OFFICIAL : Meet The Press thread : Sunday Morning!!

[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]

Good from Ron!

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. "