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.
OFFICIAL : Meet The Press thread : Sunday Morning!!
- Thread starter StateofTrance
- Start date
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
Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2007
- Messages
- 4,027
Highstreet
Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,786
I think he does it subconsciously. It's like a knee jerk reaction when talking about what Conservatives used to stand for.
RlxdN10sity
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 321
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
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2007
- Messages
- 692
I am "younger voter" I guess, and I know why he still specifically hammers the Department of Education
Highstreet
Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,786
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
Paleoconservative
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 52,730
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
Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 530
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 321
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
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,980
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
Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2007
- Messages
- 2,294
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/2005/07/24/i-never-thought-this-whould-happen/
http://isilion.blogsome.com/2005/07/27/im-ready-to-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/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/local/stories/011207dntswpaul.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.
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."
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2007
- Messages
- 692
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 bullshit smears.
Russert seems like a smart guy, Lew Rockwell called it last night:
Here are all four parts:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017958.html
Russert seems like a smart guy, Lew Rockwell called it last night:
Here are all four parts:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017958.html
0zzy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2007
- Messages
- 6,397
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
Paleoconservative
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 52,730
PatriotG
Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,301
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
Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 3,005
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
Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 632
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. "
"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. "
Similar threads
