Poll: How well did Ron do on Meet The Press
- Thread starter Vendico
- Start date
I gave it an 8 before reading any other opinions on the speech. Guess I'm in the same boat as most. I thought everything up until the earmark part was great. I think he could have done a better job explaining the earmark bit, because a lot of people don't get it and won't understand that what he's talking about makes sense.
The fact that he mentioned Freedom to Fascism was GREAT, but I think it's going to make a lot of people uncomfortable hearing him talk about "soft fascism." I don't necessarily think this is a bad idea, but some folks may find it a bit insulting to think that our awesome never-do-anything-wrong country would be headed in such a bad direction. On the other end of the spectrum, I think some folks were introduced to Ron Paul for the first time and are about to wake up when they spend some time researching the things he was talking about. There are still a lot of intellectuals who haven't really heard about Ron Paul, and I think this interview is going to give them the push in the right direction.
The fact that he mentioned Freedom to Fascism was GREAT, but I think it's going to make a lot of people uncomfortable hearing him talk about "soft fascism." I don't necessarily think this is a bad idea, but some folks may find it a bit insulting to think that our awesome never-do-anything-wrong country would be headed in such a bad direction. On the other end of the spectrum, I think some folks were introduced to Ron Paul for the first time and are about to wake up when they spend some time researching the things he was talking about. There are still a lot of intellectuals who haven't really heard about Ron Paul, and I think this interview is going to give them the push in the right direction.
I thought Dr. Paul held his own, but why only a half hour? Did you watch the 'roundtable' sit around talking '5 dimensional chess' polling strategies? I hope people did because it came off as EXACTLY what is wrong with politics and press in this country.
Zero substance.
"Tim, it is constitutional to ammend the...oh, nevermind. You're an idiot."
Zero substance.
"Tim, it is constitutional to ammend the...oh, nevermind. You're an idiot."
10.0/10.0 Why???
10/10
Whoever gave Ron Paul less than that are those who try to be politically correct and try to spin the facts
the man is not a liar...
Because he speaks the truth...
and the truth HURTS!!!
ouch!!!
thats why he did better than all the other candidates
cause he spoke the truth & admitted his mistakes and didnt flip flop
again
ouch !!!
10/10
Whoever gave Ron Paul less than that are those who try to be politically correct and try to spin the facts
the man is not a liar...
Because he speaks the truth...
and the truth HURTS!!!
ouch!!!
thats why he did better than all the other candidates
cause he spoke the truth & admitted his mistakes and didnt flip flop
again
ouch !!!
Last edited:
RevolutionSD
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2007
- Messages
- 2,863
I thought it was decent, 8/10.
I REALLY don't care for Russert's style of just firing one question after another. I prefer conversational interviews where the interviewer acknowledges when he understands the interviewee. Russert is like an attack dog.
Also, why did the Paul interview go 30 minutes straight while everyone elese has several segments with commercials? I think they should have had at least one break in there.
I REALLY don't care for Russert's style of just firing one question after another. I prefer conversational interviews where the interviewer acknowledges when he understands the interviewee. Russert is like an attack dog.
Also, why did the Paul interview go 30 minutes straight while everyone elese has several segments with commercials? I think they should have had at least one break in there.
LibertyForAll
Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2007
- Messages
- 485
I thought it was a fair interview considering Russert's style and approach with the other candidates. Good media exposure for Ron Paul.
B of R guy
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Messages
- 64
Every Republican and many Democrats get a rough time on Meet the Press. I thought the worst part was the alleged remarks on Reagan as a "traitor" and "failure".
RP disavowed the one but that (even though relative to government spending Reagan was a major failure) hurts with old Republicans.
RP disavowed the one but that (even though relative to government spending Reagan was a major failure) hurts with old Republicans.
JacobLyles
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 237
GREAT first impression, waffles through the rest. I give him an 8.
Paulitician
Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,333
I think Ron handled it splendidly. The only thing he has to work on is his speech. I don't think Ron got destroyed on the earmarks question. It was Tim Russert who doesn't understand that even if you never include earmarks, that doesn't mean you cut spending. Of course, it depends on how it is perceived. People who don't understand the aforementioned fact, will then see it negatively. Otherwise, I'd say Ron showed himself to be Russert's intellectual superior. Even still, I don't think Russert was that bad. He did ask some stupid questions but I'm glad Ron got to actually explain his positions and talk about policy on MSM.
Last edited:
undergroundrr
Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2007
- Messages
- 3,334
9/10. OUTSTANDING work by Dr. Paul. I liked his answers on everything, and some were 12 out of 10. Although I liked the earmarks answers, I thought his laughing, dismissive tone looked like he was covering frustration.
There were so many high points. He was very assertive, passionate and focused. Everything foreign policy was TOTALLY out of the park. His repeated appeal for "constitution-sized" government is very effective.
I think Russert really looked like he had to dig to find anything, deep in the bowels of speeches from 1987. The Reagan "traitor" thing was unethical journalism, presented as a quote when it wasn't. Paul benefitted from getting to shoot it down.
The roundtable was a farce. The sense of "don't talk about paul so we can minimize the damage from that interview" was palpable.
Flying colors.
There were so many high points. He was very assertive, passionate and focused. Everything foreign policy was TOTALLY out of the park. His repeated appeal for "constitution-sized" government is very effective.
I think Russert really looked like he had to dig to find anything, deep in the bowels of speeches from 1987. The Reagan "traitor" thing was unethical journalism, presented as a quote when it wasn't. Paul benefitted from getting to shoot it down.
The roundtable was a farce. The sense of "don't talk about paul so we can minimize the damage from that interview" was palpable.
Flying colors.
Last edited:
chiplitfam
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2007
- Messages
- 834
Media's Animosity
I agree with Commander Yo. It is is so blatantly obvious that these people are squirming. They are simply not used to someone who is revealing their corruption. Immediately afterwards, they showed the new manipulated polls and Ron was not even listed, right after Tim had just interviewed him! That is OK. It just helps reveal to the American public their extreme bias. What they are fearing the most is that they are beginning to realize that they are losing their power over people. Again, my greatest fears center around the corrupt election voting machines. That is the issue we need to be discussing.
I agree with Commander Yo. It is is so blatantly obvious that these people are squirming. They are simply not used to someone who is revealing their corruption. Immediately afterwards, they showed the new manipulated polls and Ron was not even listed, right after Tim had just interviewed him! That is OK. It just helps reveal to the American public their extreme bias. What they are fearing the most is that they are beginning to realize that they are losing their power over people. Again, my greatest fears center around the corrupt election voting machines. That is the issue we need to be discussing.
I gave him a 6, only by taking off my Ron Paul, libertarian bias off first. From the perspective of an uneducated viewer, I think he came off weak on the earmarks, cutting budget programs like Dept of Ed, fanciful notion of eliminating all income tax. The Reagan quotes were kind of misleading, and he handled himself OK, but repubs think he is a mesiah, and is beyond reproach, so this will hurt some with them.
I think he scored well on points of us becoming a fascist empire. I think that will resonate with most libertarian leaning democrats and repubs. For the party loyalists, I don't think Dr. Paul changed their minds much. For those not much attuned with politics, they will likely find him eccentic and interesting, or some will be turned off. I think he nailed it at the very end though at may allow some to research him further.
Russert is tough as nails, and most go away with a haircut in their poll standings. Look at Giuiani's poll numbers since he soiled his pants with his grilling. Huckster will run the same guantlet and will face just as tough a grilling. I'm actually surprised any Repub would subject themself to it since Russert shows no mercy.
I think he scored well on points of us becoming a fascist empire. I think that will resonate with most libertarian leaning democrats and repubs. For the party loyalists, I don't think Dr. Paul changed their minds much. For those not much attuned with politics, they will likely find him eccentic and interesting, or some will be turned off. I think he nailed it at the very end though at may allow some to research him further.
Russert is tough as nails, and most go away with a haircut in their poll standings. Look at Giuiani's poll numbers since he soiled his pants with his grilling. Huckster will run the same guantlet and will face just as tough a grilling. I'm actually surprised any Repub would subject themself to it since Russert shows no mercy.
JacobLyles
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 237
When is the Huckster going on?
By the way, for those complaining about time and Russert's style, that's just how the show is. I used to DVR it all the time, but don't really care much about the show any more. He usually fires question after question trying to find a weakness in an answer. If he gets it, he jumps on it. If the answer is good, he moves on. The style of the RP interview is pretty much the same style of all his interviews. He loves to quote what someone said 28385739857983 years ago and try to use it against his guest.
That's how Russert rolls, folks.
That's how Russert rolls, folks.
Mark Rushmore
Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,105
The earmarks thing (although the 30 second wall of quotes Russert put up to force his point before any discussion took place should discredit it) would only be harmful if someone turned off the interview at that point - otherwise it's just a drip.
The Reagan quote was a smear, no policy question even near that one, just a pure "Look what I found to put up on the screen, ha!" bit.
The Civil Rights thing he didn't do a horrible job, he didn't make some egregious error, but I feel he could have explained the property issue better.
All-in-all at some points he was trying so hard to squeeze a full and proper answer in that he got tongue-twisted and hopped around sentence to sentence. Somehow, in his case that just made him seem more enthusiastic and gave the impression that he could go on to answer these things fully - but it's the sort of thing that some people might react to low-level.
Anyways - compared to Giuliani who just crumbled in the same format - we had a very strong showing.
Most people are only going to remember the end anyway - and the fascism part stood out - not least of all just for being under discussion.
The Reagan quote was a smear, no policy question even near that one, just a pure "Look what I found to put up on the screen, ha!" bit.
The Civil Rights thing he didn't do a horrible job, he didn't make some egregious error, but I feel he could have explained the property issue better.
All-in-all at some points he was trying so hard to squeeze a full and proper answer in that he got tongue-twisted and hopped around sentence to sentence. Somehow, in his case that just made him seem more enthusiastic and gave the impression that he could go on to answer these things fully - but it's the sort of thing that some people might react to low-level.
Anyways - compared to Giuliani who just crumbled in the same format - we had a very strong showing.
Most people are only going to remember the end anyway - and the fascism part stood out - not least of all just for being under discussion.
Last edited:
I felt like Dr. Paul was too much on the defensive. I understand that he came in with the mentality that Tim Rusert was going to be on the attack, but I like it better when he responds in a "teaching" manner. I don't like it when we have to "defend" our philosophy. I don't think that we get the message out properly. We have to explain and "teach" our philosophy so that it comes out clearly.
I think next week.
atilla
Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 329
he really needs to do some, (meditation-practice-deep breathing-visualization) or something to slow down when answering questions. i think he may have got into that mode with the debates and oreilly trying to squeeze in his point in the time alloted, but it is not that effective. if they try to cut him off and ask another question just keep answering the original question till he finishes, and if they object, i think that wins him points with the audience.
when he talks that fast he gets crossed up and doesn't give complete sentences. we mentally fill in the blanks because we know were he's going (go through and transcribe todays interview if you don't believe me), i think the uninformed stand to get confused on some of those answers when he does that. also, just the fact of talking fast makes it difficult for someone to process and understand if the material is new to them.
go on the youtubes, take a random 30 second of ron paul speaking and count the number of words. then next week when huckabee is on do the same with him. i guarantee huckabees rate will be much lower. huckabee is well trained having been preacher. if ron paul had gone to seminary like his brother and gotten ten years of preaching experience before he entered politics, he would probably be leading every poll right now.
when he talks that fast he gets crossed up and doesn't give complete sentences. we mentally fill in the blanks because we know were he's going (go through and transcribe todays interview if you don't believe me), i think the uninformed stand to get confused on some of those answers when he does that. also, just the fact of talking fast makes it difficult for someone to process and understand if the material is new to them.
go on the youtubes, take a random 30 second of ron paul speaking and count the number of words. then next week when huckabee is on do the same with him. i guarantee huckabees rate will be much lower. huckabee is well trained having been preacher. if ron paul had gone to seminary like his brother and gotten ten years of preaching experience before he entered politics, he would probably be leading every poll right now.
Similar threads
