strength and confidence. 
> 
> Otherwise, he needs to pass the baton.


No no no. That's the kind of thinking that led to Stockwell Day in Canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockwell_Day

Stockwell Day's story in short: Ron Paul-like figure named Preston Manning started a new party, eventually people began to think that the party needed somebody new to bring it to new levels of popularity, a person named Stockwell Day was elected the new leader of the party, he wasn't what he was all cracked up to be and the election went horribly, the party split and spent the next three years at the bottom of the polls.

Lesson learned: choose leaders of substance, not flash.

----------


## LFOD

I thought it was pretty darn good.  That's Ron Paul.  If someone watching that is totally against what he was saying in that interview, they aren't going to vote for him, period.  He went to the mat with Tim and although there were a few tactical points scored, there was no pin.  Good show.

----------


## FreedomWon

All things considered this was a very good interview. I watched Tim slay the other candidates on both issues and character.  Any attempt to go after Dr. Pauls character and Russert would look like a complete fool. The take away is that the message is clear and resonates with honesty and courage.  Watch the other MTP interviews. It's so obvious that all the other Candidates are transparent and they will say anything and do anything to get elected.

----------


## Swmorgan77

I've watched meet the press off an on for the last 3 years, and before that every week for 4 years solid.  I have NEVER seen an interview that even approached the outright attack level of this one.  This was a practical catalog of every obscure, discredited, smear that has been thrown against the wall hoping to stick to Dr. Paul all crammed into one interview.

----------


## beobeli

Just compare the level of this conversation to any other presidential interview.  This is at much higher level, much more important issues addressed, and Ron provides excellent answers.  The man is just a knowledgeable patriot and brave fighter.   Wow...

----------


## KewlRonduderules

Tim Russert got PWNED in my opinion. After the interview, he looked kinda upset discussing then next segment.

----------


## orion846

i like how they had to go to disgruntled ex-employees and quotes from 25 years ago to find anything barely resembling a contradiction in RP's beliefs. unlike rudy and mccain and mitt and pretty much contradicted themselves in the interview.

was a great job by RP

----------


## walt

"be safe on the campaign trial"? 

what kind of closing statement is that?

----------


## ValidusCustodiae

Those of you that really think he did so horribly, don't you think they would have bashed him in the round table if they thought any of his answers were really shoddy?  The only time they brought him up was when Tim mentioned that he had a Christmas ad too, and that he had his grandkids singing in it 

I think it went great.  Ron Paul is bulletproof!

----------


## RonPaulCult

Time Russert grills everybody that is on his show.  I expected it.  Ron Paul held his ground

----------


## Sakimoto

> No, his job is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.  His job does not change when in committee, or when being doctored with unconstitutional appropriations.
> 
> 
> 
> Omnibus budget and appropriations bills are ALWAYS passed, so his "no" vote is a legislative sleight-of-hand.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it makes him look like a slick politician.  It's one of very few indefensible things he's done in Congress.


Sorry, I disagree.  Just because the damn things are ALWAYS passed doesn't make his No vote any less a NO vote.  Blame the damn corrupt system that he is trying to work to get some of the stolen money back for his district.  He voted NO on PRINCIPLE and put the earmarks in there for pragmatism.

----------


## ValidusCustodiae

> "be safe on the campaign trial"? 
> 
> what kind of closing statement is that?


Tim said the same thing to Giuliani at the end of his interview, don't think too much of it.

----------


## LinearChaos

It is nice to have Andrew Sullivan championing Ron Paul on the Chris Matthews show an hour later too.  He said "Ron Paul has changed politics".  

Sullivan has already endorsed Paul on his blog.  He was a McCain supporting Iraq War Cheerleader but has manned up to it.

----------


## MadViking10

> you guys have made it sound pretty bad..just got done with part 1 so far so good. The snakepit analogy was perfect.



I just finished with part one as well.  I think he's done just fine.

----------


## llepard

Nice try Tim.

Ron owned you.

Two interesting ponts:

Russert:

"so you think there is a moral equivalency between the west and islamic fascism".

RUCK FOU RUSSERT

Also,

Russert ends it with,

"be safe on the campaign trail"   If that is not a threat, then I have never heard one.

----------


## stevedasbach

I just finished watching Dr. Paul on MTP. I watch MTP every Sunday (have for years), and Dr. Paul did as good as any candidate I've ever seen grilled by Russert. I don't think we could have realistically expected anything more.

----------


## sunghoko

given the hard hitting nature of the interview I give him a 10/10.

earmarks have a negative connotation and for some reason sentimental republicans think Reagan was the best president ever. I think that hurt him a bit

----------


## ValidusCustodiae

> Also,
> 
> Russert ends it with,
> 
> "be safe on the campaign trail"   If that is not a threat, then I have never heard one.


Sorry, bro, but this is the same way he said bye to Giuliani and probably other candidates as well.  If he's stalking Ron Paul, he's stalking Rudy too...

----------


## stevedasbach

> "be safe on the campaign trial"? 
> 
> what kind of closing statement is that?


That's what he usually says.

----------


## musicmax

> that comment about Iran/Isael ... I think he said "invade" not "attack". Iran INVADING Israel is like Iran INVADING Mars. It's not going to happen. Israel is the one with the military and arms to do such a thing, not Iran. Iran has no conventional military that could pose as a threat to ... anyone.
> 
> but that quote he made was great.


Here's how to answer "the Israel question":

"Tim, the President's job is to protect and defend the United States.  The Isreali premier's job is to defend Israel, and Israel has done a pretty good job of that.  In fact, mine was one of the few votes in Congress supporting Israel's right to defend herself by bombing an Iraqi nuclear plant.  As a Congressman I've taken an oath to defend the United States ten times - that's ten times more than Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee have taken that oath combined."

----------


## 0zzy

Worst case scenario: 

Ron Paul isn't a Republican
Ron Paul is a racist
Ron Paul is an anti-Semite
Ron Paul is blaming America for 9/11

----------


## bgoldwater

Ron did deserve to get grilled on earmarks.  That's one of those issues that I completely disagree with Paul.

----------


## wfd40

Really... all we should want is for viewers unfamiliar with Ron paul's views (which is still, unfortunately, quite a lot of people) to GOOGLE RON PAUL.

Thats where all the work we've been doing for the past 6 months really hits PAYDIRT. Think about all of the Pro-Paul-Ganda they are exposed to when doing a search like that? It really does boggle the mind when you start to think about it... that the little things we've all done collectively together over that past 6months (think youtubes, comments on blogs, blog post, article links, message board posts, meetup number etc) will finally come to roost!

----------


## Yom

The "be safe" thing could be referring to the bad weather.


Does anyone have access to the rest of the interview? Can you put it up on youtube or somewhere else?

----------


## hcbrand

Was anyone else standing up for nearly the entire interview? I don't understand this, I'm 50 years old and was as nervous as a squirrel in traffic. I thought Dr. Paul did very well, but I hated Russert's line of questions. It seemed his motive was more about discrediting the Dr., rather than questioning him about his platform.

"In 1979, you said disco was dead, are you implying that you knew disco was sick?"

Relevant, the interview was not.

----------


## sunghoko

It's not like he said "watch your back Ron." he said this before on his show

----------


## llepard

> "be safe on the campaign trial"? 
> 
> what kind of closing statement is that?


LWL comments removed by popular demand.

----------


## homah

Just got finished watching the show.  For the most part, Paul held his own.  He started and finished strong, but was a little weak in the middle.  He was strong in his discussion of Israel, foreign policy, immigration, drugs, civil rights and slavery, using facts and historical precedents to back up his opinions  He was pretty weak once again when talking about the budget.  He needs to give more specific dollar amounts (cutting out the income tax will bring the budget down by x dollars, bringing the troops home from overseas bases will save us y dollars, etc.) instead of being so vague.  He was incredibly weak on earmarks, so much so that I will be researching this on my own to see if Paul's laughter was from the outlandishness of the claims or due to his incapability of putting together an argument against the claims.  I enjoyed the fact that he was more openly hostile about not running third party, stating that they just raised $10 million and asking Russert if he questioned any of the other candidates about that.

All in all, I believe this interview will gain him a few votes (though not many), but won't cost him any.

----------


## Minuteman

Ron did fine, Russert can raddle alot of people.

Did anyone else notice, but to me it seemed like Ron had more control of the interview than Tim did, He kept Tim in check and wouldnt let him run off without him answering.

I like at a couple times, it looked to me as Ron was looking at Tim like he was a moron. Like, I cant believe you just asked me that stupid idiotic question.

Interesting to see how Huckabee/Obama handle themselves on there. They both have alot more garbage in the closet. 

I will give TIm a couple thumbs up though. He didnt go into the racial thing, although he does get a thumbs down for going YET AGAIN to the third party run.

----------


## Jason T

I would say the interview was good.  Ron got to explain his government philosophies which will do nothing but attract people.  Most people who watch MTP know what Tim's trying to do, and I don't think Tim was any harder on Ron than he was on other guys.

I liked the fact Ron was more aggressive than normal.  Voters like someone who can be a strong leader, and when Tim tried to corner Ron, he usually turned it around and became the dominant one in the conversation.  Even though if the actual conversation may not be pleasant to people who are undecided about Ron, the character he displayed will be attractive to people.  Ron showed he is a person who doesn't take crap, but at same the time doesn't take 'strongman' approach at his policies.

One of the biggest things less-than-educated voters vote for is character.  I think Ron honestly displayed a better character this interview than he does most of the time.  The combination of this, and his explanations of his stances, will lead to nothing but more voters in my opinion.

----------


## hatefalseweight

Todd, " Still 6 viable presidential candidates " ...  these people will do anything to keep some of these bozos afloat

----------


## Ozwest

I've heard Russert use the phrase "be safe on the campaign trail" several times prior to this interview.

----------


## synthetic

Great interview. Ron was impressive from start to finish.

----------


## Created4

Wow! This was the most antagonistic interview I have seen so far! I don't watch MSM much, and haven't watched Russert in years. Did he treat all the candidates like this, or only Paul?

But I think this interview was great! Now the campaign has clearly learned just how the MSM is going to attack Paul. I thought he handled the "earmarks" for his district coverage pretty well, but that will probably come up again, and now they can prepare for it.  I was really disappointed in Russert, as I thought he was a fair and balanced reporter, but this interview was 100% antagonistic against Paul.  

I think in the republican party the hardest thing Dr. Paul is going to have to sell is that Islamic fundamentalism is not the biggest danger this country faces. So far, he is the only candidate stating the truth that the problem is NOT that they hate our  freedom, but that they hate our colonialism-type foreign policies. Most Americans are too ignorant to know how most Muslims think (the vast majority of which are NOT radical fundamentalists), but as one who has lived for years in the Middle East myself, I can tell you that the majority of the population are just average people like you and me trying to make a living and get by in life, and have no aspirations at all for taking over the world for Islam. That message of fear is really hurting America right now.

----------


## LFOD

Let's hold Tim to his promise to ask the other candidates if they are going to run as an independent.  I think he at least specifically said he'd ask McCain that.

----------


## llepard

> I've heard Russert use the phrase "be safe on the campaign trail" several times prior to this interview.


That is somewhat reassuring.  I will now take off my tin foil hat.

----------


## i2ambler

> No, the entire interview from the first question out of Russerts mouth was an attempted hit/smear.


Thats the show, thats what he does to everyone.  Huckabee is going to get bitchslapped.

----------


## KewlRonduderules

Dr. Paul did very well. If at all, it seemed that Russert was frustrated and you could see it on his face at the end of the intervew.

It seems he gets off by rattling the candidates. Looks like he suffered blowback. He got rattled himself. 

What comes around, goes around Russert.

----------


## paul_v

> A threat.  What a coward.  They gonna kill him if he gets traction.
> 
> That is what he said, in Washington code.


Settle down, Llepard  Russert says that to all his guests.

----------


## Falseflagop

> A threat.  What a coward.  They gonna kill him if he gets traction.
> 
> That is what he said, in Washington code.


I thought after watching this Interview RP did awesome how can you not LOVE that interview!! He had NOTHING on RP he was digging anything he could find from 20 yrs ago?


Great Israel answer
Great IRS answer
Great mention of Freedom to Fasicism!!


P.S did you catch at the End TIM say you were on CNN talking about the Sinclair Lewis remark? Tim it was FOX moron!

----------


## justatrey

Doesn't Russert typically ask tough questions? He actually went much easier on Paul than I expected. For example:

- No mention of the donation money he's been accepting from you know who.

- Never uttered the words "fringe", "longshot", "radical".

- No mention of the mainstream poll numbers.

- No mention of his support from 911 conspiracy theorists. 

I thought Paul came across very sharp; he looked good (i.e., he's been looking very tired in recent interviews - not today) he spoke well, and did not hesitate in his answers to tough questions. 

8/10 for me

----------


## DRV45N05

Russert was terrible. For instance, on the earmarks issue: it was as if he completely ignored Ron's rebuttal. Ron made the point that cutting earmarks doesn't cut spending and that Congress has the Constitutional authority to appropriate money, not the executive branch. Russert just continued with attacks nonetheless, and I think he actually came off badly in that exchange, not Paul. 

This was Russert's toughest interview to date of any Presidential candidate. He genuinely seemed to have something against Ron and seemed to want to destroy him on a personal level. How did Ron Paul respond? By giving THE BEST INTERVIEW BY A CANDIDATE THIS YEAR ON MTP! He knocked that interview COMPLETELY out of the park. The other candidates get caught in Russert's trap and don't even answer the questions directly; RP gave terrific answers and DIRECTLY answered the questions. That will mean a ton.

----------


## LinearChaos

I can't even imagine what Russert is going to do to the Huckster.  I wonder if MTP will have a "bookshelf" behind Huckabee?  If Russert is 1/10 as hard on Huckabee as he was on RP, then RP supporters will be praising Russert, lol.

----------


## beobeli

> Ron did fine, Russert can raddle alot of people.
> 
> Did anyone else notice, but to me it seemed like Ron had more control of the interview than Tim did, He kept Tim in check and wouldnt let him run off without him answering.
> 
> I like at a couple times, it looked to me as Ron was looking at Tim like he was a moron. Like, I cant believe you just asked me that stupid idiotic question.
> 
> ...


I agree; Ron was in command and top notch.   He was interrupted a few times, however,  when he wanted to explain things  further.

This was 30min.   Is this how much he gives other candidates?

----------


## paul_v

> Thats the show, thats what he does to everyone.  Huckabee is going to get bitchslapped.


Yeah can't wait to see Huck's interview. Huck has so much dirt even my Kirby couldn't suck it all up.

----------


## Highstreet

> Wow! This was the most antagonistic interview I have seen so far! I don't watch MSM much, and haven't watched Russert in years. Did he treat all the candidates like this, or only Paul?
> 
> But I think this interview was great! Now the campaign has clearly learned just how the MSM is going to attack Paul. I thought he handled the "earmarks" for his district coverage pretty well, but that will probably come up again, and now they can prepare for it.  I was really disappointed in Russert, as I thought he was a fair and balanced reporter, but this interview was 100% antagonistic against Paul.  
> 
> I think in the republican party the hardest thing Dr. Paul is going to have to sell is that Islamic fundamentalism is not the biggest danger this country faces. So far, he is the only candidate stating the truth that the problem is NOT that they hate our  freedom, but that they hate our colonialism-type foreign policies. Most Americans are too ignorant to know how most Muslims think (the vast majority of which are NOT radical fundamentalists), but as one who has lived for years in the Middle East myself, I can tell you that the majority of the population are just average people like you and me trying to make a living and get by in life, and have no aspirations at all for taking over the world for Islam. That message of fear is really hurting America right now.


He nitpicks everyone's background.  Romney looked pitiful last week.

----------


## Mckarnin

For giving Ron Paul such an amazing chance to shine. Ron Paul was amazing in this interview. Russert didn't cut him any slack and Ron Paul didn't back down, he was FEISTY and stood up for himself and called Russert and his sources out onto the carpet several times. Lots of good information.

----------


## Myerz

ALL THIS TALK.....WHERE's THE U-Tube?

Parts 2,3 and 4????

----------


## paulitics

> Wow! This was the most antagonistic interview I have seen so far! I don't watch MSM much, and haven't watched Russert in years. Did he treat all the candidates like this, or only Paul?


I'm not sure how he treats the Dems, but he is  absolutely brutal with the Repubs. Giuliani looked like he soiled himself, and knocked him down a few pegs.

----------


## Falseflagop

RON was awesome Plain and simple! Got alot of people's attention and the fact that in this roundtable they do not even mention his NAME is waking people up to the CORRUPTION that is the MSM media!

----------


## ggibson1

> That is somewhat reassuring.  I will now take off my tin foil hat.


Gotta love humility...

----------


## paul_v

> ALL THIS TALK.....WHERE's THE U-Tube?
> 
> Parts 2,3 and 4????


They are all here ...  http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=vapatriot2

----------


## pacelli

> The "be safe" thing could be referring to the bad weather.
> 
> 
> Does anyone have access to the rest of the interview? Can you put it up on youtube or somewhere else?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saDw03JXigA

----------


## Highstreet

> No, his job is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.  His job does not change when in committee, or when being doctored with unconstitutional appropriations.
> 
> 
> 
> Omnibus budget and appropriations bills are ALWAYS passed, so his "no" vote is a legislative sleight-of-hand.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it makes him look like a slick politician.  It's one of very few indefensible things he's done in Congress.


Currently the system is set up to take the people's taxes and FILTER it thru Congress which redistributes them.  In his current position, as a Representative, he has to pass along his constituents requests.  They have every right to request that Congress return some of the money they took.  

As a Representative, and as President, he would work to abolish the system of FILTERing  the money.

----------


## RlxdN10sity

> Doesn't Russert typically ask tough questions? He actually went much easier on Paul than I expected. For example:
> 
> - No mention of the donation money he's been accepting from you know who.
> 
> - Never uttered the words "fringe", "longshot", "radical".
> 
> - No mention of the mainstream poll numbers.
> 
> - No mention of his support from 911 conspiracy theorists. 
> ...


+1
Good observation

----------


## MooCowzRock

...

----------


## yongrel

Good interview.

The majority of MTP viewers are used to Russert's style of antagonistic interviewing, and will see that Ron Paul held his own.

It is also significant that MTP, which makes its money on digging up unpleasant facts from the past, couldn't get anything on RP personally. This will serve as a heads up to other campaigns and media. Ya just can't attack the man, even if you do your homework.

----------


## wfd40

edit

----------


## SteveMartin

Ron explained the earmarks very well.  The executive branch should not be spending money that is supposed to be controlled by the Congress.  I think that his position that the people should get some of their money back from the feds will also resonate with voters.

----------


## livinglegend

I think it went *darn good*.  But i have a point for thought...

Does anybody else think Dr. Paul should stop hammering the point of "eliminating the Department of Education" in such quick interviews?  

I think he should be more careful simply because it takes time to explain what this means.  The unintelligent masses won't bother to educate themselves or even think about what he said... they will simply respond with "WHAT?!?!  DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION?!  BUT WHERE WILL THE CHILDREN GO TO SCHOOL?!!!!!11"

----------


## Cyclone177

I can't wait to see Huckster asked about his 50% off at Wendy's and the $120k worth of gifts he got one year.  (Twice his salary)

That will be great!

----------


## pacelli

Since we're on a new page, I'll post it again to the youtube demanders who can't take time to search for themselves:

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=vapatriot2

----------


## Ron2Win

> I can't wait to see Huckster asked about his 50% off at Wendy's and the $120k worth of gifts he got one year.  (Twice his salary)
> 
> That will be great!


Or about the pardoned murderers.

----------


## homah

> Currently the system is set up to take the people's taxes and FILTER it thru Congress which redistributes them.  In his current position, as a Representative, he has to pass along his constituents requests.  They have every right to request that Congress return some of the money they took.  
> 
> As a Representative, and as President, he would work to abolish the system of FILTERing  the money.


I wish he had explained it exactly like that.  Instead, he kept saying "come on, come on", laughing and waving his hands at Russert.  It was definitely the weakest part of the interview.  The good news is that it didn't come at the end and he ended on a strong note.

----------


## RlxdN10sity

If you figure Russert is probably the toghest interview RP will have to participate in then I think we should all consider ourselves blessed as RP supporters. If there was anything to smear Ron in any way, it would have been brought up in that interview. Ron did very well, and was calm, cool and collective. He was very dilligent about not letting Russert run away with the questions. He made it a point to clearly state a position or answer to Russert's questions before letting the interview move on. I liked it quite well.

----------


## Jason T

> Does anybody else think Dr. Paul should stop hammering the point of "eliminating the Department of Education" in such quick interviews?  
> 
> I think he should be more careful simply because it takes time to explain what this means.  The unintelligent masses won't bother to educate themselves or even think about what he said... they will simply respond with "WHAT?!?!  DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION?!  BUT WHERE WILL THE CHILDREN GO TO SCHOOL?!!!!!11"


Most older people don't need the issue explained, being that it was discussed a lot back in the 80s.  But I agree it may turn off some younger voters, but on the same token younger voters are also more likely to get their Paul info online.

----------


## FreeTraveler

> That is somewhat reassuring. I will now take off my tin foil hat.


ROFL. We've all worn one from time to time.

----------


## Highstreet

> I think it went *darn good*.  But i have a point for thought...
> 
> Does anybody else think Dr. Paul should stop hammering the point of "eliminating the Department of Education" in such quick interviews?  
> 
> I think he should be more careful simply because it takes time to explain what this means.  The unintelligent masses won't bother to educate themselves or even think about what he said... they will simply respond with "WHAT?!?!  DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION?!  BUT WHERE WILL THE CHILDREN GO TO SCHOOL?!!!!!11"


I think he does it subconsciously.  It's like a knee jerk reaction when talking about what Conservatives used to stand for.

----------


## i2ambler

*deleted by request*

----------


## RlxdN10sity

Also it is important to note that the line of questioning was nothing like what could be mentioned to other candidates. Such as "your son tortured and killed a stray dog and you got him off the hook" or "so how is your illegitimate mixed race baby doing these days?"... and on and on.

----------


## LinearChaos

> Most older people don't need the issue explained, being that it was discussed a lot back in the 80s.  But I agree it may turn off some younger voters, but on the same token younger voters are also more likely to get their Paul info online.


I am "younger voter" I guess, and I know why he still specifically hammers the Department of Education

----------


## Highstreet

> Most older people don't need the issue explained, being that it was discussed a lot back in the 80s.  But I agree it may turn off some younger voters, but on the same token younger voters are also more likely to get their Paul info online.


With this and any of the Social Programs, I always just tell people that the State Govts could do it more efficiently anyway.  Why filter the money thru Washington, when, if you want that program, it would be kept locally.  More efficient, more accountable.

----------


## LibertyEagle

I'm watching it now.  I think he's doing pretty darn good.  The only thing I've really hated thus far, came from Russert.  It was the supposed old quote from the doc, saying Reagan was a traitor.  Dr. Paul said he had to have been misquoted, but this needs to get cleared up.  Because, since a lot of Republicans don't realize what Reagan really did (as opposed to his talk), it will alienate a lot of them.

----------


## TooConservative

8 out of 10

The key issue on earmarks, not explained well today, is that before earmarks are ever added, *the bill has already passed the committee in Congress*.  Therefore, the money _will_ be spent regardless.  Earmarks are simply a way for a congressman to direct money already approved for spending to a specific project in their district.  In Ron Paul's case, he submits virtually all of them providing they come from a community group or local industry group or local government entity who want to make sure that some money is allocated for a particular project.

So if the money is not earmarked in committee, it all passes to the relevant agency under the control of the executive branch who then decides to spend it however they like, without any consideration for the priorities of the local communities.  However, the system is ripe for abuse by the key players and chairmen of the committees.  So Ron Paul votes against those bills, not because they contain earmarks, but because they virtually all contain funding for unconstitutional programs.

Ron Paul certainly referred to this and, to anyone who understands earmarks, he did quite well.  To the majority who don't understand the process, it was a 50/50 thing because he did communicate some positive points and his position on smaller government and reduced spending.

Russert was moving incredibly fast, like some speed freak.  Either he had a lot of questions and not much time allotted or he was trying to use the very fast pace to make Ron Paul look like he's too old.  Well, Ron Paul kept right up and did quite well.  A lot of younger men couldn't have done as well.

As for the attack question on Dondero, Russert almost muttered Dondero under his breath, maybe like he knew the name and was almost embarrassed to quote him.  Ron Paul responded well enough about a disgruntled employee.

It wasn't a total hit piece.  The Black check, the remarks an employee inserted in his newsletter that time about blacks, those we didn't hear.  And Ron Paul did emphasize our strong multiracial coalition, pointing out he has more blacks and other people of color than all the other Republicans.  That's a very good point.

Another place where Ron did well was when Russert was painting him as a critic of Reagan.  He did well to point out that he has stood consistently for the old Republican party as a party of liberty and rights, that he was the only candidate who still emphasized reduced government, not stealing money out of the S.S. trust fund like all the others, ending the Dept. of Education, and other topics that are very appealing to the very conservative base voters in places like New Hampshire.    Ron Paul presented a good argument for the withdrawal of troops from our 700 overseas bases as not defending us that well and also the need to save money to provide the retirement for current S.S. recipients and to reduce the costs enough so that the young people can escape the system and provide for their own retirements.

Another place where RP did well was in discussing the key difference between him and Reagan-Gingrich who pursued a pattern of reducing the rate of automatic increase in government programs.  Typically, an authorized program continues at the level of the previous year plus 3%-5% inflation allowance.  What caused Gingrich and Clinton to shut down the government was when the GOP congress held firm on a 3% increase (for instance) instead of a 4% increase.  In other words, not cutting the current program, just cutting the rate of increase it would automatically get.  And Gingrich (and Reagan) were right that this is better.  Ron Paul challenges this though by asserting his objective is the actual elimination of those programs entirely.  This will play well with the hardcore GOP party base who still don't like that the size of the National Endowment for the Arts and the Department of Education doubled or tripled under Bush.  So did the Department of Labor.  The GOP congress didn't do too badly at containing spending before Bush.  Then he threatened to run opponents against them if they wouldn't vote for all his wild LBJ type spending and his vast new entitlement for the Pill Bill (a subsidy for the pharm companies).  What I'm driving at is that these have been red-meat issues for the GOP since the Eighties.  And only Ron Paul speaks to them and has a record of always opposing them and speaking out against them.  _It is exactly why some of us hardcore conservatives love him so much._  And, unless NH has gone loopy on us, these are the kinds of issues that have won for Republicans in conservative NH in many elections.

Some of these responses he gave were very very good if you understand the history of GOP campaigns and policy and especially if you understand what the GOP in NH was always all about.  Ron Paul helped himself with the NH GOP voters.  How much, we'll wait and see.  But to you who think he didn't speak that well, those NH voters and the hardcore conservative element and the Taxpayers Union people and the fiscal conservatives knew _exactly_ what he was saying and that he is their only real candidate in the race.  He was singing their theme song.  And they know all the words by heart.  All he had to do was hum the tune a bit.  Now, yes, he should have articulated it better as with the earmarks issue.  But given the very rapid pace Russert set, he still did quite well.

Russert could have been tougher.  I had the feeling a few times that he was merely reading material that his staff had assembled and hadn't even read it himself in advance.

All in all, Ron Paul did well.  Some of you didn't see Russert's assassination of Bill Richardson.  By the end, Richardson was whining and seemed about to start crying.  Of course, Richardson does have a lousy record but it was one of the nastiest hit pieces I ever saw and I've seen plenty.  Giuliani also got attacked worse a few weeks back.

----------


## RlxdN10sity

> I'm watching it now.  I think he's doing pretty darn good.  The only thing I've really hated thus far, came from Russert.  It was the supposed old quote from the doc, saying Reagan was a traitor.  Dr. Paul said he had to have been misquoted, but this needs to get cleared up.  Because, since a lot of Republicans don't realize what Reagan really did (as opposed to his talk), it will alienate a lot of them.


It was actually that Dondero fellas description of his own perception of RP attitude toward Reagan. Not a Paul quote but a Dondero quote

----------


## justatrey

> I think it went *darn good*.  But i have a point for thought...
> 
> Does anybody else think Dr. Paul should stop hammering the point of "eliminating the Department of Education" in such quick interviews?  
> 
> I think he should be more careful simply because it takes time to explain what this means.  The unintelligent masses won't bother to educate themselves or even think about what he said... they will simply respond with "WHAT?!?!  DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION?!  BUT WHERE WILL THE CHILDREN GO TO SCHOOL?!!!!!11"


I agree 100%. It sounds horrible. Honestly, so does ending the Department of Homeland Security. I agree with both positions, but if he's not going to have several minutes to explain why he wants to do this, it translates to:

I don't care about education, or keeping our nation secure.

My mom (who I managed to convert) reacted very negatively to this.

----------


## inibo

> *Jeff From Va and I Have a Dream --
> 
> Who's side are you on, anyway???*


I haven't seen the interview yet so I can't speak to the specifics, but there are many folks here who seem to wear rose-colored glasses.  It's as if the see him as some sort of living saint and that if Ron Paul says it or does it it is by definition perfection.  He is just a man, a _great_ man, but a man nonetheless.

Before you ask me who's side I'm on, I started blogging Ron Paul before many people here ever heard of him:

http://isilion.blogsome.com/2005/07/...whould-happen/
http://isilion.blogsome.com/2005/07/...move-to-texas/

I changed my voter registration from unaffiliated to Republican and mailed a check for $100.00 the day I read this:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...l.2114595.html

There are lots of people here who need to get real.  Ron Paul is the greatest US statesman in 100 years, but sometimes even they greatest takes a hit. What counts in the long run is how well he takes it and how quickly he can shake it off and get back into the fight.

I'm confident he's going to go the distance, but he's going to take some hard shots along the way.  To think otherwise is to only set yourself up for disappointment.

----------


## parocks

> When someone who campaigns against earmarks is shown to have used them himself 65 times, and then tries to take the position that he was trying to relieve the taxes of his district by taking some back, I call it pure pwnage.  
> 
> He got caught with his hand in the same cookie jar everyone else's hand is in.   Only it's worse for Ron Paul to have his hand in that cookie jar, as he is campaigning that we need to be on a diet.



I'm not an expert on earmarks at all, but isn't the earmark process a, sorta, 2 step process.  

One step is the vote on whether the big chunk of money gets spent.  Ron Paul always votes against spending that big chunk of money.

The other step is the step where various US Reps take a look at the money that was voted to be spent, at various places all over the country, and they try to get that money spent on projects in their district.

I'm not sure that I have the steps in the right order.

If he's ever asked about earmarks again (and over at freerepublic.com, there are some who continually harp about something about a wild shrimp earmark), he could try something like 

"Hey, listen Tim, I know that you know how the earmarking process works.  We both know that I never vote to spend that money.  But once the others vote to spend the money, I will fight hard to make sure that my constituents get their fair share. The other congressmen vote to spend my constituents money. I didn't.  I want to make sure that my constituents get some of their money back.  Let's put it this way, if every US Rep voted the way I did, that money would never be spent, there would be no earmarks, because I've never voted for them."

----------


## tmg19103

Two weeks ago Russert handed Rudy his ASS on corruption and cheating on wives and cover-ups and he has been plummeting in the polls ever since. Rudy was back peddling the whole way and looked like and idiot.

Last week, Romney was taken to task on flip-flopping bigtime. I thought Romeny did OK under the Russert assault, but the message of Romney as a flip-flopper resonated after the interrogation.

Ron Paul DID AS WELL AS YOU CAN with Russert. For regular MTP viewers, they probably came away impressed with how Ron Paul held his own.

Also, Russert had NO DIRT on Ron Paul personally (surprised he did not play the Don Black thing - kudos to Russert).

Rudy and Mitt were picked apart on character and integrity. Huck will be killed by Russert next week on those issues. RP came out clean as a whistle with the attacks only being on political positions and policy - and RP did a good job of turning the answer into stating platform positions in many cases.

I think a whole large audience of people who never would consider RP will now be looking into him. Yeah, a lot of Russert's audience are Democrats, but I think many of the Republican and Independent viewers (and maybe some Dems) will be looking into RP.

This was a win because RP more than held his own compared to other candidates and it gave him huge exposure to a large, politically savvy audience.

----------


## LinearChaos

The reason that Russert didn't bring up the donation or the newsletter or anything like that is because Paul has already put the issues to bed and Tim Russert obviously knows that they are bull$#@! smears.


Russert seems like a smart guy, Lew Rockwell called it last night:




> But here's one reason [Russert] won't want to be hyper-vicious: capitalism.
> 
> Russert and his bosses know that this will be the most-watched MTP in Russert's career, and maybe ever. They'd like to keep some of those new viewers around. So as much as they might wish to take the shiv out, market pressures will prevent pure nastiness (as versus partial!).


Here are all four parts:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/017958.html

----------


## 0zzy

> I agree 100%. It sounds horrible. Honestly, so does ending the Department of Homeland Security. I agree with both positions, but if he's not going to have several minutes to explain why he wants to do this, it translates to:
> 
> I don't care about education, or keeping our nation secure.
> 
> My mom (who I managed to convert) reacted very negatively to this.


Educate your mother. We didn't have a Homeland Security before 9/11, we didn't have Department of Education when she probably grew up.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It was actually that Dondero fellas description of his own perception of RP attitude toward Reagan. Not a Paul quote but a Dondero quote


Oh....

The campaign needs to somehow clear this up.

----------


## PatriotG

> I just finished watching Dr. Paul on MTP. I watch MTP every Sunday (have for years), and Dr. Paul did as good as any candidate I've ever seen grilled by Russert. I don't think we could have realistically expected anything more.


Im not a regular MTP watcher, If Russert is this tough on everyone, and looks for skeletons to unearth, then RP has none.

The best he could do was bring up the federal money RP's district takes in?
Please, weak at best.

RP Shined in this interview, bottom line. Honest answers to some curve ball questions.

PatriotG

----------


## Ron Paul Fan

Ron Paul never said Reagan was a traitor.  That was someone else's words.  He said Reagan was a failure, and he was considering that government increased under his watch.  That was Paul's point.  The Reagan he endorsed in 76 was not the same Reagan who left office in 88.  He was a failure.

----------


## boondoggle

True or False, guys (I didn't see it):
"Supporters of the US Congressman from Texas may believe he had a good appearance and most of the time any mainstream airtime for a dark horse candidate like Paul would be welcomed, but this was a disaster.  Those that have Meet the Press on in the background on the television as they are getting the family ready for Church would have been appalled at the way his positions were described by Russert.

And Ron didn't help matters at all.  He was on the defensive from the start of the interview and never rebounded.  As I feared, Paul was unprepared and looked foolish as Russert peppered him with old quotes and positions.  The interview was fair and this is just what I expected from the NBC giant.  It was actually rather sad to see him manhandled this way but you can easily score this one Russert 1 Paul 0. "

----------


## gjdavis60

The great thing about RP is that he makes us question the assumptions we've been weaned on.  Take the the Civil War remark from today's interview.  When Dr. Paul made the statement that every other country manged to do away with slavery without waging war and killing 600,000 of its citizens, you could hear the country's collective jaw hitting the floor.  Statements like that make you stop and think.  And in those brief moments people are disarmed just enough to realize Dr. Paul's "radical" positions aren't that radical after all.

----------


## RlxdN10sity

> I agree 100%. It sounds horrible. Honestly, so does ending the Department of Homeland Security. I agree with both positions, but if he's not going to have several minutes to explain why he wants to do this, it translates to:
> 
> I don't care about education, or keeping our nation secure.
> 
> My mom (who I managed to convert) reacted very negatively to this.


The only reason it sounds bad is because of the misleading names these entities have. What if DHS was called Dept. of Domestic Spying and Deprivation of Privacy? What if Dept. of Education was called Dept. of Workforce Indoctrination and Conformity Programming?

----------


## TooConservative

> You clearly don't understand what Earmarks are, or you aren't really a Ron Paul supporter. Earmarks is money pre set aside for districts, it's going to be used regardless of whether Ron Paul has any say in it. You let your constituents tell their Representative (Ron Paul) what they want them used for. Ron Paul always votes against them though, but he will forward the request of his constituents to congress, it is his job in essence.


Better briefer summary than my own.  I'd add that earmarks are quite constitutional and date back to the Founders when they themselves served in the first congresses.  And individual earmarks can be very good or very bad.  They might lead to creation of agencies or research programs that no one wants (make-work for a congresscritter to bring jobs home) or they can force the federal government to spend the alloted money on a needed bridge or local improvement that the federal government has neglected previously.  Earmarks are a large and complicated topic.  But earmarks for $250M Bridges To Nowhere in Alaska and to build rainforests in Iowa are just silly and wasteful.

We see these attacks on earmarks over and over.  We all need to understand the issue well.

----------


## literatim

> Ron Paul never said Reagan was a traitor.  That was someone else's words.  He said Reagan was a failure, and he was considering that government increased under his watch.  That was Paul's point.  The Reagan he endorsed in 76 was not the same Reagan who left office in 88.  He was a failure.


Bingo.

----------


## LinearChaos

looks like donations could have gotten a bump:

http://ronpaulgraphs.com/yesterday_vs_today_line.html

----------


## JMann

Who are all these people that think the Department of Education for government schools for indoctrination is doing a good job?  It offends people the someone wants to end the DOE which has put us in the mess we are in today.  These mom's need to have someone take them by some of our public schools.

----------


## literatim

Every conservative he is trying to reach know that the Department of Education needs to be abolished.

----------


## Peppy690

i think Paul did fine...i can't believe all the old quotes he dug up, that was crazy.  Just hope for the best right now, maybe he turned some people our way.  Now go hang up some signs

----------


## Matthew Zak

After reading all the comments on here I was a little scared, but when I watched the interview via youtube I was pleasantly surprised. As Dr. Paul would say, "Why was I surprised?" I have more faith in him now than I ever have. In my opinion that interview was even better than Glen Beck's because Ron Paul got to showcase his confidence in what he knows, and his honesty in a hostile environment. He's a warrior.

----------


## Bossobass

I loved this interview. "..C'mon, Tim...I find that to be ironic and entertaining...I like Reagan's platform of smaller government, but he ended up saying he would be happy just to be able to stop the growth of government. I'm not for that at all...if you step into a snake pit and get bit, are you at fault for stepping into the pit, or the snakes because snakes bite...yes, but others have refuted that claim and dug up the exact Lewis quote...do you ask all the other candidates that question?"

It goes on and on. IMHO, Ron did superbly given the short amount of time alloted to each talking point.

I actually don't see Russert as an interviewer. He doesn't ask questions, he accuses. It's more like a cross examination.

Ron was excellent. I dug it. I find him innocent on all counts.

Bosso

----------


## JMO

> Had he used that as an answer, he would have done well with the question.


I think that was the point he was trying to get across, but Tim wasn't understanding it and then he cut him off and moved onto the next question. My fear is it went over most peoples heads and they will come away with the same position you did.

----------


## me3

Very good interview.  I'm happy Ron didn't back down, and he challenged Tim.

Great comeback, "I didn't say that, I don't know where you got that from."

Questioning Russert's sourcing was a good way to build a strong position.

I thought reaching for a Dondero statement was pretty low though.

----------


## Matthew Zak

> Who are all these people that think the Department of Education for government schools for indoctrination is doing a good job?  It offends people the someone wants to end the DOE which has put us in the mess we are in today.  These mom's need to have someone take them by some of our public schools.


I wish Ron Paul would use a more convincing argument about that, because he only answers that question as far as to say, "It's a good idea" and that doesn't explain why. He needs to focus on statistics, and how the quality of our education has gone down the more th department of education has gone up.

----------


## jake

> True or False, guys (I didn't see it):
> "Supporters of the US Congressman from Texas may believe he had a good appearance and most of the time any mainstream airtime for a dark horse candidate like Paul would be welcomed, but this was a disaster.  Those that have Meet the Press on in the background on the television as they are getting the family ready for Church would have been appalled at the way his positions were described by Russert.
> 
> And Ron didn't help matters at all.  He was on the defensive from the start of the interview and never rebounded.  As I feared, Paul was unprepared and looked foolish as Russert peppered him with old quotes and positions.  The interview was fair and this is just what I expected from the NBC giant.  It was actually rather sad to see him manhandled this way but you can easily score this one Russert 1 Paul 0. "


FALSE. Very good performance by Paul.

----------


## Highstreet

> I am "younger voter" I guess, and I know why he still specifically hammers the Department of Education


I think many of Paul's supporters are extraordinarily well informed.

----------


## TooConservative

> Paul has had bad interviews, and I've said so when they happened.  This was not one of them.  Against Russert Paul was quick on his feet, spoke clearly and even seemed to "nail" Russert himself on the Sinclair quote.


The best was when Russert asked what we would do if Iran invades Israel.  RP: *"That's like asking what we'll do if Iran invades Mars".*  ROFLOL.

Russert is such an establishment toady.  Pretends to be tough and independent but bends over and grabs his cheeks for every big-government advocate and corrupt party hack and warmonger that comes on his show.

Russert was wrong to let the Bush bunch and Cheney and such get away with their hysterical warmongering.  He's their accomplice along with the rest of the media.  Where were his tough questions back then?  Why doesn't he admit they fooled him into helping them start the bogus war in Iraq?

----------


## ronpaulfan

I didn't like that interview at all

----------


## ggibson1

> They are all here ...  http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=vapatriot2


Man you early viewers really had me worried...

At my job I am a "software engineer" or "software consultant" or "software architect" ... I like it when the IT people or the CEO of a company gives me very hard questions.. because it allows me to see the heart of their concerns so I can answer them with clear truth... this gives them confidence in me about their worst fears of what might go wrong.. and I know that makes them feel better about me being on THEIR side...

This is exactly what happened in this interview... Russert was not mean... he put together a list of questions that was at the heart of what some people out there might fear is laying in the dark about Ron Paul... and Ron Paul answered them all with geniuine truth and common sense... it didnt sound like flowery politician speak at all... it was great!

----------


## jake

> I didn't like that interview at all


You have to watch Russet vs. Giuliani or Russet vs. Romney to appreciate this interview

----------


## LinearChaos

> I thought reaching for a Dondero statement was pretty low though.


It sends a message.  They've got nothing on the man.  No Huckaburgers or presents, no flip-flopping, no weekend at bernies slutting around.  

Mr. Russert must have forgot to read the part about how Dumbdero the "libertarian" hawk shills like a high school cheerleader for Rudy.

----------


## Kombaiyashii

I love the plug for America Freedom to Fascism at the end...Best film ever.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...arch&plindex=0

RIP Russo.

----------


## rp08orbust

Is it just my imagination or did the donation rate shoot up when MTP finished?

----------


## TooConservative

> I disagree with the person that thinks numbers are so important.
> 
> Principles are what's important.  Being right is important.  The numbers just serve to solidify the reality of things that are happening, but whether you kill 6,000 or 600,000 innocent Iraqi's, or whether there are 15,000 or 500,000 troops stationed abroad is irrelevant.  The policy is flawed, domestic and foreign, and both have to change before we collapse.


It's worth noting that everyone says we lost 3,000 citizens on 9/11, a number that every candidate and newsman should know by heart.

They've had to keep reducing that official number.  Currently, I believe it's between 2500 and 2600 victims.  It turns out some of those victims didn't die after all and weren't in the building and it took years to find out.  Nice job, feds.

----------


## RlxdN10sity

> It sends a message.  They've got nothing on the man.  No Huckaburgers or presents, no flip-flopping, no weekend at bernies slutting around.  
> 
> Mr. Russert must have forgot to read the part about how Dumbdero the "libertarian" hawk shills like a high school cheerleader for Rudy.


Do you mean " is like a high school cheerleader for Rudy"

----------


## PRIEST

Ron Paul comes to life in heated discussions such as this. Our man can handle anything.

----------


## Carole

I think Dr. Paul did very well in the "interview". 

Earmarks are very misunderstood in general. He defended it well, but it would have been good if he had been allowed to complete the explanation.Still, he got it in. He is right that if the Congress did not try to use them (after all taxes from their own state), then how is it right that all the other states get some tax money back, but your state and that money will be used by other states or the executive branch.  Earmarks are a red herring in a sense, but it is popular to appose them. That is partly because they spend them on some farout projects.

Paul did very well.

----------


## max

Just saw all 4 parts..

guys...he did great!..the facsim ending was great

----------


## tmg19103

Being a long time MTP viewer, I repeat:

Two weeks ago Russert handed Rudy his ASS on corruption and cheating on wives and cover-ups and he has been plummeting in the polls ever since. Rudy was back peddling the whole way and looked like and idiot.

Last week, Romney was taken to task on flip-flopping bigtime. I thought Romeny did OK under the Russert assault, but the message of Romney as a flip-flopper resonated after the interrogation.

Ron Paul DID AS WELL AS YOU CAN with Russert. For regular MTP viewers, they probably came away impressed with how Ron Paul held his own.

Also, Russert had NO DIRT on Ron Paul personally (surprised he did not play the Don Black thing - kudos to Russert).

Rudy and Mitt were picked apart on character and integrity. Huck will be killed by Russert next week on those issues. RP came out clean as a whistle with the attacks only being on political positions and policy - and RP did a good job of turning the answer into stating platform positions in many cases.

I think a whole large audience of people who never would consider RP will now be looking into him. Yeah, a lot of Russert's audience are Democrats, but I think many of the Republican and Independent viewers (and maybe some Dems) will be looking into RP.

This was a win because RP more than held his own compared to other candidates and it gave him huge exposure to a large, politically savvy audience.

----------


## Corydoras

After reading the comments people made, I thought this was going to be a disaster. Instead, I thought it was a 7/10, and I don't think Russert was hostile. I thought Russert was actually pleased to have Paul give as good as he got. Just a couple of politicos sparring animatedly, but no hard feelings.

Where Paul came off weakest, in my opinion, was on the contrast between his ideology about the political system and what he does as a politician within the system-- specifically, term limits, flood insurance, and earmarks. This is an inescapable issue for Ron Paul insofar as he criticizes the system to its roots (not to use the word "radically"). Ron Paul is both a noble thinker in terms of large governmental issues and also a canny, sharp politician representing his district-- and this necessarily is going to result in these seeming contradictions.

----------


## skinzterpswizfan

> Being a long time MTP viewer, I repeat:
> 
> Two weeks ago Russert handed Rudy his ASS on corruption and cheating on wives and cover-ups and he has been plummeting in the polls ever since. Rudy was back peddling the whole way and looked like and idiot.
> 
> Last week, Romney was taken to task on flip-flopping bigtime. I thought Romeny did OK under the Russert assault, but the message of Romney as a flip-flopper resonated after the interrogation.
> 
> Ron Paul DID AS WELL AS YOU CAN with Russert. For regular MTP viewers, they probably came away impressed with how Ron Paul held his own.
> 
> Also, Russert had NO DIRT on Ron Paul personally (surprised he did not play the Don Black thing - kudos to Russert).
> ...


We need to keep bumping this comment.

----------


## RlxdN10sity

Is your screen name related to Corydoras catfish?

----------


## MadViking10

The earmark question is exactly why many of us support the good Dr.  He has a job to represent the people of his district.  So he put in the earmarks that his district wants.  Then he votes NO because he thinks they are wrong.  Would we rather he put them in and vote YES to them? He's doing his job within the rules of our government. I've got absolutely no problem with both the man and his principles.

----------


## tonyTheBest

After this interview, *we've discovered a few trolls and infiltrators.*

----------


## Yom

RP could have answered the earmark issue much better by explaining the voting process in detail, but I thought he held his own. Not a bad interview at all.

Does anyone have video of the debate they had after, though, with Harwood? I know it was biased and not solely focused on RP, but I'd still like to see it.

----------


## BrettCates

WTF! It's 9am pst and TIM is interviewing Caroline Kennedy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTF????????????????

----------


## joelfarm

Ron Paul has spent over 20 years in the cesspool of D.C. I have seen many good people go there in become corrupt in one term. To have the integrity that he exudes, shows me that he is more noble than anyone I have seen in my lifetime. What a Statesman. Go Ron Go!!!!

----------


## RlxdN10sity

> After this interview, *we've discovered a few trolls and infiltrators.*


Have we? I have my torch and pitchfork, lets get'em Ricky Bobby!

----------


## ShowMeLiberty

> True or False, guys (I didn't see it):
> "Supporters of the US Congressman from Texas may believe he had a good appearance and most of the time any mainstream airtime for a dark horse candidate like Paul would be welcomed, but this was a disaster.  Those that have Meet the Press on in the background on the television as they are getting the family ready for Church would have been appalled at the way his positions were described by Russert.
> 
> And Ron didn't help matters at all.  He was on the defensive from the start of the interview and never rebounded.  As I feared, Paul was unprepared and looked foolish as Russert peppered him with old quotes and positions.  The interview was fair and this is just what I expected from the NBC giant.  It was actually rather sad to see him manhandled this way but you can easily score this one Russert 1 Paul 0. "


FALSE!

Dr. Paul did an outstanding job handling Russert's tough interview style. RP was totally prepared and gave answers that clearly explained his positions while dispelling potential negative spins of his answers at the same time. 

After the way Russert has tore apart other candidates - Rudy, Mitt, Hillary for example - I was very worried about today's show. But Dr. Paul was brilliant. Very much on top of his game today and not letting Russert get away with any foolishness.

It is important to have interviews with tough questions. It shows that "they" are taking Dr. Paul seriously. It was exactly what we needed right before the primaries.

----------


## tsopranos

Excellent interview.  Bring on the tough questions...this is Teflon Ron you're dealing with.

8.5/10

----------


## parke

10/10

RP hit it out of the ballpark. The last few minutes friggin rocked.. The mistake about CNN/Fox shows Russert isnt as smart as he tried to be!

----------


## RobotJaxxon

> True or False, guys (I didn't see it):
> "Supporters of the US Congressman from Texas may believe he had a good appearance and most of the time any mainstream airtime for a dark horse candidate like Paul would be welcomed, but this was a disaster.  Those that have Meet the Press on in the background on the television as they are getting the family ready for Church would have been appalled at the way his positions were described by Russert.
> 
> And Ron didn't help matters at all.  He was on the defensive from the start of the interview and never rebounded.  As I feared, Paul was unprepared and looked foolish as Russert peppered him with old quotes and positions.  The interview was fair and this is just what I expected from the NBC giant.  It was actually rather sad to see him manhandled this way but you can easily score this one Russert 1 Paul 0. "


Sadly, my assessment kinda matches this one, and I don't see where all the rosey assessments are coming from.  (Although admittedly, I'm not a regular viewer of this show).

First half, Russert was trying to pick apart RP's desire to end the income tax.  Ron got away with one though when he said we could save 100s of billions by changing our foreign policy, then using that money to pay for Social Security.  If Russert was on his game, he would have asked "So, if you use the money saved for Social Security, how do you eliminate the income tax?".  Maybe Russert pulled a punch there.

The second half Russert tried to attack Ron Paul the man.  Not a big deal to me, because I don't expect to have perfection in my president (nor a perfect Republican), but the focus on him instead of the message was probably negative for people who don't know him.  There are probably plenty of quotes from his Libertarian run that might not sound good out of context.

I think there were multiple instances of RP getting twisted around by Russert, and RP's responses were bad to the point that I could see them eventually come back to haunt him.

Ugh.  I feel like I've been punched hard in the gut.

----------


## kojirodensetsu

> I watched the interview via youtube


Do you have a link? I did a quick search and didn't see anything.

Edit: Nevermind I got it.

----------


## activeaero

The problem I think many of you have is that this is the first time you've ever watched Meet the Press.   Remember that what YOU think, being a Ron Paul supporter already, is irrelevant.   What does matter is what all of the REGULAR viewers of Meet the Press thought.   The reason this is key is because the normal viewers know EXACTLY what this show is about.....which is GRILLING the candidates.   The goal of Meet the Press isn't to "win".   The goal is to simply walk away with less of a beating than other candidates you're against will take. 

In that regard Ron Paul did incredibly well.  Any regular Meet the Press viewer that watched Rudy's interview would tell you that Ron Paul came out looking like freaking Jesus Christ himself by comparison. 

Were there some scary moments in this interview compared to what Paul has had to deal with so far?  Answer:  Heck yes.

Were they anywhere near as bad as what Rudy faced nearly the entire show?  Answer:  Heck no.

Paul might have stumbled (if you want to even call it that...I call it more like being cut off) on a few answers regarding his POLICIES.   Rudy stumbled the whole freaking show on moral and corruption issues.

----------


## Rahl

http://ronpaulgraphs.com/yesterday_v...nors_line.html

----------


## tsopranos

Reason's liveblogging of this...

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124070.html

----------


## BucksforPaul

> Being a long time MTP viewer, I repeat:
> 
> Two weeks ago Russert handed Rudy his ASS on corruption and cheating on wives and cover-ups and he has been plummeting in the polls ever since. Rudy was back peddling the whole way and looked like and idiot.
> 
> Last week, Romney was taken to task on flip-flopping bigtime. I thought Romeny did OK under the Russert assault, but the message of Romney as a flip-flopper resonated after the interrogation.
> 
> Ron Paul DID AS WELL AS YOU CAN with Russert. For regular MTP viewers, they probably came away impressed with how Ron Paul held his own.
> 
> Also, Russert had NO DIRT on Ron Paul personally (surprised he did not play the Don Black thing - kudos to Russert).
> ...


I agree with this comment and this is exactly how I felt after watching this interview.  I admit that I could not help pumping my fist at many of Dr. Paul's responses.

----------


## Ron2Win

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman...72617853.shtml

The attack has started.

----------


## Eponym_mi

Ron Paul didn't cry.

----------


## TruckinMike

Why all the nay saying? After reading this thread i thought Ron Paul Bombed! He knocked this interview out of the park! At least for a thinking viewer. If you only listened to Russerts accusations it would sound bad... But RP answered the questions very well. And very confidently.

The interview was a success and garnered NEW supporters!

TruckinMike

----------


## Shellshock1918

youtube?

edit: nvrm got it.

----------


## FreeTraveler

> I agree 100%. It sounds horrible. Honestly, so does ending the Department of Homeland Security. I agree with both positions, but if he's not going to have several minutes to explain why he wants to do this, it translates to:
> 
> I don't care about education, or keeping our nation secure.
> 
> My mom (who I managed to convert) reacted very negatively to this.


Point out to your mom that Ron just wants to get the Federal government out of the school system. Then ask her to watch this little video, and pause on the two charts at the beginning that show how the US is doing in Match & Science, and Physics, compared to the rest of the world. Point out to her that in 1953, when FedGov got involved in education, the US was *first* on both those charts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXAxROb626o

----------


## ShowMeLiberty

> The problem I think many of you have is that this is the first time you've ever watched Meet the Press.   Remember that what YOU think, being a Ron Paul supporter already, is irrelevant.   What does matter is what all of the REGULAR viewers of Meet the Press thought.   The reason this is key is because the normal viewers know EXACTLY what this show is about.....which is GRILLING the candidates.   The goal of Meet the Press isn't to "win".   The goal is to simply walk away with less of a beating than other candidates you're against will take. 
> 
> In that regard Ron Paul did incredibly well.  Any regular Meet the Press viewer that watched Rudy's interview would tell you that Ron Paul came out looking like freaking Jesus Christ himself by comparison. 
> 
> Were there some scary moments in this interview compared to what Paul has had to deal with so far?  Answer:  Heck yes.
> 
> Were they anywhere near as bad as what Rudy faced nearly the entire show?  Answer:  Heck no.
> 
> Paul might have stumbled (if you want to even call it that...I call it more like being cut off) on a few answers regarding his POLICIES.   Rudy stumbled the whole freaking show on moral and corruption issues.


Agree 100%!

You know, a lot of the questions Russert asked were things that I also wanted to know about before I could wholeheartedly support Dr. Paul. I did my research online but a lot of people don't go to the trouble of doing that for themselves. For those people, today's interview may have sealed the deal. 

Donations & new donors have spiked since the show ended. Just sayin'....

----------


## Ozwest

Finished watching the U-tube.

In the line of fire, Ron Paul answered the questions in a direct and honest manner, and succeeded in driving home key points of his platform.

This interview will entice many Democrats and Independents towards Ron Paul. Look for a bump in the polls in the open primary states!

----------


## Mithridates

> The great thing about RP is that he makes us question the assumptions we've been weaned on.  Take the the Civil War remark from today's interview.  When Dr. Paul made the statement that every other country manged to do away with slavery without waging war and killing 600,000 of its citizens, you could hear the country's collective jaw hitting the floor.  Statements like that make you stop and think.  And in those brief moments people are disarmed just enough to realize Dr. Paul's "radical" positions aren't that radical after all.


I was thinking the same thing. I heard Ron Paul talk about the subject on another interview before and it was really interesting since up to now I've only heard of the civil war being spoken of in the most glowing terms. On second thought, it looks like it wasn't necessary.

----------


## zeegrim

I thought RP did great and there isn't much (I can't think of 1 thing actually) that would come back to haunt him. For the time he got to answer each question, it wouldn't be possible to fully explain which departments wouldn't be funded in order to make up for the phasing of the income tax.

I especially liked what he had to say about how we freed the slaves in the US compared to how other countries did it; took me by surprise, in a good way. Some great answers for the short time he got on each question.

To those worried, wait and see how the media will view the interview (if they'll even pay attention to it) and look at the graph for today and watch how many new donations come in.

----------


## RonPaulMania

Wonderful!!! More donors!!! I think he did excellent although he didn't allow Paul to respond to the fact that when one is taxed they are allowed to be represented.

----------


## TooConservative

> (Although admittedly, I'm not a regular viewer of this show).


Then you just don't know what a troll and establishment toady Russert really can be.

----------


## lurker

The introduction was pretty good before the interview, telling the people he is out-raising all the other Republican candidates. If they've never heard of Ron Paul before, this will generate some respect for him and definitely get him noticed.

----------


## FreeTraveler

> looks like donations could have gotten a bump:
> 
> http://ronpaulgraphs.com/yesterday_vs_today_line.html


WOW! That's probably the best judge of how he did in the interview. Is there a moneybomb going on now?

----------


## Patriot

Im watching MTP right now and Ron is not on. What gives?

----------


## MsDoodahs

> I've watched meet the press off an on for the last 3 years, and before that every week for 4 years solid.  I have NEVER seen an interview that even approached the outright attack level of this one.  This was a practical catalog of every obscure, discredited, smear that has been thrown against the wall hoping to stick to Dr. Paul all crammed into one interview.


Exactly.  And STILL Dr. Paul and this movement roll forward.  

 Russert.  lol...

----------


## Anti Federalist

> http://ronpaulgraphs.com/yesterday_v...nors_line.html



Hoo Hah!!!

Everybody take a look at THAT.

THERE is your indication of how the man did.

A big spike in donor numbers at the very minute his appearance is done.

----------


## OptionsTrader

Dr. Paul is the ONLY one that is courageous enough to say that we are approaching fascism is this country.

It is a scary thing that the average voter will not want to hear, but it doesn't make it incorrect just because it is unpleasant to hear.  Much like it is not pleasant to hear that our foreign policy instigates suicide terrorism.

Americans do not like to exercise nor eat healthy foods, and we are going to be expecting them to go on a world dominance diet and start working hard and saving.

The 6 million dollar question is whether voters are capable of being honest with themselves, and intelligent enough to realize the country needs to be repaired, and that they need to take some foul tasting medicine and admit they have enabled the government via apathy.

----------


## FreeTraveler

> Who are all these people that think the Department of Education for government schools for indoctrination is doing a good job? It offends people the someone wants to end the DOE which has put us in the mess we are in today. These mom's need to have someone take them by some of our public schools.


 
Yeah, and have them take a look at this video. It's aimed at moms who grew up in the 60's, since the song is by Pete Seeger. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXAxROb626o

----------


## newrealization

I thought he did well.  Meet the Press always comes with the hard questions and he held up fairly well.  Sometimes I just want to be sitting next to him so I can say what everyone is thinking since he seems to miss that on occasion (I.E. I was saddened by the attacks of September 11 AND THEN concerned about liberty, etc.) but all in all well done.

----------


## slantedview

> Russert:
> 
> "so you think there is a moral equivalency between the west and islamic fascism".


Yea, I was taken aback when I heard that. Talk about straining for something..

----------


## wfd40

> Im watching MTP right now and Ron is not on. What gives?


he starts out slow.. wait for the precise moment when the color returns to his face..

Its basically gravy after that

----------


## RobotJaxxon

> The problem I think many of you have is that this is the first time you've ever watched Meet the Press.   ...   The goal of Meet the Press isn't to "win".   The goal is to simply walk away with less of a beating than other candidates you're against will take.


That made me laugh, I'm feeling better now.  Thanks!

I swear, the Ron Paul camp has to be THE MOST FUN and best spirited place to be in the campaign!

----------


## inibo

> I haven't seen the interview yet so I can't speak to the specifics, but there are many folks here who seem to wear rose-colored glasses.  It's as if the see him as some sort of living saint and that if Ron Paul says it or does it it is by definition perfection.  He is just a man, a _great_ man, but a man nonetheless.
> 
> Before you ask me who's side I'm on, I started blogging Ron Paul before many people here ever heard of him:
> 
> http://isilion.blogsome.com/2005/07/...whould-happen/
> http://isilion.blogsome.com/2005/07/...move-to-texas/
> 
> I changed my voter registration from unaffiliated to Republican and mailed a check for $100.00 the day I read this:
> http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...l.2114595.html
> ...


OK, I finally saw the interview.  It don't take back anything I said, but Ron Paul did not take a hit today, he gave one.

----------


## fj45lvr

> Sadly, my assessment kinda matches this one, and I don't see where all the rosey assessments are coming from.  (Although admittedly, I'm not a regular viewer of this show).
> 
> First half, Russert was trying to pick apart RP's desire to end the income tax.  Ron got away with one though when he said we could save 100s of billions by changing our foreign policy, then using that money to pay for Social Security.  If Russert was on his game, he would have asked "So, if you use the money saved for Social Security, how do you eliminate the income tax?".  Maybe Russert pulled a punch there.
> 
> The second half Russert tried to attack Ron Paul the man.  Not a big deal to me, because I don't expect to have perfection in my president (nor a perfect Republican), but the focus on him instead of the message was probably negative for people who don't know him.  There are probably plenty of quotes from his Libertarian run that might not sound good out of context.
> 
> I think there were multiple instances of RP getting twisted around by Russert, and RP's responses were bad to the point that I could see them eventually come back to haunt him.
> 
> Ugh.  I feel like I've been punched hard in the gut.




I would love to see Russert tear apart the liberal candidates!!!  They provide so much more easy prey than RON (where Russert has to digg up stuff from 1988).

I was surprised he didn't throw back at him the comment on saved money from foreign policy being used for BOTH the social security maintenance and the elimination of the Income tax (besides the fact that if young people do "opt out" they leave a BIGGER hole to have to "patch")

Bottom line is that Ron is the SOLE, SINGLE, ONLY candidate that is willing to "pull the plug" on GOVERNMENT! !!!    

Thank-God someone has the BALLS to dismantle the "beast"....It surprises me that there are not more advocates to see it DISMANTLED within the political media pundits as the "HANDWRITING IS ON THE WALL"----either it gets dismantled or it will simply implode in CHAOS.   It makes too much sense to protect the public by surgically extracting portions than to see it become a twisted jumble of hot metal and flames...

RON ended this thing (where TIM gave NO leeway to dissertate) in a BLAZE OF GLORY........Russert and America cannot deny we have transformed into the FASCIST STATE of AMERICA (by its supreme rulers as RON layed out to see)....You can bet your bottom dollar the "pundits" won't touch that bit of TRUTH with a 10 foot pole!!!  

How many other candidates are pointing out the FASCISM being fed and bred in D.C.?????

----------


## TooConservative

Something no one has mentioned is just how many times Russert tried to quote or tried to use RP's run for the Libertarian Party in 1988.

A lot of people might come away thinking, "He's really a Libertarian."  And Ron Paul deflected that well, too, pointing out that, except for that one year, he's always been a Republican.  Also, he described a difference he had with the L Party and referred to them as "the Libertarians".  He also sometimes refers to Republicans as "the Republicans" and similar for Democrats.

He is a pretty independent politician.  That can work well.  The GOP is out of ideas and making its base mad at all we've given up during the Bush years.  Ron Paul is a fresh new direction on so many policy issues.  And he has a very principled record.

----------


## tmg19103

> http://www.nationalledger.com/artman...72617853.shtml
> 
> The attack has started.


Nation Ledger is neocon swill that has been attacking RP worse than any news outlet for months. Meaningless.

----------


## joelfarm

No, Ron Pau may not be a slick, polished media pretty-boy, with memorized answers to ALL questions asked. For as long as he has been in D.C., if a quote from a fired ex-employee is all Russert can throw on him, Ron is OK by me! Do any other candidates have disgruntled ex-workers willing to talk bad about them? Like shaking leaves from a tree!!

----------


## DealzOnWheelz

someone needs to photoshop Ron on muhammed ali and russert on spinks

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No, his job is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.  His job does not change when in committee, or when being doctored with unconstitutional appropriations.
> 
> 
> 
> Omnibus budget and appropriations bills are ALWAYS passed, so his "no" vote is a legislative sleight-of-hand.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it makes him look like a slick politician.  It's one of very few indefensible things he's done in Congress.


You really do need to see this link:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst061807.htm

and understand that earmarking does not change the levels of money being spent.  A bill with no earmarks costs the US taxpayer the exact same amount as a bill with 10,000 earmarks.  

RP fought to force congress to make all earmarks public, but specifically *not* to do away with earmarks.  RP says that if you remove earmarking altogether, it will place spending decisions in the hands of faceless bureaucrats, and take them out of the hands of Congress.

If you read the above link, you will see that RP fought to make earmarks public, keep them, and to reduce original budget allocations.

I believe his stance on earmarking is very principled, and I know the artcle at the above link opened my eyes quite a bit on the issue.

----------


## wfd40

> Dr. Paul is the ONLY one that is courageous enough to say that we are approaching fascism is this country.
> 
> It is a scary thing that the average voter will not want to hear, but it doesn't make it incorrect just because it is unpleasant to hear.  Much like it is not pleasant to hear that our foreign policy instigates suicide terrorism.
> 
> Americans do not like to exercise nor eat healthy foods, and we are going to be expecting them to go on a world dominance diet and start working hard and saving.
> 
> The 6 million dollar question is whether voters are capable of being honest with themselves, and intelligent enough to realize the country needs to be repaired, and that they need to take some foul tasting medicine and admit they have enabled the government via apathy.


Great post OP... I was sitting with half a dozen people totally unfamiliar with Dr. Paul's platform and these issues, above all others seemed to resonate most. Go figure. Americans actually value their personal liberties;

----------


## inibo

> True or False, guys (I didn't see it):
> "Supporters of the US Congressman from Texas may believe he had a good appearance and most of the time any mainstream airtime for a dark horse candidate like Paul would be welcomed, but this was a disaster.  Those that have Meet the Press on in the background on the television as they are getting the family ready for Church would have been appalled at the way his positions were described by Russert.
> 
> And Ron didn't help matters at all.  He was on the defensive from the start of the interview and never rebounded.  As I feared, Paul was unprepared and looked foolish as Russert peppered him with old quotes and positions.  The interview was fair and this is just what I expected from the NBC giant.  It was actually rather sad to see him manhandled this way but you can easily score this one Russert 1 Paul 0. "


False.

----------


## thatnerdyguy

> The problem I think many of you have is that this is the first time you've ever watched Meet the Press.   Remember that what YOU think, being a Ron Paul supporter already, is irrelevant.   What does matter is what all of the REGULAR viewers of Meet the Press thought.   The reason this is key is because the normal viewers know EXACTLY what this show is about.....which is GRILLING the candidates.


Right, Russerts job is to "nail" (to steal a Colbert-ism) his guests. He tried and tried to nail Dr. Paul, but all he got was sore fingers from missing so many, many times.

The closest he might have come was the earmarks thing. But Dr. Paul made *perfect* sense. The government took his districts money, why SHOULDN'T he try to get it back, rather than letting some OTHER people take it. You should try to change the system, but you should also work within the confines of the current system to not dis-enfranchise the people you represent!

----------


## slamhead

I tell you, I would like to see any other candidate withstand such questioning as Ron Paul did today on Russert's show.  I don't think I have ever seen such an interview of a presidential candidate. They went back with a fine toothed comb into his past and tried to find anything they could.  This is all they could find...wow. But watch, now the other candidates will start parroting Russert's "findings".

Great job Ron you did well in defending yourself against the attacks.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> P.S did you catch at the End TIM say you were on CNN talking about the Sinclair Lewis remark? Tim it was FOX moron!


I caught that...lol...

----------


## dircha

He should have expected exactly this from Russert. This is what he does. He digs up old quotes and your record and tries to challenge you on it. This is serious journalism, not cable news fluff.

I wasn't satisfied with his response on the earmarks issue. He took the approach of trying to laugh off Russert, and that didn't really work. That seemed like something Giuliani would do.

He should have expected this question to be asked, and he should have had a precise answer prepared.

----------


## peruvianRP

> He should have expected exactly this from Russert. This is what he does. He digs up old quotes and your record and tries to challenge you on it. This is serious journalism, not cable news fluff.
> 
> I wasn't satisfied with his response on the earmarks issue. He took the approach of trying to laugh off Russert, and that didn't really work. That seemed like something Giuliani would do.
> 
> He should have expected this question to be asked, and he should have had a precise answer prepared.


I noticed that too...but this after his answered and TIM suggested he was flip floping.

----------


## rp4prez

I really liked MTP interview... however, I wish that RP would have been given time to more explain his views instead of going to the next topic.  

I'm not a regular viewer of MTP but I was impressed with their research on topics.  A lot of quotes they used I have found and read about.  Therefore, I'm really glad they asked those earmarking, 9/11 from a former employee, etc. questions!  Very impressed with MTP researching staff. 

Over all I thought it was a good interview and if you put RP's interview in context of the other candidates that have been on I agree with a previous poster that RP looked like Jesus Christ next to them after their MTP interviews.

----------


## rfbz

the only recommendation I would have for RP is that he not be so defensive in his answers. When he's calm and answers questions matter-of-factly, he comes off well and conveys his message. When he's defensive, he acts in a way that would raise suspicion that he's not being completely honest.

----------


## thatnerdyguy

> I wasn't satisfied with his response on the earmarks issue. He took the approach of trying to laugh off Russert, and that didn't really work. That seemed like something Giuliani would do.


Why weren't you satisfied? He shouldn't have tried to get the money back for his district that the federal government took? He should've let it go to Nebraska, or Ohio, or California?

Dr. Paul answered perfectly.

----------


## gagnonstudio

Here's a non supporters view:  Thought Ron Paul did well against Russert.
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=5286

----------


## JanusFIN

That was not easy, but once again Ron did what we all in here has seen before:

He Slams The Media!

That guy is true patriot!

----------


## RlxdN10sity

He responded as appropriately and clearly as could be expected in the short time that was allowed. He said it was like accepting a tax deduction. They steal the money from the people of his district and earmarking brings it back to them.

----------


## allyinoh

I thought the interview was great.

I think people who don't understand the process when it comes to money and earmarks will say that it was a bad answer or didn't "hit a home run."

The fact where it ends is that Ron Paul votes no.  If the earmarks pass it will be because other people voted for it.  Do any of you who say that answer was bad understand where the money goes to if it's not used?  And do you agree that it should go there?

I think some people should do a little more research and then they'll find that his answer was on point and a perfectly fine explanation.

----------


## ThePieSwindler

Havent watched yet (someone youtube it, perhaps?) but from what ive heard, sounds like Paul held his own, which is all you can really expect on MTP. I'm not a huge fan of this sort of journalism, really, althought its important to ask tough questions, i prefer tough questions that allow for honest answers, rather than intentional grilling. But oh well.

----------


## legion

Holding your own against Russert is a political rite of passage akin to the Masai teenage-warrior circumcision ritual and only slightly easier on your penis. But tread carefully: It's early Sunday morning, and he fact checks.

- America (the Book): A citizen's guide to democracy inaction

----------


## mport1

Man, what a terrible interview.  Ron Paul could have done much better than that.

----------


## allyinoh

> Man, what a terrible interview.  Ron Paul could have done much better than that.


Can you offer why you think it was terrible besides saying he could have done better?

I found nothing terrible about it.

----------


## dircha

> Why weren't you satisfied? He shouldn't have tried to get the money back for his district that the federal government took? He should've let it go to Nebraska, or Ohio, or California?
> 
> Dr. Paul answered perfectly.


I had heard his response to this in a YouTube video before and he articulated it much better then.

Yes, he kind of got around to explaining his position here, but he was all over the place on it, and then tried to laugh off the issue like Giuliani, and I don't think the answer would have been satisfying to someone who was new to him.

If he wants to put earmarks in, he should put in an earmark that distributes money back to the PEOPLE of his district on the basis of how much they each paid in. Not putting in earmarks for ridiculous hometown special interests.

Yes, I would much rather have him take the stance of what I think someone like Jeff Flake takes, of not putting in any earmarks at all. Yes I do. Why make so much trouble for yourself when you could take a simple, principled position instead?

But I'm here to support Ron Paul, so that's all I'm going to say about that.

----------


## werdd

On the earmarks question, ron paul basically said, without saying it, that hes just making the best use of the current system. Doesnt mean he beleives the system, he just puts them in on bills he knows are gonna pass then he votes no on the bill and gets the money back to his district to appease his base. There isnt a politician in washington that doesnt do this.

----------


## specsaregood

I just finished watching the whole thing.  Outstanding!
Anybody that thinks Ron Paul did poorly in this interview is plain wrong and has obviously not seen what Russert has done to dishonest candidates.  Ron Paul shone in this with truth.

Part #1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saDw03JXigA

Part #2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgTqSu-ZVFM

Part #3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-iJP4BAAQ4

Part #4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCSY438wpCk

----------


## Falseflagop

TROLLS out today !! RP did awesome!! Tim refers to FOX as CNN in SInclair clip. RP trying to educate the public by go to see freedom to fasicism !!

Great move by RON !

----------


## fj45lvr

> Man, what a terrible interview.  Ron Paul could have done much better than that.


Huh??  you mean he could have answered better or FORCED himself more time as RUSSERT kept movin along???

How can you expect to come off well with those heavy questions in 2 sentences??

Paul at a minimum scored huge points with the FINISH (fascism of America).  

It's just so sad when you're apart of a group of overspenders and you are the only one wanting to balance the checkbook and you then get GRILLED for it!!!  I would love to know how RUSSERT would "cut" but then again I am sure that the only "cutting" he's up for is your earnings!!!!

----------


## yongrel

> TROLLS out today !! RP did awesome!! Tim refers to FOX as CNN in SInclair clip. RP trying to educate the public by go to see freedom to fasicism !!
> 
> Great move by RON !


No more troll accusations. People who don't think that it was a fantastic interview today are not trolls by default.

----------


## specsaregood

> Yes, I would much rather have him take the stance of what I think someone like Jeff Flake takes, of not putting in any earmarks at all. Yes I do. Why make so much trouble for yourself when you could take a simple, principled position instead?


Because that might be "correct" philosophically, it would be unfair to his constituents.  Ron Paul, balances out the correct philosophical position with his duty to his constituents.

From: http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=836
_"Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. "_

----------


## propanes

Comparatively Ron looks better than the rest since they have baggage and skeletons.    Next week Huckabee is on!




> Man, what a terrible interview.  Ron Paul could have done much better than that.

----------


## PatriotOne

I don't have time to go thru all 500 comments here but this was one bloggers take on the third party question.  Is this accurate and did RP just open the door a bit on the possibility?

_He has no plans to run as an Independent if he doesn't get the nomination but he won't rule it out._

----------


## louisiana4liberty

Tim tried to attack Ron on earmarks for his district in these bills.  The bottom line is that the way the troubling system works is that the money is going to be spent anyway, someone else's district is going to get the money if you don't try to take your share of the pie via an earmark.  Besides, he votes no to these bills.  

Some of the bills do pass because he is outnumbered, but what is he supposed to do? Is he supposed to leave his district without funding because the system is flawed, or because he personally doesn't believe in earmarks?  He is a representative for them, not for himself.

----------


## Hangly Man

> I'm under the impression that Boeing would wind up with a huge net loss if we stop providing milatary equipment to countries all over the world and curb federal spending in general.  I have absolutely no figures to back that up.


Not fighting wars doesn't mean people can't sell weapons

----------


## Georgia Agrarian

> Yeah.  Companies like that are not interested in the free market.  They are corporatist and want to use the levers of government for payouts and to reinforce their market dominance.


Yep, you are 100% correct.  It certainly isn't free enterprise from my prospective.  I think the most apt term to describe it would be "mercentilism."  This is the term used to describe what the British did between 200-400 years ago when they granted firms like the British East India Company exclusive rights to trade goods in certain territories of the Empire.  The means of it might be different today, but the ends are the same.

----------


## King Crimson

I'm not a regular Meet the Press viewer so I odn't know what the interviews are usually like but Ron Paul did fine. Not perfect but fine. The earmarks thing came off kind of bad if you don't know Ron Paul and so would the civil rights act thing. But overall he did well. Those two points stuck out at me as his "worst" on the show.

----------


## Paulitician

> I don't have time to go thru all 500 comments here but this was one bloggers take on the third party question.  Is this accurate and did RP just open the door a bit on the possibility?
> 
> _He has no plans to run as an Independent if he doesn't get the nomination but he won't rule it out._


That's a pretty accurate statement.  He's actually not even considering an independent run.  It will be 2 months (after Super Tuesday) until he decides such a thing, if ever.  And I seriously doubt he would do it.

----------


## TooConservative

> I think people who don't understand the process when it comes to money and earmarks will say that it was a bad answer or didn't "hit a home run."


Did you notice RP's remark about "how many of those earmarks ever passed?" referring to all the earmarks he's passed through to the relevant committees in Congress for various constituent groups in his district?

I know very few of those he has submitted have ever passed.  Maybe none.  AFAIK, none of the 65 he passed on from his constituents passed this last year because if you don't play the pork game in Congress, your earmarks get ignored.  RP's opponent, Peden, in the GOP primary in TX is campaigning on how they need to get more of their pork though it sure doesn't seem like they've suffered much, considering how much money is spent in that district now.

He has a good record on voting against earmarks when Jeff Flake brought up the 19 votes on the Bridge To Nowhere ($250M) and the Iowa rainforest which even a lot of Iowans think is stupid pork.  In last year's, RP went 19 for 19 against porky earmarks in the 2006 votes.

This year, Flake came back with a larger list.  However, these didn't have anything as egregious as a $250M Bridge To Nowhere.  Flake and the other candidates elected with PAC money from Club For Growth PAC all made sure they voted against.  Ron Paul compiled a good, but not perfect score on these anti-earmark votes.  He recognized it was a little dog-and-pony show to help re-elect Club For Growth members and raise money for their PAC.  The only earmark he voted in favor of in the state of Texas was one for a Houston zoo for $100,000 as I recall and it came out of Dept. of Interior funds.  Other than the Club For Growth toadies, Ron Paul did better than virtually the entire Republican House caucus in these 2007 anti-earmark votes according to the Club's scorecard.  Naturally, he still retains a very high record with the Taxpayers Union people but Tancredo slightly edged him out this year, probably because Tanc wanted to have a very pure record for his own presidential run.  Ron Paul votes the same way, year in, year out, whether he's running for president or not.  So that's a plus too.

Ron Paul doesn't chair a committee so he doesn't play the earmarks and pork game like the others do.  Say, like Duncan Hunter who took home a $19M weapon system program this year that the Pentagon did not request (but did not publicly oppose).  It was some sort of personal armor for troops or something like that.  Hunter didn't get the $35M or more that others like Pelosi got but he still did pretty well for the minority leader of the Armed Forces Committee, one of the biggest porkmonsters committees in Congress. I assume Duncan traded his pork for the even larger pork that the majority chairman, Murtha, took home.  And Murtha is about the most corrupt pol in Congress, going all the way back to getting caught by the FBI on tape trying to take bribes in the ABSCAM scandal.

Given how much FUD gets spread about earmarks, a lot of voters _think_ they understand earmarks but actually don't so we all need to bone up on this basic civic education stuff to counter the attacks on Ron Paul.

I wish the campaign would research this and tell us how many of the 65 submitted earmarks passed this year (none, I think).  And how many have been passed in all the years that Ron Paul has been in Congress.  Well, at least since he returned to Congress in 1998.

----------


## Paulitician

What I found surprising is that they'd use quotes from '88.  Not only because it was so long ago, but because I wasn't aware of them myself.

As for the fascism quote this is what I found:




> Sinclair Lewis, in his 1935 novel It Can't Happen Here, about the rise of a right-wing dictatorship in America -- a paraphrase of "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the American flag," a quote from Huey Long, radical populist governor of Louisiana (1928-30) and bombastic U.S. Senator (1930-33), assassinated in office. - random blog





> The career of Long has left its mark also in popular culture with Long's life serving as a template for various fictional politicians. Sometimes this is as an example of a made-in-America dictator as in Sinclair Lewis's 1935 novel It Can't Happen Here where Buzz Windrip ("The Chief") becomes president on a strongly populist platform that quickly turns into home-grown American fascism. - Wikipedia

----------


## Compulsive1

> Russert was terrible. For instance, on the earmarks issue: it was as if he completely ignored Ron's rebuttal. Ron made the point that cutting earmarks doesn't cut spending and that Congress has the Constitutional authority to appropriate money, not the executive branch. Russert just continued with attacks nonetheless, and I think he actually came off badly in that exchange, not Paul. 
> 
> This was Russert's toughest interview to date of any Presidential candidate. He genuinely seemed to have something against Ron and seemed to want to destroy him on a personal level. How did Ron Paul respond? By giving THE BEST INTERVIEW BY A CANDIDATE THIS YEAR ON MTP! He knocked that interview COMPLETELY out of the park. The other candidates get caught in Russert's trap and don't even answer the questions directly; RP gave terrific answers and DIRECTLY answered the questions. That will mean a ton.


This summarizes my view on this interview as well.
Every candidate I saw on MTP is playing their cards by not answering difficult questions directly and many times contradicting themselves and getting lost in their own twisted stands and tales.
There was barely any of that from RP today. He knew exactly what his answers were going to be but sometimes had to inject some reality first before answering the questions. If you noticed every gotcha question was based on something that happened 20 years ago and was immaterial to the campaign issues.  Like, the Reagan issue or desegregation issue. These were character attacks that were intended to make him look like a typical sneaky, two-faced politician. He had to explain the philosophy and principles first.
The one time where RP admitted wiggling is the 3rd party run issue. But, I agree that if RP wins enough primaries to secure nomination based on numbers, but the party goes on nominating someone else he should pursue another way of getting elected. That's why he is leaving himself that 0.1% chance. 
The few cheap shots Russert took were exposed immediately through logic and facts. Dr. Paul had a very positive appearance on an important MSM show.

----------


## TooConservative

> Tim refers to FOX as CNN in SInclair clip.


Didn't RP also have a brief CNN interview after the Faux interview where they asked him about the Faux interview where he made that remark?  That's what I thought he meant anyway.

----------


## free.alive

That was brutal

----------


## freelance

> True or False, guys (I didn't see it):
> "Supporters of the US Congressman from Texas may believe he had a good appearance and most of the time any mainstream airtime for a dark horse candidate like Paul would be welcomed, but this was a disaster.  Those that have Meet the Press on in the background on the television as they are getting the family ready for Church would have been appalled at the way his positions were described by Russert.
> 
> And Ron didn't help matters at all.  He was on the defensive from the start of the interview and never rebounded.  As I feared, Paul was unprepared and looked foolish as Russert peppered him with old quotes and positions.  The interview was fair and this is just what I expected from the NBC giant.  It was actually rather sad to see him manhandled this way but you can easily score this one Russert 1 Paul 0. "


A total misrepresentation!

----------


## RevolutionSD

We can pick apart the interview and point out all of RP's flaws in it but the bottom line is this:

-This interview is not going to dissuade anyone who was already voting for Paul
-It's also not going to gain much support from those already voting for rudy mcromneybee.
-It will get us a few more voters from the independent/democrat crowd who are just getting exposed to Paul and will research him further.
-It has ALREADY resulted in a spike in donations.

It's a net gain for us let's take it and move the Revolution forward!

----------


## Paulitician

> A total misrepresentation!


Agreed.  If anything Ron showed himself to be Russert's intellectual superior.  It wasn't even "Russert 1 Ron Paul 0"... it was more like a tie.

----------


## free.alive

The worst part was the segment on RP's criticism of Republicans, resignation from the Republican party and then questioning why Reagan is on his literature. 

That was orchestrated well by Russert. It's amazing the picture you can paint when a series of comments taken out of context are pasted together. 

This was a rough interview, but I think he did well. He did look like a sailboat in a hurricane, but he answered everything and he FINALLY attacked back on the third party question. He could've been more direct on deflating the earmark mischaracterization.

----------


## ThePieSwindler

Anyone know what was said in the "political roundtable" afterward?

----------


## synthetic

The interview was by far one of his best. People around here have always been overly critical. I think it comes from wanting Ron to win so badly.

It was a great performance, he won over voters today.

----------


## PatriotOne

> That's a pretty accurate statement.  He's actually not even considering an independent run.  It will be 2 months (after Super Tuesday) until he decides such a thing, if ever.  And I seriously doubt he would do it.


Hmmmmmm.  The statement does sound a bit *less sure* though.  Frankly, I hope he does start mentioning the possiblility of a 3rd party run.  That would be the repubs worst nightmare and perhaps make them a bit less agressive to stopping the RP nom.

If not, RP doesn't need a billion bucks to run a third party......he has what no other politician has ever had before and it's probably worth more than a billion bucks.  He has an army who is spreading out like a fungus .  If a person was to try to quantify how much we have been worth these past 6 months, I don't doubt it would add up to more than a cool bil 

Come spring time we'll be viral on the ground even more so than today.

Anyways, a discussion for another day!

----------


## louisiana4liberty

The whole show was an attack ad.  He was being attacked the whole time.

This is good news.  The biased media has sunk so low and is so worried about his support that they have to spend all day and night doing research looking for snippets to try and catch him being inconsistent.  

BTW, I really want to see this YouTube or audio of Ron Paul saying he wants to end public schools.  And what was the context when or if he said that?  Maybe he was referring to federally backed public schools like in Washington.  I know Washington's federally funded public schools have failed pretty badly.  

I personally think he did a great job and loved how he took it to Tim.  He answered all the questions and had Tim getting flustered over his misunderstandings.

----------


## TheConstitutionLives

I give it a 7 out of 10.  It wasn't great but it wasn't bad.

----------


## Sey.Naci

> I've watched meet the press off an on for the last 3 years, and before that every week for 4 years solid.  I have NEVER seen an interview that even approached the outright attack level of this one.  This was a practical catalog of every obscure, discredited, smear that has been thrown against the wall hoping to stick to Dr. Paul all crammed into one interview.


I'd be interested, then, in your opinion of how Dr. Paul managed the interview.

----------


## TheConstitutionLives

> I'd be interested, then, in your opinion of how Dr. Paul managed the interview.



I don't buy that.  The Rudy interview was just brutal.  It was worse than this one.  Google it and see for yourself.  He tore Rudy to pieces.

----------


## Nothlit

> Anyone know what was said in the "political roundtable" afterward?


Nothing terribly interesting.  They discussed the latest national and state polls, talked about Romney's clarification of seeing his father march with MLK, and brought up the Christmas commercials.  Ron Paul was not mentioned at all, except for a fleeting statement Russert made about his Christmas ad.

----------


## Hangly Man

> Can you offer why you think it was terrible besides saying he could have done better?
> 
> I found nothing terrible about it.


It was nerve-wracking, that's for sure.  The interview was hostile in the extreme.  In the foreign policy section Russert even tried to maneuver Paul into saying the US and Al Qaeda are morally equivalent.  If that's how it goes for everyone who comes on the show then I guess I'm not worried.

Its good to be challenged like that.  Let's take the lumps and come back stronger.  There's nothing wrong with Paul's ideas, he just needs to be more specific in places.  Maybe we can get some exact numbers on troops, expenditures, alternate ways of raising money, and maybe even a complete budget proposal.

Lew Rockwell?  Are you reading this?

----------


## Paulitician

> talked about Romney's clarification of seeing his father march with MLK


Saw that on PBS yesterday.  Willard explanation of that was... uh... interesting 

It was complete nonsense: "I didn't actually see my dad march with Martin Luther King, but I 'saw' him..." what a moron

----------


## aravoth

He did just fine. Russert's show is always about turning a politician into a pile of steamy pulp. He asked Ron tough questions, as every reporter should ask anyone tough questions. I thought he handled himself very well.

----------


## Sey.Naci

> I just finished watching Dr. Paul on MTP. I watch MTP every Sunday (have for years), and Dr. Paul did as good as any candidate I've ever seen grilled by Russert. I don't think we could have realistically expected anything more.


Thanks for that. Some of us haven't a TV and so haven't the MTP history that you and perhaps others on this forum do. That you're able to compare this interview with others you've seen helps the rest of us put this interview in context.

Not having seen many MTP interviews before, I was nonetheless prepared for RP to be skewered. I was pleasantly surprised to see how much of Dr. Paul's views and philosophy were allowed to be aired. 

Re the earmarks issue, that Russert cut off further explanation from Dr. Paul was telling and likely not missed by viewers. RP had been doing well in defending himself - he was scoffing and laughing (in a friendly manner) at Russert, telling him that he, Russert, was confused about the issue. It was after that return that Russert made one quip, then changed the topic without letting RP reply to the quip.

----------


## TheConstitutionLives

> He did just fine. Russert's show is always about turning a politician into a pile of steamy pulp. He asked Ron tough questions, as every reporter should ask anyone tough questions. I thought he handled himself very well.


Exactly.  I wish all reporters were this tough.  If they were we wouldn't be in all these messes.

----------


## jaybone

Russert was hostile, as expected.
Ron proudly stood up to him, also as expected.

Ron needs to try and bring his NH discussion over eggs and coffee: loose, candid, natural, and above all clear, to his more uncomfortable appearances.
easier said than done, it's a zen thing I guess.

----------


## TooConservative

> The worst part was the segment on RP's criticism of Republicans, resignation from the Republican party and then questioning why Reagan is on his literature.


I recall that RP said he sent in the letter of resignation and the "membership card" (as though a GOP membership card means anything to anyone) and that the RNC chairman called him back and tried to talk him out of resigning from the GOP even though he had already committed to run Libertarian.

I can't recall if Haley Barbour (current governor of Mississippi) was still the RNC chair then or not.

Ron has never said whether he ever got an acceptance from the RNC of his "resignation".  Well, RP was trying to do the honorable thing by not trying to pretend he was running as a Republican.  But he did unintentionally cause some problems with the Libertarians because he's so pro-life and they were so pro-choice.  Ever since Ron's 1988 run, the LP has had a large but probably slightly less than a majority of pro-life Libertarians.  The leadership leans pro-choice slightly in a few statements on their site but clearly they won't take on their pro-lifers in the LP either.  Ron subverted the LP's pro-choice purity on the abortion issue.  LOL.

As for rejoining the GOP in 1989, he just showed up at the courthouse and registered Republican again, same as anyone else.  It's not like there's some GOP commissar standing there guarding the registration to make sure certain people can't sign up.

We don't have a Soviet commissar system and political police to control who can register, vote and run for office in American parties.  We're a lot freer than that.

So what is a Republican?  It's someone who shows up at the courthouse an registers Republican.  Period.  Democrats are the same.  And it's the same to register to vote as it is to run for president.  Show up, fill out a short form.

----------


## Giuliani was there on 911

Ron Paul definitely came out on top, especially after seeing the way that Russert tore Giuliani and Romney to shreds. Romney is still feeling the soreness with all those news lies of his being talked about

----------


## angelatc

> Youtubbeeee


It is going to be available at the copyright holder's site at 1:00 est.

Why would anybody waste time breaking it up into three parts on YouTube is beyond me.

At least Google video lets people upload more than 10 minutes at a time.

Maybe I need to rethink this whole free market ideology.

----------


## Giuliani was there on 911

I do agree his comments about Reagan could hurt him though, a lot of republicans today worship Reagan and light a candle in his memory every night before going to sleep.

----------


## Stealth4

ht tp://forums.audiworld.com/politics/msgs/233536.phtml

"Ron Paul sure came off as a nut job on Meet the Press today, I'm not a supporter, but that sure hurt him."

also my FIL watched it and didnt think it went well.  I didnt see it, but my guess is for people who dont normally watch meet the press any interview they watch "wouldnt go well"

----------


## frasu

Dr. Paul did just fine and I will say Russert did a good job too. He didn't waiver from his usual tough routine. He is good, we need more of his type. I thought it will be much brutal, all circling around more crappy questions... Seriously, who didn't like this interview should look up the other candidates on _Meet the press_. 
Much better to have an interview with a fair Russert than with that crazy snake Beck (what a back stabber).

----------


## angelatc

> ht tp://forums.audiworld.com/politics/msgs/233536.phtml
> 
> "Ron Paul sure came off as a nut job on Meet the Press today, I'm not a supporter, but that sure hurt him."
> 
> also my FIL watched it and didnt think it went well.  I didnt see it, but my guess is for people who dont normally watch meet the press any interview they watch "wouldnt go well"


Anybody who says "nutjob" is already bent on being a detractor.

----------


## grizzums

Finished watching it a second time, this time with my brother who has been an incessant Bush supporter/defender for the first 5+ years of his Presidency....

I don't know how much my bias influences my rating but whereas I gave him a 5-6 on the interview my first watch, I've upped it to a 7 on the second pass.  I have watched MTP for several years so I know how Russert and the shows format works.  I actually respect TR and his consistent "hard ball questioning" of his guests, for the most part.  

I have worked on my brother for a good couple months now, trying to educate him on Paul's platform and philosophies.  He has been a really tough sell (very big war supporter)...

...he didn't say much during the whole interview...he was pretty focused...lol - after RP's time just finished, he turned to me and said..."Okay, I'm not completely convinced that he can accomplish all that he advocates for, but he's got my support."

  I'm not kidding...I did NOT expect that.  He had to run out of here to finish XMas shopping, but man....I am just kind of in "shock and awe"...you would be too if you knew my bro.

----------


## Triton

Russert pwned Paul on earmarks.  To think otherwise is self-delusion, plain and simple.  Otherwise, it was actually a good half-hour.  I give it a 7 out of 10.  If Russert doesn't make you look like the south end of a northbound horse, you've done well.

----------


## Giuliani was there on 911

> Dr. Paul did just fine and I will say Russert did a good job too. *He didn't waiver from his usual tough routine*. He is good, we need more of his type. I thought it will be much brutal, all circling around more crappy questions... Seriously, who didn't like this interview should look up the other candidates on _Meet the press_. 
> Much better to have an interview with a fair Russert than with that crazy snake Beck (what a back stabber).


He couldn't, he had to resort to doing his retarded guy routine. Like when he said slavery would still exist today if not for the Civil war or his comments about Iran invading Israel

----------


## Charles Wilson

> Worst case scenario: 
> 
> Ron Paul isn't a Republican
> Ron Paul is a racist
> Ron Paul is an anti-Semite
> Ron Paul is blaming America for 9/11


Tim Russert tried very hard to paint Ron Paul as an anti-Semite and a racist. Ron Paul is neither. I love the answer Ron gave concerning the Civil War and slavery. It is a fact that 600 thousand Americans lost their lives in that war, including many black Americans from the North and South. As Ron Paul said, the slaves should have been purchased by the Federal government and set free, thereby avoiding all of the bloodshed and destruction (as many of us know, slavery was not the reason for the war, it was an excuse). 

The fact is Lincoln and his supporters successfully perfected a coup. The relationship between the Federal government and the States changed forever, whereas the Federal government went from having limited power under the Constitution to unlimited power over the States and the people. The Federal government made all kinds of promises to the newly emancipated slaves and broke them all. Many politicians are doing the same thing to this day.

----------


## Giuliani was there on 911

> Russert pwned Paul on earmarks.  To think otherwise is self-delusion, plain and simple.  Otherwise, it was actually a good half-hour.  I give it a 7 out of 10.  If Russert doesn't make you look like the south end of a northbound horse, you've done well.


Yeah he  "pwned " him, but only if you stopped watching before Paul got the chance to respond.

----------


## barbz

I thought he did a very good job.  I love that Dr Paul directly answers the questions that he is asked.  There is no side stepping or double talk like with other candidates.

----------


## Ron Paul Fan

Russert did not pwn anyone on earmarks.  If you actually understood the system you'd know that Ron Paul gave a good answer.  If you don't understand the system then you give ignorant statements like some are doing.  Ron Paul is 100% correct on the issue.

----------


## TooConservative

> I have worked on my brother for a good couple months now, trying to educate him on Paul's platform and philosophies.  He has been a really tough sell (very big war supporter)...
> ...he didn't say much during the whole interview...he was pretty focused...lol - after RP's time just finished, he turned to me and said..."Okay, I'm not completely convinced that he can accomplish all that he advocates for, but he's got my support."


Our guy is a little magical all on his own.

And if you have a conservative bone in your body, he can find it.

Even at times when he doesn't speak as clearly as we'd hope, he does manage to communicate pretty well somehow.  I've seen other reports like yours too.  And the party has abandoned all of us who signed on for Reagan and Gingrich.  None of the others will run for liberty and small-government.  Ron Paul sings that siren song well.

And eloquence isn't everything either.  GWB won twice and is probably the most incoherent president in our entire history.  And Republicans voted for him big time.  Good grief, his speeches (and those press conferences!) are just torture to even watch.

RP is kind of a phenomenon.

----------


## grunt

> Russert pwned Paul on earmarks.  To think otherwise is self-delusion, plain and simple.  Otherwise, it was actually a good half-hour.  I give it a 7 out of 10.  If Russert doesn't make you look like the south end of a northbound horse, you've done well.


I thought Ron Paul's answer on this was clear.  The money is already there waiting to be alloted and his district should not get ignored by money that essentially is already spent and will be spent otherwise.  He still votes against the BILL if it is unconstitutional, but to extend that to say he adds the earmark then "votes against it" is absolutely ridiculous and ignorant of the politics involved.

----------


## grunt

Did anyone notice that Russert thought he was going to get the last word in and "hack-job" Ron Paul by saying his quote on Fox News wasn't even accurate, but Ron Paul wouldn't stand for it and got his answer in quickly and energetically.  

Russert's "Hack Job" he had been saving for last, failed miserably.

----------


## wfd40

> Finished watching it a second time, this time with my brother who has been an incessant Bush supporter/defender for the first 5+ years of his Presidency....
> 
> I don't know how much my bias influences my rating but whereas I gave him a 5-6 on the interview my first watch, I've upped it to a 7 on the second pass.  I have watched MTP for several years so I know how Russert and the shows format works.  I actually respect TR and his consistent "hard ball questioning" of his guests, for the most part.  
> 
> I have worked on my brother for a good couple months now, trying to educate him on Paul's platform and philosophies.  He has been a really tough sell (very big war supporter)...
> 
> ...he didn't say much during the whole interview...he was pretty focused...lol - after RP's time just finished, he turned to me and said..."Okay, I'm not completely convinced that he can accomplish all that he advocates for, but he's got my support."
> 
>   I'm not kidding...I did NOT expect that.  He had to run out of here to finish XMas shopping, but man....I am just kind of in "shock and awe"...you would be too if you knew my bro.


You know what.. you bring up a tremendously good point - and that is, almost always, Dr. Paul's interviews play MUCH MUCH BETTER the second (third/fourth/fifth) go arounds. 

Sure, a lot of moments instantly register as being "positive" or very well articulated (re: "I take my marching orders from the constitution!").. but some do not. But then.. when they get re-aired or replayed via youTube, I personally find myself being far more impressed with Paul's 'positioning'

Our man really does have "it"... I hope that everyone takes a second look at the interview.. (especially the MSM)

----------


## Sey.Naci

> True or False, guys (I didn't see it):
> "Supporters of the US Congressman from Texas may believe he had a good appearance and most of the time any mainstream airtime for a dark horse candidate like Paul would be welcomed, but this was a disaster.  Those that have Meet the Press on in the background on the television as they are getting the family ready for Church would have been appalled at the way his positions were described by Russert.
> 
> And Ron didn't help matters at all.  He was on the defensive from the start of the interview and never rebounded.  As I feared, Paul was unprepared and looked foolish as Russert peppered him with old quotes and positions.  The interview was fair and this is just what I expected from the NBC giant.  It was actually rather sad to see him manhandled this way but you can easily score this one Russert 1 Paul 0. "


And you can find articles saying the complete opposite. Do a google search on it.

----------


## Sey.Naci

> looks like donations could have gotten a bump:
> 
> http://ronpaulgraphs.com/yesterday_vs_today_line.html


Ooooh! Total donations this week (today): 411. New donors: 258.

----------


## musicmax

> Yeah he  "pwned " him, but only if you stopped watching before Paul got the chance to respond.


I call for a moratorium on "pwn" and any variation thereof.  Just because every decade creates an idiotic word and bludgeons it to death (60s: "groovy"; 70s: "solid"; 80s: "dude"; 90s: "kewl") doesn't mean the next generation has to as well.

----------


## musicmax

> Russert did not pwn anyone on earmarks.  If you actually understood the system you'd know that Ron Paul gave a good answer.  If you don't understand the system then you give ignorant statements like some are doing.  Ron Paul is 100% correct on the issue.


Earmarks are 100% unconstitutional.  When RP submits an earmark - ANY earmark - he is 100% wrong.

----------


## bgoldwater

> Earmarks are 100% unconstitutional.  When RP submits an earmark - ANY earmark - he is 100% wrong.


Agree.  The earmarks have been one area that I completely disagree with Ron.

----------


## cicatrice

I think the earmarks response is genius.  I knew his stance before going on the show (already a few clips on YouTube).  

He can submit earmark requests because if they pass ANYWAY at least his district is getting something in return.  Dr. Paul always votes AGAINST earmark bills in the end.  But if they do happen to pass, his district will get something out of it.  Otherwise their money will fund other earmark projects in different districts.  

I hope you understand how this works before you "disagree" with the doctor.

----------


## peter_lifton

> Earmarks are 100% unconstitutional.  When RP submits an earmark - ANY earmark - he is 100% wrong.



Where does it say in the constitution that earmarks are not allowed?

----------


## hawks4ronpaul

> You know what.. you bring up a tremendously good point - and that is, almost always, Dr. Paul's interviews play MUCH MUCH BETTER the second (third/fourth/fifth) go arounds. 
> 
> Sure, a lot of moments instantly register as being "positive" or very well articulated (re: "I take my marching orders from the constitution!").. but some do not. But then.. when they get re-aired or replayed via youTube, I personally find myself being far more impressed with Paul's 'positioning'
> 
> Our man really does have "it"... I hope that everyone takes a second look at the interview.. (especially the MSM)


I agree, although the average person will not re-watch so Paul needs to works on first impressions.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

----------


## hawks4ronpaul

> Earmarks are 100% unconstitutional.  When RP submits an earmark - ANY earmark - he is 100% wrong.


The Constitution allows Congress great flexibility on its internal procedures.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

----------


## musicmax

> I think the earmarks response is genius.


Apparently AP thought it was "genius" too, 'cause their headline is PAUL DEFENDS EARMARKS.

Trying to defend RP's position on earmarks only makes one look like a fanboy.

----------


## inibo

> I call for a moratorium on "pwn" and any variation thereof.  Just because every decade creates an idiotic word and bludgeons it to death (60s: "groovy"; 70s: "solid"; 80s: "dude"; 90s: "kewl") doesn't mean the next generation has to as well.


"Groovy" was the people who didn't get it.  The real term was "Far out."

----------


## musicmax

> The Constitution allows Congress great flexibility on its internal procedures.


Only a Constitution which lacks Article I Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment.  Where did you get such a Constitution?

----------


## wfd40

> Earmarks are 100% unconstitutional.  When RP submits an earmark - ANY earmark - he is 100% wrong.


Ok.. but guess what.. I (and I assume most everyone) could care less.

He's attempting to get back some of the money that was taken from his constituents by the IRS... makes sense to me.

A total non-issue.. (and that's coming from someone who has major issues/questions about a few of Dr. Paul's policies.)

----------


## musicmax

> Where does it say in the constitution that earmarks are not allowed?


Amendment X

----------


## cicatrice

> Apparently AP thought it was "genius" too, 'cause their headline is PAUL DEFENDS EARMARKS.
> 
> Trying to defend RP's position on earmarks only makes one look like a fanboy.


Well, I'm a fan_girl_ then.  But what would you do?  There is a difference between _earmark requests_ and _passing earmark bills_.  Dr. Paul votes AGAINST the bill.  But he still requests, otherwise his district will go empty-handed on a bill that would pass regardless of his one "nay".

----------


## musicmax

> Ok.. but guess what.. I (and I assume most everyone) could care less.


Maybe you need to care, 'cause the AP just made it the focus of their article.





> He's attempting to get back some of the money that was taken from his constituents by the IRS... makes sense to me.


_Selected_ constituents.  The best way to "get back some of the money" is to reduce overall spending.  Earmarks are the antithesis of such.




> A total non-issue..


Again, AP differs with you.  Unfortunately, AP stories reach hundreds of millions more people than do your posts.

----------


## musicmax

> Well, I'm a fan_girl_ then.  But what would you do?  There is a difference between _earmark requests_ and _passing earmark bills_.  Dr. Paul votes AGAINST the bill.  But he still requests, otherwise his district will go empty-handed on a bill that would pass regardless of his one "nay".



Answer this please: 

A Congressman takes an oath to:

(a) his district;
(b) the Constitution.

----------


## Ron2Win

Two completely different points of view.

----------


## Giuliani was there on 911

> Did anyone notice that Russert thought he was going to get the last word in and "hack-job" Ron Paul by saying his quote on Fox News wasn't even accurate, but Ron Paul wouldn't stand for it and got his answer in quickly and energetically.  
> 
> Russert's "Hack Job" he had been saving for last, failed miserably.


haha I didn't notice that at first but Paul was quick on the draw.

----------


## TooConservative

> Earmarks are 100% unconstitutional.  When RP submits an earmark - ANY earmark - he is 100% wrong.


Strangely, the Founders who wrote the Constitution didn't know that.  They used earmarks.  The habit was far less corrupt then, mostly involving exactly how much to spend on the construction of bridges and roads that linked the early states on vital trade goods routes.

If the president does not want to spend money on something that the Congress wants to spend money on, then even if the Congress has passed such a provision in their omnibus bill, the president can direct the relevant agency to do something else with the money.  They can pass a provision, say to improve paving on a road in Yellowstone National Forest, have it pass unanimously in committee and unanimously in the House and in the Senate and in the conference committee and the president and the Dept of Transportation could still ignore it and just allocate that year's DepTrans budget however they want.

That is why we have to allow the custom of earmarks.  So that Congress and especially the House's exclusive power of the purse remains with the people, not with the executive branch.

This last week, there is a new legal theory going around that somehow earmarks really are illegal and non-binding on the president.  As closely as I can tell, this is much like the signing statements that Bush attaches to every major bill where he indicates how he reads a congressional bill submitted to him and how he intends to read it and enforce it and fulfill it.  This is another attempt by the Bush faction to enlarge the power of the executive at the expense of Congress.  If this keeps up, we may as well just call our president Caesar and sit around moaning about the loss of our republic.

While Congress has abused its earmark authority over the years, destroying the balance of power between the branches of government is no solution.  The purse must stay in the House, where the Constitution says it belongs.  It's not perfect, it's just the safest solution that the power of the purse is held only by the most democratic institution of the federal government and where changes can be made within two years by the voters if they don't like how they spend the taxes.

Let's not do violence to the Constitution just because there is some earmark abuse.  There are times when earmarks are perfectly legitimate and are actually good for the country so the Congress can direct the money to specific targeted programs.

----------


## Ron Paul Fan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_vPUqPTims

Ron Paul addresses the earmark issue in this interview with Kudlow.  The system is flawed and Ron Paul does his best in the flawed system.  He is opposed to the federal income tax, yet he submits bills to give tax credits to the people.  He is oppossed to social security, yet he submits bills to protect the fund so the politicians can't spend it.  Ron Paul is trying to change this flawed system.  If Ron Paul did what some of you are saying, he wouldn't be a 10 term Congressman, and he wouldn't be running for President this year!  If defending Ron Paul on earmarks makes you a fanboy, then opposing him on earmarks makes you a Ron Paul hater and an enemy of liberty with no soul just like John McCain!  Take that to the bank and cash it!

----------


## Vvick727

yeah, its a flawed system.

it's like asking someone if they still beat their wife.

the question is flawed, just as the current role of government is flawed

----------


## cicatrice

> Answer this please: 
> 
> A Congressman takes an oath to:
> 
> (a) his district;
> (b) the Constitution.


I just don't see this in terms of black and white.  I think it's the degrees of unconstitutionality.  Taking money via the IRS (unconstitutional) and returning it through "water projects, a nursing program, and to expand a hospital cancer center and to promote" is something the taxpayer can benefit from.  Granted the Texas shrimp is definitely interesting but I'm sure it benefits some aspect of the community.  You can call them selected constituents but he does need to get re-elected.  And yes, it's flawed--especially if it can be innovatively "exploited" this way.

Additionally, there is a time to be idealistic and pragmatic.  Even Thomas Jefferson faced this problem regarding the Louisiana Purchase.

----------


## musicmax

> Let's not do violence to the Constitution just because there is some earmark abuse.  There are times when earmarks are perfectly legitimate and are actually good for the country so the Congress can direct the money to specific targeted programs.


http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm

----------


## Sey.Naci

> He should have expected exactly this from Russert. This is what he does. He digs up old quotes and your record and tries to challenge you on it. This is serious journalism, not cable news fluff.
> 
> I wasn't satisfied with his response on the earmarks issue. He took the approach of trying to laugh off Russert, and that didn't really work. That seemed like something Giuliani would do.
> 
> He should have expected this question to be asked, and he should have had a precise answer prepared.


Unlike with Rudy, RP's laughter was genuine. He was flabbergasted by how misinformed Russert was on this issue - and Dr. Paul was having fun by this point.

----------


## musicmax

> I just don't see this in terms of black and white.  I think it's the degrees of unconstitutionality.  Taking money via the IRS (unconstitutional) and returning it through "water projects, a nursing program, and to expand a hospital cancer center and to promote" is something the taxpayer can benefit from.  Granted the Texas shrimp is definitely interesting but I'm sure it benefits some aspect of the community.  You can call them selected constituents but he does need to get re-elected.  And yes, it's flawed--especially if it can be innovatively "exploited" this way.


The specious argument that "X benefits some aspect of the community" has been used ever since the New Deal as an excuse to steal trillions of dollars.  I cannot believe a Ron Paul supporter wants to use the exact same language as Mr. Welfare Socialist himself, FDR.

----------


## Paul4Prez

Earmarks aren't unconstitutional in the slightest -- they are just adding greater specificity on how appropriations bills will be spent.  Some of the things that are earmarked are unconstitutional, of course.  Ron Paul votes against those, and pretty much all spending bills.

The problem with earmarks is that they make it easier for Congress to pass large spending bills, because people are more likely to go along when they get their cut.  Which raises an interesting question -- since Ron Paul almost always votes against the final spending bill, why do other Congressmen vote for the earmarks he submits?  They're not going to win his vote by supporting them, so they must think the earmarks would be popular in their districts as well.

----------


## TooConservative

> If defending Ron Paul on earmarks makes you a fanboy, then opposing him on earmarks makes you a Ron Paul hater and an enemy of liberty with no soul just like John McCain!


It's not either/or.

Some people don't understand earmarks that well. We don't teach it in civics, the media never explains it in detail.  And earmarks really can be good or bad or kind of neutral.  Then there is the issue of whether getting rid of them hampers the House and neutralizes its power of the purse vs. the executive branch controlling decisions on all federal spending.

It's not something for us to fight about.  We need to know the issue thoroughly and be prepared to discuss them.  Ron Paul doesn't think earmarks are forbidden or that doing away with them altogether is an answer.

----------


## literatim

The ability to appropriate funds is in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

----------


## cicatrice

> The specious argument that "X benefits some aspect of the community" has been used ever since the New Deal as an excuse to steal trillions of dollars.  I cannot believe a Ron Paul supporter wants to use the exact same language as Mr. Welfare Socialist himself, FDR.


Well, it seems that I am drawn to Dr. Paul for different reasons than yourself.  Call me a hypocrite but while I do enjoy his relatively strict interpretation of the Constitution, it was his integrity and overall policy that sold me.  And I did have a Democratic streak, I suppose it has not entirely quelled just yet.  Also, I edited my post but I guess that was missed.  I think there's a time to be pragmatic and idealistic (e.g. Louisiana Purchase).  And in this case Dr. Paul was pragmatic but still stuck to his ideals when push came to shove (when voting on the bill came about).

----------


## Paulitician

Even Dave Walker (this guy) pointed out on C-SPAN that not taking earmarks does not cut spending in any single way.  MSM is really desperate.

----------


## TooConservative

> Unlike with Rudy, RP's laughter was genuine. He was flabbergasted by how misinformed Russert was on this issue - and Dr. Paul was having fun by this point.


I liked that.  Taking stupid questions too seriously makes people think they are actually serious issues.  I'm surprised Ron didn't start laughing when Russert asked him about Iran _invading_ Israel.  But RP's retort was pretty wry.

Sometimes, you need to laugh this stuff off.  But without doing a little Huckaphony standup comedy routine.

I thought Ron's use of humor and the light touch was just about right today.

----------


## BrettCates

He was on for a half hour straight. NO COMMERCIALS. How many of us watched this on you tube thinking about what commercials were aired? So was it Timmy's strategy to not pause for break, a choce intended to make Ron "slip". Ron never slips. He stands firm with the will to win. Ron gave brilliant answers, I just wonder when in the history of MTP or Russert's MTP have the producers allowed a FULL HALF HOUR WITHOUT COMMERCIAL BREAKS and I just hope I can watch this on MSNBC soon.

Brett
Santa Cruz, CA

----------


## hawks4ronpaul

> Only a Constitution which lacks Article I Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment.  Where did you get such a Constitution?


Do not confuse WHAT Congress can regulate/fund with HOW it organizes the funding process for legitimate items.  

Congress can fund an army but the Constitution specifies almost no details about HOW to fund an army:

*Article 1 Section 5:  "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,"*

When the process is Constitutional but the object is not,  Paul heeds the process and votes against the object.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

----------


## TooConservative

> He was on for a half hour straight. NO COMMERCIALS. ... So was it Timmy's strategy to not pause for break, a choce intended to make Ron "slip". ... Ron gave brilliant answers, I just wonder when in the history of MTP or Russert's MTP have the producers allowed a FULL HALF HOUR WITHOUT COMMERCIAL BREAKS and I just hope I can watch this on MSNBC soon.


Some of the MTP candidate interviews have been even longer.  Earlier in the year around the Iowa straw poll, Richardson was on for the full hour with no commercials at all except I think they did have a break at the half-hour.  There have been a few others like that.

Now we're closer to the election and they have more to discuss so they're down to a half-hour for candidates.

I think NBC is trying to use this to lock up viewer loyalty to their news personalities.  Maybe they've been losing viewers and need to get more of them to maintain their flagship MTP show as #1.

What surprises me is that they didn't run even more commercials in the second half-hour to make up for the lost ad slots.  It also replays in the afternoon on NBC and at least once on PMSNBC.  That's a lot of ads to miss.  They must hope it will pay off somehow.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I call for a moratorium on "pwn" and any variation thereof.  Just because every decade creates an idiotic word and bludgeons it to death (60s: "groovy"; 70s: "solid"; 80s: "dude"; 90s: "kewl") doesn't mean the next generation has to as well.


Three years ago, I had already move one more letter over from the p to q and now use qwn.   LOL  Perhaps later I'll go to rwn.  

Not so bad for a guy who is only 10 years younger than Dr. Paul, huh?

----------


## RoamZero

I think the obvious reasons the racist stuff wasn't really brought up is because the MSM is saving for an all out attack regarding those issues if Paul does well in Iowa and New Hampshire. To have a recent on-the-record interview from MTP addressing those issues would only diminish the attacks.

----------


## Shii

The fascism quote is a _paraphrase_ of Sinclair Lewis by an English professor and not a direct quote. Please feel free to spread this around.

http://shii.org/knows/Fascism_comes_wrapped_in_the_flag

----------


## Liberty Star

Ron Paul was excellent.

Tim is a tough host, you should see his interviews with other candidates to appreciate how well Ron Paul did to get his message out.  I thought it was a great interview and Ron Paul made sure his views on key policy issues were known.   Tim always digs up old and obscure  stuff to put candidates on a hot seat, Ron Paul was clear and strong on key points of his current campaign and  that is what matters. 

Ron Paul will pick up some good support as a result.

----------


## Malakai0

This earmark thing is insane and so totally misconstrued.

Government takes money from your constituents.
Should you just sit by and say "hey plunder away" or fight to get some of THEIR MONEY BACK?


He votes no on the entire thing because he just wants his district, and every citizen, to KEEP their money in the first place. But if its going to get taken and pass anyway, shouldn't his constituents get SOME of their money back? 

The neocons want to get rid of the earmarks so they can spend it all on the welfare-warfare state. That's the sad truth to the whole issue. They want us thinking a congressman getting some money back for his district is bad, Bush and co need that money to bomb Iran!

----------


## mokkan88

If you guys think this was hostile, then you evidently don't want 'Meet the Press'.  Last week, Romney got murdered on the show.

----------


## Troyhand

He did great as always. Russert cut him off constantly from answering fully, so Dr. Paul wasn't allowed to fully shine. Paul definitely won this though.

Dr. Paul = Truth
Tim Russert = Mop
Meet The Press = The Floor

----------


## ReallyNow

If this is the worst that the hardest hitting news show can throw at Dr. Paul, we're in good shape. That interview was FAR AND ABOVE better than any of the other candidates -- flip floppey, lying Romney, heckle jeckle Giuliani and the hilarious "this was your own quote" McCain. 

All in all a great job by Dr. Paul. His only real flub was not getting his message across on earmarks as clearly as he should have but that's been his achilles heel this whole time.

----------


## Ron LOL

I thought the interview was a pretty good appearance, but the campaign should issue a high profile press release to clarify some of the points that Russert interrupted Paul on.

If _only_ Russert were as tough on everybody appearing on his show.

----------


## ReallyNow

> I thought the interview was a pretty good appearance, but the campaign should issue a high profile press release to clarify some of the points that Russert interrupted Paul on.
> 
> If _only_ Russert were as tough on everybody appearing on his show.


Let's not get carried away. Russert is a bulldog and goes after EVERYONE. This was the most neutered I've seen Russert look save the earmark question.

----------


## TooConservative

> If this is the worst that the hardest hitting news show can throw at Dr. Paul, we're in good shape. That interview was FAR AND ABOVE better than any of the other candidates -- flip floppey, lying Romney, heckle jeckle Giuliani and the hilarious "this was your own quote" McCain.


If you've ever seen Russert when he's really out for blood, you'd know he could have done worse.

OTOH, he probably doesn't think RP can win and our web traffic and rather intense support for RP probably kept him from trying it.  They are a little afraid of riling us up.  And we undoubtedly brought them high viewer numbers and web traffic.  We always do.

If Ron Paul was at 15% or 20% in national polls, believe me, it would have been much worse.  After I saw Russert shoot, field-dress, skin alive and nail Richardson's hide to his studio wall as a trophy, I really felt pretty sorry for Richardson.  It wasn't so much like a deer in the headlights thing, more like watching the pickup run over the deer, back up and run over it again and again for an hour straight.  It was a complete massacre.

----------


## traviskicks

> The reason that Russert didn't bring up the donation or the newsletter or anything like that is because Paul has already put the issues to bed and Tim Russert obviously knows that they are bull$#@! smears.
> 
> 
> Russert seems like a smart guy, Lew Rockwell called it last night:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are all four parts:
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/017958.html


thanks for posting that.

----------


## MadOdorMachine

I don't think I've ever seen Ron Paul that nervous before. Now that he knows what types of attacks he will be getting, he can prepare how to better answer them in the future. I don't think he will be bringing any new supporters on board with that interview alone. It was good practice though. Even though he didn't do as good as he could have, he can learn a lot from this. He better start preparing, because if he starts doing good in the polls, attacks like this are going to start happening more often.

----------


## jwerner

Ron has to have those numbers ready. People will say "see he is just a philosophical candidate it is all a dream" We know it is realistic to drop spending levels to what hey were in 2000 but if you do not have some hard numbers people will think it is un realistic.

----------


## cicatrice

> If Ron Paul was at 15% or 20% in national polls, believe me, it would have been much worse.  After I saw Russert shoot, field-dress, skin alive and nail Richardson's hide to his studio wall as a trophy, I really felt pretty sorry for Richardson.  It wasn't so much like a deer in the headlights thing, more like watching the pickup run over the deer, back up and run over it again and again for an hour straight.  It was a complete massacre.


*lol*  Wow, now I'm really curious about this Richardson interview.  But I agree with MadOdorMachine--now Dr. Paul can better prepare for these types of attacks.

----------


## ForLiberty-RonPaul

I thought the interview wasn't bad. Dr. Paul should maybe do a little more prep work for these. I don't think hard numbers would help all that much. Instead maybe Paul could practice the interview with someone from his staff. He needs to have a friend who disagrees with him on some things. We know Dr. Paul can take a news anchor yard, but he needs to do that to someone very famous. Russert was too hard, but maybe someone else.

----------


## ForLiberty-RonPaul

For these types of interviews "how" you say something is almost more important than "what" you say.

----------


## Shink

I think the main problem with the interview was that Ron's stances take a lot of logic to fully 'get,' and if Ron doesn't have much time to address the thought process behind some of them, he sounds scary to some people.  We can expect more of this, since he'll top three in NH and maybe Iowa.

Another problem is Russert's viewpoint that somehow the CONSTITUTION as one's stance makes no sense.  GO BACK TO CIVICS.

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> Ron Paul never said Reagan was a traitor.  That was someone else's words.  He said Reagan was a failure, and he was considering that government increased under his watch.  That was Paul's point.  The Reagan he endorsed in 76 was not the same Reagan who left office in 88.  He was a failure.


I picked up something interesting in Paul's reasoning on the Reagan issue.

Paul said that Reagan was a total failure and yet Paul uses Reagan in his campaign literature due to what he stood for.

If the same logic were to be applied to Bush (a man whose policies Paul supported when Bush ran for office in 2000), then there is some justification of having Bush's images in Paul's campaign literature as well.

Clearly, Paul is making a judgement call as to which one of those Presidents, having run on decent campaign issues, was less of a failure once elected to office.

Overall, I would have to say, that Paul is playing a political game and of course he has to no matter what anyone might say. 

Paul is using Reagan's reputation amongst the general public (which I would imagine is mostly positive) even though he personally considers Reagan to be a total failure.

Of course it is not as simple as making a claim that he is simply willingly associating himself with a man whom he considers to be a total failure. 

I say that because Reagan had very nice things to say about Paul after all, so it is not a black and white issue. 

It feels like a conflict of interest issue to me, to be honest.

Intellectual Honesty would demand that Paul would not hide his criticisms of Reagan and display them in a rational manner somewhere on his website.

Note: This is a constructive criticism of Paul, not an attack on the man. Please keep the rabid drooling to yourself. Constructive comments welcome.

----------


## Hangly Man

I don't mind the earmarks thing.  It's a corrupt system, and until you can change it you've got to work with it.

The part that bugged me was where it seemed like he backed off his position on dismantling the CIA.  
I wanted to reach into the TV and help him.  
"Ron!  Ron!!  Say that espionage should be put back under the control of the Department of Defense!"

----------


## Rintrah54

I have to say after the first viewing of Meet the Press this morning, I had my doubts as to how this would look to others.

HOWEVER!!!!

I just watched a second time and made sure to divorce myself from the defensive reactions caused by watching something that I love be attacked.  This was an attempt to clear my perception from that nasty defensive cloudiness.

Well, Im glad I did.

CAUSE RON PAUL FRICKING KNOCKED IT OUT OF THE PARK.

I urge anyone who has doubts to go back and watch it one more time while trying to fight the urge to get defensive on the particularly potent attacks. 

Its awesome.

----------


## Nihilist23

> I have to say after the first viewing of Meet the Press this morning, I had my doubts as to how this would look to others.
> ...
> 
> Well, Im glad I did.
> 
> CAUSE RON PAUL FRICKING KNOCKED IT OUT OF THE PARK.


The interviews are always so much better the 2nd time you watch...weird, isn't it?

----------


## wildflower

I know I'm late on this thread, so I haven't read all the comments, but I'm watching it on YouTube now....  actually it just ended.

My reaction -  (if I can be completely honest)  I don't think this was a great interview, in terms of appealing to the mainstream.  Unfortunately, this interview brought up all of his more radical positions  (at least radical to mainstream America) and Russert brought some controversial quotes of Paul's that will be shocking and disappointing to certain people.  Like the quote on Reagan, etc.  Also the part about the civil war, the civil rights act.... all of these things will probably be misunderstood by people and I think the Paul haters are going to have a field day with some of the things that were discussed.

Unlike the Beck interview - which I think allowed Paul to shine as a true conservative.... this interview sort of made Paul seem like a radical, and on some issues, like foreign policy, this interview imo will not be as appealing to Republicans. 

I'm just being honest.  I did think he had some great quotes, but I was hoping this interview would be one that will bring in new people and undecideds, but I don't know if that will be the case.  I hope my analysis is wrong!  Maybe I need to watch it again.

----------


## musicmax

> Do not confuse WHAT Congress can regulate/fund with HOW it organizes the funding process for legitimate items.


Money for shrimp is NOT legitimate.

Money for museum restorations is NOT legitimate.

If the WHAT is unconstitutional, there shouldn't even be a HOW.

----------


## TooConservative

> I don't think I've ever seen Ron Paul that nervous before. Now that he knows what types of attacks he will be getting, he can prepare how to better answer them in the future.


I thought he was quite relaxed.  And he did very well considering the very fast pace and the wild variety of questions and the pointed subtle and overt criticism.  After a few minutes, he got quite lively and he did enjoy it.  And people find that appealing.  I liked the dismissive laugh he gave Tim a few times on those silly questions.

Don't be too sure he didn't do himself some good with people just tuning in.

He also sounded some themes that were very easy to grasp to hardcore GOP voters from the Reagan-Gingrich years.  That part was really good but if you're too young or weren't into GOP politics then, you wouldn't have picked up on it.  He was singing our song and on-key.

Admittedly, parts of the message could have been better articulated but look at that boob in the White House now. Obviously, we don't elect 'em on the basis of eloquent speech.

And people need to understand that in the modern era, when we elect a president, it's also on the basis of character, on likability, on whether they are a decent human being, someone with the common touch, someone who is easy to see on TV.

Ron Paul did better in some of these intangibles than some of you think.  And his response to Russert about we might as well ask what we would do if Iran invaded Mars was just priceless.  But the subtext of that was that it makes people ask, "What are we doing over there conquering countries, talking about nuking Iran?"  And yet, there wasn't the smallest hint of snarkiness about RP's response.  Just his own honest response to the question.

I do think some of those intangibles were more positive than some of you do. I have confidence in our man and his character and his demeanor.  He really is the most principled and caring candidate in the race in either party.  The voters know that when they see it, it comes through to them.

I saw him greet the sign-wavers after MTP on the street.  He was full of energy, chatting about the interview, very positive.  He wasn't 100% sure he'd done well but he thought so.  So did I.

----------


## musicmax

> This earmark thing is insane and so totally misconstrued.
> 
> No it isn't.  Congress can fund the powers enumerated in th Constitution AND NOTHING ELSE.  NO museums.  NO shrimp.







> Government takes money from your constituents.
> Should you just sit by and say "hey plunder away" or fight to get some of THEIR MONEY BACK?


1.  It's NOT "getting their money back" when the govt is in a DEFICIT.

2.  It's NOT "getting their money back" unless EVERY PERSON IN THE UNITED STATES gets the SAME AMOUNT BACK.  Otherwise, it's just favoritism.




> He votes no on the entire thing because he just wants his district, and every citizen, to KEEP their money in the first place. But if its going to get taken and pass anyway, shouldn't his constituents get SOME of their money back?


No.  That attitude is "I'll get mine; screw you".  It's the antithesis of freedom, the antithesis of liberty.

AP ran it as its lead - if THAT doesn't show you how STUPID STUPID STUPID it is, you are beyond hope.

----------


## musicmax

> Earmarks aren't unconstitutional in the slightest


In what Article and Section are they authorized?

----------


## devil21

I just watched it on the MSNBC replay.  I think RP did well, considering the nature of the show.  Any possible attacks (whether factual or not) will be brought up on MTP.  What I did laugh at was that most of the quotes they used were from 1988!  Uh, 20 years ago.  Things do change in 20 years...like the immigration stuff.  The invasion of illegal hispanics has only been going on for the last 10 to 15 years.  Hopefully viewers paid attention to the dates of the quotes.  Overall, Russert didn't have a whole lot to attack RP on and it was head and shoulders better than Rudy or Mitt's MTP appearances.  At least RP's interview was about policy issues, not gross flip flopping or personal scandals.  I can't wait to see Russert shred Huckabee next week!

----------


## hawks4ronpaul

> Money for shrimp is NOT legitimate.
> 
> Money for museum restorations is NOT legitimate.
> 
> If the WHAT is unconstitutional, there shouldn't even be a HOW.



Congress has to have a HOW (Article 1 Section 5) for the legitimate items, which is why earmarking is NOT unconstitutional.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

----------


## musicmax

> Congress has to have a HOW (Article 1 Section 5) for the legitimate items, which is why earmarking is NOT unconstitutional.


Name a legitimate earmark.

----------


## lurker

You know, I have to say, the current front page article on MSNBC about Ron Paul is pretty fair - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22379734/ . They included the earmarking  for a nursing program and hospital cancer centre (other articles have just said 'Texas shrimp' and left it at that), and quoted his 'tax credit' explanation. This wasn't an attack piece, they fairly explained his defense of the earmarking projects.

You guys have to remember that the other candidates face criticism in the media about heaps of things nearly every day. You can't get riled up every time Ron Paul is "under fire" or "defends his position", because it happens to other candidates every day. Please don't be rude or write negative things to the media every time you perceive an injustice, the media may be less sympathetic in the future.

----------


## hawks4ronpaul

> In what Article and Section are they [earmarks] authorized?


Article 1 Section 5: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,"


http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

----------


## wfd40

> Money for shrimp is NOT legitimate.
> 
> Money for museum restorations is NOT legitimate.
> 
> If the WHAT is unconstitutional, there shouldn't even be a HOW.


honestly dude, we get it...

unfortunately, as much as you'd like to prop Dr. Paul up as a Living reincarnation of Jesus himself, the man has a friggin job to do, and that job includes securing as much money as he can for his constituents. 

You're approaching this like Huckatard approaches the bibles (re: the earth is 3 thousands years old). Enough already.. 

-----
on another note.. was anyone seriously expecting answers to be delivered like this silver tongued snake.. lolz ??


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LFd9TWVlP4

----------


## TooConservative

> I wanted to reach into the TV and help him.  
> "Ron!  Ron!!  Say that espionage should be put back under the control of the Department of Defense!"


I'd like to go back to the old name for it: Department Of War.  More accurate.

The DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) is something like 5-6 times bigger in funding that the CIA is which only gets about $30 billion as I recall.  Then you have NSA for electronic spying and eavesdropping, and the satellite intel from the National Reconnaissance Office (up until about ten years ago, you could go to prison for even typing its name on an unclassified document, true fact).  They finally let us type its name now since apparently everyone figured out we have spy satellites.  Duh.  CIA/NSA/NRO are only three of the better known of sixteen federal intelligence agencies that are publicly admitted.  Undoubtedly, we have at least another half-dozen whose existence we deny and whose funding is on the black budget and whose names are protected from being printed by laws like the one that protected the NRO.  Now the NRO even has a friendly website and the CIA has a section called CIA For Kids!  Probably has Barney on it.

Abolition of the sinister elements of the national security apparatus is a good idea.  At least put it in mothballs.  We would have an interim transition period.

And Ron Paul isn't all that radical.  I think he'll get Michael Schuerre's endorsement.  They already made those joint appearances to assign Rudy's reading list. Schuerre was head of the CIA unit on Osama matters.  Some of the "dissident" arms control inspectors are also in Dr. Paul's orbit on these policies.

I think the recent NIE from 13 U.S. intel agencies to tell the Congress (and the public) that Iran had no active nuke program was so they wouldn't get blamed again like they were for the invasion of Iraq after Team Bush manufactured and distorted and garbled and cherry-picked the intel findings on Iraq and used them to scare everyone to death and justify the invasion.  That's why Turkey wouldn't go along with us.  That's why the Europeans wouldn't except for Blair who was just being a loyal colonial governor.

I thought Ron Paul did fine.  He stressed several times that his policies would require an interim period, as he has in discussing moving to harder currency and letting young folks leave Social Insecurity.

----------


## RP-Republican

I just watched the interview, compared to the other candidates I thought Paul did great. Giuliani and Romney had very tough questions also and I think they will take a lot bigger hit than what Ron Paul will take.

----------


## musicmax

> Article 1 Section 5: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,"


So you'd be ok if the "rule" for selecting the speaker was a duel to the death?

Illegitimate ends reached by allegedly legitimate means are no less illegitimate.  There are no legitimate earmarks.

----------


## Paulitician

> You know, I have to say, the current front page article on MSNBC about Ron Paul is pretty fair - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22379734/ . They included the earmarking  for a nursing program and hospital cancer centre (other articles have just said 'Texas shrimp' and left it at that), and quoted his 'tax credit' explanation. This wasn't an attack piece, they fairly explained his defense of the earmarking projects.
> 
> You guys have to remember that the other candidates face criticism in the media about heaps of things nearly every day. You can't get riled up every time Ron Paul is "under fire" or "defends his position", because it happens to other candidates every day. Please don't be rude or write negative things to the media every time you perceive an injustice, the media may be less sympathetic in the future.


Agreed.  Some people get WAY too worked up about things.  We need to be less annoying and less annoyed.  That only pushes media away.  At least they're giving us coverage and it wasn't a total hitpiece.  Please be rational human beings

----------


## hawks4ronpaul

> Name a legitimate earmark.


Article 1 Section 8.

Example:  Location of a post office.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

----------


## musicmax

> honestly dude, we get it...
> 
> unfortunately, as much as you'd like to prop Dr. Paul up as a Living reincarnation of Jesus himself, the man has a friggin job to do, and that job includes securing as much money as he can for his constituents.


What part of the Constitution endorses such thievery and greed?  Article and Section please, or the section of the Congressional Oath:

___________________________________





> You're approaching this like Huckatard approaches the bibles (re: the earth is 3 thousands years old). Enough already..


Actually it's the fanboys who believe RP walks on water and that his flaws are virtues.

----------


## musicmax

[QUOTE=hawks4ronpaul;705862]Article 1 Section 8.

Example:  Location of a post office.
[\QUOTE]

Post Offices are authorized by the Constitution.  Shrimp are not.

----------


## hawks4ronpaul

> So you'd be ok if the "rule" for selecting the speaker was a duel to the death?



It would be Constitutional, and we might get to nickname the Capitol building "the Thunderdome."

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

----------


## wfd40

[QUOTE=musicmax;705877]


> Article 1 Section 8.
> 
> Example:  Location of a post office.
> [\QUOTE]
> 
> Post Offices are authorized by the Constitution.  Shrimp are not.


ok, you win.

Dr. Paul is just as corrupt, if not more than all the rest running for president, including Romney, McCain, Guilina, and Hillary.

----------


## newmedia4ron

I thought it went well. Reading the comments here I afraid to watch it but Ron handled it very well.

----------


## fj45lvr

> I picked up something interesting in Paul's reasoning on the Reagan issue.
> 
> Paul said that Reagan was a total failure and yet Paul uses Reagan in his campaign literature due to what he stood for.
> 
> If the same logic were to be applied to Bush (a man whose policies Paul supported when Bush ran for office in 2000), then there is some justification of having Bush's images in Paul's campaign literature as well.
> 
> Clearly, Paul is making a judgement call as to which one of those Presidents, having run on decent campaign issues, was less of a failure once elected to office.
> .


Paul didn't vote for GW either election (his own words)...he may have agreed on what was "said" but not the whole package obviously.  

Reagan did state that Conservatism is actually Libertarianism so on this front he was so right in his understanding...too bad in so many ways he didn't follow through with shutting off the spigots (when the demographic had the people that could actually understand what had happened over time).

When was the last time a republican actually followed through on promises to limit government and actually REDUCE it????

----------


## ZandarKoad

> If you guys think this was hostile, then you evidently don't want [sic] 'Meet the Press'.  Last week, Romney got murdered on the show.


WRONGO.  After your comment, I did watch last week's interview.  Romney was never interrupted ONCE!  He got to ramble ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON with NONSENSE about his insane conflicts.    The bias does indeed continue AGAINST Ron Paul.  Romney was murdered in SUBSTANCE, but not BY THE INTERVIEWER like was the case with Ron Paul.  In Ron Paul's interview the interviewer had NOTHING of substance to accuse Ron Paul with, so assumed an aggressive interrupting attitude.

Seriously, this is a good example of continued media bias.  Check it out people.  Watch Romney's and Paul's Meet the Press interviews.  You'll see for yourself.

----------


## AFM

> WRONGO.  After your comment, I did watch last week's interview.  Romney was never interrupted ONCE!  He got to ramble ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON with NONSENSE about his insane conflicts.    The bias does indeed continue AGAINST Ron Paul.  Romney was murdered in SUBSTANCE, but not BY THE INTERVIEWER like was the case with Ron Paul.  In Ron Paul's interview the interviewer had NOTHING of substance to accuse Ron Paul with, so assumed an aggressive interrupting attitude.
> 
> Seriously, this is a good example of continued media bias.  Check it out people.  Watch Romney's and Paul's Meet the Press interviews.  You'll see for yourself.


I did.  Romney's interview went A LOT worse.  This was a pretty good interview.

----------


## B of R guy

I watched the interview againa and I have to say RP and my initial concern was misplaced.  RP did a GREAT JOB in controlling the interview and DELIVERING HIS MESSAGE!

----------


## iddo

I watched the interview just now, and RP was really great, wow...
I guess with so many pages in this thread (I didn't read any of it) different people here maybe complain about some minor points, but overall I think RP got his chance and delivered the message in almost the best way possible.
Anyone watching who wasn't familiar with RP should be left with quite a strong impression (unlike when watching the other candidates of course).

----------


## Shavenyak

[QUOTE=musicmax;705877]


> Article 1 Section 8.
> 
> Example:  Location of a post office.
> [\QUOTE]
> 
> Post Offices are authorized by the Constitution.  Shrimp are not.


If Paul refused to earmark money that had been COLLECTED FROM HIS CONSTITUENTS and have it reinvested in his area, then he wouldn't be in congress longer than a term.

Pull your perfect world head out from underneath you and realize that in order to change the flawed system, he has to operate from within it.  

If you don't believe this, tell me, then, which candidate has the moral standing to do this and is better than Dr. Paul?

----------


## Nathan Hale

> WRONGO.  After your comment, I did watch last week's interview.  Romney was never interrupted ONCE!  He got to ramble ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON with NONSENSE about his insane conflicts.    The bias does indeed continue AGAINST Ron Paul.  Romney was murdered in SUBSTANCE, but not BY THE INTERVIEWER like was the case with Ron Paul.  In Ron Paul's interview the interviewer had NOTHING of substance to accuse Ron Paul with, so assumed an aggressive interrupting attitude.
> 
> Seriously, this is a good example of continued media bias.  Check it out people.  Watch Romney's and Paul's Meet the Press interviews.  You'll see for yourself.


I know that we're all in love with Ron Paul, but c'mon, you're literally making $#@! up.  Romney got owned.

Please drop the MSM conspiracy bull$#@!, because it's just not true, and claiming it's true wastes both your time and this campaign's energy.  Paul did poorly today because he flubbed a lot of answers that he should have aced.  The earmarks question should have been a slam dunk.  The Israeli question he answered perfectly on Beck, and barely managed to spit it out on Russert.

It wasn't Russert screwing with Paul, it was Paul dropping the ball.  And it's not even Paul's fault.  Paul's campaign should have thought up how to deal with all of those questions long ago.

----------


## hawks4ronpaul

[QUOTE=Shavenyak;706692]


> If Paul refused to earmark money that had been COLLECTED FROM HIS CONSTITUENTS and have it reinvested in his area, then he wouldn't be in congress longer than a term.
> 
> Pull your perfect world head out from underneath you and realize that in order to change the flawed system, he has to operate from within it.  
> 
> If you don't believe this, tell me, then, which candidate has the moral standing to do this and is better than Dr. Paul?


It looks like Musicmax's quote of me has a format problem that cascades with every new quote.


http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

----------


## Shavenyak

[QUOTE=hawks4ronpaul;706738]


> It looks like Musicmax's quote of me has a format problem that cascades with every new quote.
> 
> 
> http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/


OOps

----------


## sergeant_x

> It wasn't Russert screwing with Paul, it was Paul dropping the ball.  And it's not even Paul's fault.  Paul's campaign should have thought up how to deal with all of those questions long ago.


He did the same thing he's been doing since the beginning. He doesn't play the game the way the mainstream media (and, granted, the mainstream public) expect the game to be played. He's not slick, he's not polished and, most importantly, he's not full of $#@!. A lot people are seeing that and like it. A lot never will. If that means he can't win in American politics, it's a sad commentary on our system and our nation. If the voting public wants to be sold a bill of goods, then they'll get fleeced yet again.

But I still have hope that enough of them are waking up, turning OFF the television and finally paying attention, to make a real difference. I guess we'll see.

----------


## musicmax

> If you don't believe this, tell me, then, which candidate has the moral standing to do this and is better than Dr. Paul?


Changing the issue at hand from an absolute to a relative shows that you recognize that earmarks are indefensible.  Progress, I suppose.

----------


## Ball

All Romney did was hang himself with the rope he was given.

Huckabee will be more elusive. He comes from a long line of teflon-coated AR governors starting with Rockefeller.

----------


## BuddyRey

I'm not very clear on what this business with earmarks is all about, but overall, I thought Ron Paul looked VERY SHARP today!  You can always tell when he's gotten plenty of rest, and when he's on his game.  Favorite Ron Paul moment was when he compared a theoretical Iranian invasion of Israel to Iran trying to invade Mars.

----------


## Ron2Win

Just rewatched it couple minutes ago. 
I think I was too nervous the first time around and saw too many flaws. 
I think he was perfect, even being comical at times and correcting Tim sometimes.

----------


## hawks4ronpaul

> QUOTE=hawks4ronpaul;705862 Article 1 Section 8.
> 
> Example:  Location of a post office.
> [\QUOTE]
> 
> Post Offices are authorized by the Constitution.  Shrimp are not.


Exactly, so there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about earmarks (RE your p56 #552).

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

----------


## Xanax Nation

[QUOTE=hawks4ronpaul;706738]


> It looks like Musicmax's quote of me has a format problem that cascades with every new quote.
> 
> 
> http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/


Ignore him. He/she thinks that by deriding people about their speling and gram'er and hallucinating about getting the upperhand in discussions defines progress. 

  Somebody should tell this person that if he/she don't like the system,  then work to change it.  

  I think we're doing very well. One thing I've noticed about MsgBrds over the years: The more successful they become, the more the jackasses show up to try and piss people off.

----------


## driller80545

I thought it was a tough interview that Dr. Paul handled very well. He did not seem intimidated at all and was almost seem to exhibit disrespect for Russert when he kept asking silly questions about 3rd party, etc. I see RP's confidence rising.

----------


## Mithridates

An easy analogy to explain how Ron Paul views earmarks would be if someone on this board was opposed to having user sigs, and used a sig that said "User sigs suck. Let's get rid of them." to promote his view. It's using a sig in the meantime since they're useful in the current system, but with an eye on a future in which the whole site doesn't use them.

----------


## Mithridates

> I picked up something interesting in Paul's reasoning on the Reagan issue.
> 
> Paul said that Reagan was a total failure and yet Paul uses Reagan in his campaign literature due to what he stood for.
> 
> If the same logic were to be applied to Bush (a man whose policies Paul supported when Bush ran for office in 2000), then there is some justification of having Bush's images in Paul's campaign literature as well.
> 
> Clearly, Paul is making a judgement call as to which one of those Presidents, having run on decent campaign issues, was less of a failure once elected to office.
> 
> Overall, I would have to say, that Paul is playing a political game and of course he has to no matter what anyone might say. 
> ...


Okay, no rabid drooling. I disagree though because Ron Paul seems to promote their campaigns at the time, not the way they actually governed. That's why he's always bringing up the 'running on George Bush's campaign of 2000 on foreign policy' since that's what it looked like the nation had in store at the time if Bush won.

----------


## Paulitician

Even still, Ron and Reagan were good friends either way.  Sure, you might agree with Bush ideologically but see him as a total failure in terms of policies.  Though, I do think think "total failure" is quite harsh   Most people don't really even remember Reagan's policies.  He's mostly an icon.  It's like the saying "do as I say, not as I do"

----------


## adpierce

> Mixed feelings really, Russert had his facts in front of him.. Ron did not?


Ron didn't know what the questions were going to be beforehand ... Russert did.

----------


## hocaltar

> WRONGO.  After your comment, I did watch last week's interview.  Romney was never interrupted ONCE!  He got to ramble ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON with NONSENSE about his insane conflicts.    The bias does indeed continue AGAINST Ron Paul.  Romney was murdered in SUBSTANCE, but not BY THE INTERVIEWER like was the case with Ron Paul.  In Ron Paul's interview the interviewer had NOTHING of substance to accuse Ron Paul with, so assumed an aggressive interrupting attitude.
> 
> Seriously, this is a good example of continued media bias.  Check it out people.  Watch Romney's and Paul's Meet the Press interviews.  You'll see for yourself.



Well why struggle to try to put the noose around Romney's neck when he is willing to shoot himself in the head?

----------


## ForLiberty-RonPaul

> Thanks for that. Some of us haven't a TV and so haven't the MTP history that you and perhaps others on this forum do. That you're able to compare this interview with others you've seen helps the rest of us put this interview in context.
> 
> Not having seen many MTP interviews before, I was nonetheless prepared for RP to be skewered. I was pleasantly surprised to see how much of Dr. Paul's views and philosophy were allowed to be aired. 
> 
> Re the earmarks issue, that Russert cut off further explanation from Dr. Paul was telling and likely not missed by viewers. RP had been doing well in defending himself - he was scoffing and laughing (in a friendly manner) at Russert, telling him that he, Russert, was confused about the issue. It was after that return that Russert made one quip, then changed the topic without letting RP reply to the quip.


If you want lots of past Meet The Press episodes you can download them in a video podcast through ITunes very easily (and for free). Not only that, but you can keep them and watch them as many times as you want. Their podcast is posted fairly quickly after the show airs (like within a couple hours).

----------


## Bertrand

Don't kid yourselves. This was a terrible interview. He came off looking unprepared, uninformed and moderately incoherent. My mother who was a supporter due to my telling her about him and some selected materials I provided her with, came away very disappointed with him and blabbered on about how great Mitt Romney was on Meet the Press previously.

----------


## bbachtung

One of my bosses (I am a public defender) who is very liberal is a regular viewer of Meet the Press, and just came by my office to tell me how impressed she was with RP's appearance on MTP.  She said that, although she disagrees with a lot of what he believes in, she would vote for him if he is the Republican nominee and Hillary is the Democratic nominee (mainly over the war and the PATRIOT Act).

----------


## dircha

> Don't kid yourselves. This was a terrible interview. He came off looking unprepared, uninformed and moderately incoherent. My mother who was a supporter due to my telling her about him and some selected materials I provided her with, came away very disappointed with him and blabbered on about how great Mitt Romney was on Meet the Press previously.


His interviews are usually that way. I really do not think he prepares. Congressman Paul says it's about the message not about the man, but for many Americans - rightly or wrongly - it is as much or more about the man as it is about the message.

In many ways Mike Huckabee is proving this by running on Paul's own message - at least pretending to - and sitting at 20%+ while Paul is in single digits.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> He did the same thing he's been doing since the beginning. He doesn't play the game the way the mainstream media (and, granted, the mainstream public) expect the game to be played. He's not slick, he's not polished and, most importantly, he's not full of $#@!. A lot people are seeing that and like it. A lot never will.


I'm sorry, I've heard this since the beginning.  It's just not the truth.  There's a lot of grey area between the level of polish on the Average Joe and some shark like Mitt Romney.  Ron Paul should never be a Mitt Romney, but in order to even be competitive he needs to be more than the average Joe.  And he HAS been.  If you think he's just speaking his mind without a thought to strategy, you're wrong, because he has been strategizing his answers.  I know it's tough to hear, but he's running for the f-ing presidency, which takes more than just being so gosh-darn nice and truthful.  He ran into trouble because he was off his game.  Note that on Beck, a similar tough-question interview, he was on his game.  Russert was just a better questioner and the campaign failed to counter his assertions.





> If that means he can't win in American politics, it's a sad commentary on our system and our nation. If the voting public wants to be sold a bill of goods, then they'll get fleeced yet again.


You don't understand that different people want different things, and that 99% of the population isn't as educated about politics as we are.  So you need more than just a good message, you need to communicate that message in a way that people will accept.  And as different people need different cues in order to accept the message, you need to tailor what you say to who is asking the questions.  There's nothing wrong with this.  A politician should address the concerns of the person asking the question rather than simply supplying a stock answer to the question.




> But I still have hope that enough of them are waking up, turning OFF the television and finally paying attention, to make a real difference. I guess we'll see.


Even if it's a nation of sheep, Ron Paul should try to win.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Don't kid yourselves. This was a terrible interview. He came off looking unprepared, uninformed and moderately incoherent. My mother who was a supporter due to my telling her about him and some selected materials I provided her with, came away very disappointed with him and blabbered on about how great Mitt Romney was on Meet the Press previously.


Agreed (about Ron Paul, not Mitt, who also got owned).  Ron Paul supporters need to take off the blinders and view this interview without bias.  It's the only way to identify flaws and work to move forward.

----------


## TooConservative

> Don't kid yourselves. This was a terrible interview. He came off looking unprepared, uninformed and moderately incoherent. My mother who was a supporter due to my telling her about him and some selected materials I provided her with, came away very disappointed with him and blabbered on about how great Mitt Romney was on Meet the Press previously.


Individual viewer response is pretty anecdotal.  It is influenced by mood, how you want the candidate to answer, how you perceive the candidate, your expectations.

It's not a science, not as reliable as a poll (which is still pretty unreliable).

Some of us are over-saturated with RP news and strong opinions on the conduct of the campaign.  And just because we didn't think RP hit a few out of the ballpark, we also may underestimate just how strong the response may be from average voters who are just now finally focusing on the primaries.

For instance, who would guess that RP's support in Iowa is especially strong among farmers and in rural areas?  It surprises me a bit and I'm a farmer in a rural area of a nearby state but I always think Iowa is more liberal.  So it just goes to show that we shouldn't go overboard in thinking how well or how poorly RP did in a particular interview or debate.

If you get involved in retail politics, you'd be shocked at the reactions of people, for or against an issue or candidate and why they feel the way they do.

If you study them long enough, you may start to think the voters are crazy or incoherent.  And sometimes they are.  LOL.  And sometimes they make a pick you'd never expect from a particular state or group.  Look at Ron Paul this year.  He never expected _us_ and this intense support and all the fundraising and other stuff we've done for him.

You have to put your message out as best you can and let the voters judge.  You just can't tell what they're going to support when you start.  One thing I can guarantee is that there will be some surprises.

----------

