OFFICIAL : Meet The Press thread : Sunday Morning!!

[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]

Meet the Press: 2nd Viewing

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