Ron Paul on Daily Show TONIGHT Monday 9/26

[HeyArchie]

A few thoughts on some of the discussion in this thread:

Jon Stewart – I personally would have never looked into Ron Paul if it wasn’t for the likes of Stewart bringing him up during the 2007 debates and subsequently had them on their shows. I am sure there are shows directed towards “conservatives” (the currently accepted definition of the term) that have done the same for people who came from that direction as these shows did for me. That is, they introduced Ron Paul and the principle of liberty to an audience that would not be inclined to look his way because of the national debate is currently framed by most media as some sort of football game (establishment Democrats vs. establishment Republicans). In the long run, it’s important to recognize that shows like this that provide a very valuable platform for Ron Paul to reach audiences that wouldn’t otherwise be exposed to him.

The Interview Questions – The first segment was purely satire and primarily focused on those issues where liberals agree with Ron Paul (the wars, the finicky nature of voters, etc.). I thought two questions that Stewart asked in the second segment were fantastic because they are the two principles of Ron Paul’s philosophy that I had the most difficult time wrapping my head around when I was started seriously considering Ron Paul. I assume a significant percentage of Stewart’s audience probably has the same difficulty:

1. How can a free market provide better protection for its citizens than government regulations?
2. Are the only two choices liberty and tyranny?

Ron Paul’s answers – I think all of us have the “perfect” response in our minds but they are only perfect to us because they are the conclusions we have drawn based on a lot more thought and time than can possibly be available in any interview. I think it’s important to remember that all of us arrived “here” from a variety of different starting points through a variety of different paths. There is no “perfect” response. It takes each person a different “moment” where they decide to challenge their current thinking. That is not an easy or comfortable decision to make and it is what I think is the biggest obstacle to Ron Paul’s candidacy. I think generally, Ron Paul provided good answers that will cause some to look deeper into his viewpoints and philosophy. I think it’s unrealistic to expect more out of this or other appearances.

Yeah, it is pretty easy to sit on the couch and say "Oh, Ron, I could have done that so much better!" I admit, I have done it too. But, now I realize that RP is running and how he has made me so enthusiastic about his message. A great deal is the message, but a great deal is the person RP is. Quite frankly, I wouldn't change him for me... I think he's great. But, in order to win over finicky primary voters, he does have to be typical politician (as much as I hate it). But +rep to you for not being like "I could do it so much better than Ron, even though I've never been on TV and wouldn't know for sure". I applaud Ron for what he is doing and I think he's doing a damn good job. It's not so much that Ron is kooky or crazy, but the Republican base just doesn't GET it quite yet.

They'll come around.

 

[tremendoustie]

Quite frankly, I wouldn't change him for me... I think he's great. But, in order to win over finicky primary voters, he does have to be typical politician (as much as I hate it).

I agree with the first sentence, but not the second. I think it's precisely because he's not a typical politician that he received support in the first place, and that his support continues to grow.

 

[Napolitanic Wars]

there are no good times to go back to.

From Jon Stewart's perspective maybe. It's hard to look back at a time when those things existed and say that laws were better, because we are rich and better off than in 1903. You need to adjust for the technology and the ability to produce wealth. Children, for example, HAD to work in factories because families would starve otherwise. Children playing with friends instead of working is a luxury we have today but was not plausible for many families then, no matter what the laws were.

 

[undergroundrr]

In the midst of it all, the main theme of the interview was a powerful and thought-provoking one, not by Paul but by Jon Stewart. Basically - Hey America. You will only vote for someone who decieves their way into your heart so they can abuse you. You would only seriously consider Ron Paul if he lied and abandoned his principles.

 

[Birdlady]

I think RP did great. The extended interview was better and they picked the weakest answers to use on the air, which surprised me considering Jon Stewart was the one who started pointing out "the media is biased towards you". Not sure if anyone else felt that way or not. The stuff not included was the best. They took things out of context (of the rest of the conversation) and then aired those clips...

 

[Carole]

Good interview but I wish he had promoted his candidacy more. He's basically America's only hope for a decent future and I don't think people realize that.

Disagree with first sentence. I feel it was covered enough and that the philosophical discussion they had was more important, talking ideas, etc. My only disappointment is that the way it was edited excluded some really good material or information in favor of some not quite so good, but all told, I was very pleased with the interview, especially once I saw the entire three parts online. Last night I felt a sort of gap between part one and the last part as I watched on televison, but seeing online was much better with all three portions.

Jon Stewart is a very thoughful interviewer and an intelligent person who does not allow his personal preferences or agenda to denigrate a guest, but leads toward interesting conversation mostly. And he does want comedy material in his interviews naturally. I liked it very much overall. So thanks to Jon Stewart.

 

[Carole]

I think he missed a chance to point out regulators aren't elected. They're unelected bureaucrats, usually wholly unaccountable to the Congress, and often drawn from the very companies they're supposed to be reigning in - and to which they return when they leave government.

Actually, he did cover that in the interview. Maybe it was in part two that was not aired.

 

[Carole]

I thought it made Ron look like a blurry headed old man who wants corporations to run everything. The commercial for the segment was more exciting than the actual segment. There was nothing about the wars really, or the drug war, or things like the Patriot Act. I don't think this is going to sell anyone on his candidacy. Disappointed.

See segment two online that was not aired. Actually watch all three online for cohesion. It flows better and does include some of what you mentioned here. TSA, for one.

 

[Carole]

I got the feeling that they clipped out some substantial middle ground, didn't you?

Absolutely, you have to see part two online to make sense of the entire interview.

 

[Carole]

Liked the interview, first part showed that Ron has a legitimate shot at the nomination, second part demonstrated his vision for local governments taking over federal regulations.

This interview isn't going to create a surge in the polls for Ron, but there is nothing he could have said to make that happen. Daily Show just doesn't have pull in the republican primary.

Really, isn't the point here of being on the Daily Show to reach out to Dems/liberals and disenfranchised and undecideds who are not necessarily Repubs, etc. to get them to cross over for the Republican primaries?

Much like in the Huff---ton Post article today.

 

[Chieppa1]

Standing out front, greeting the good doctor:

 

[Carole]

I agree with the first sentence, but not the second. I think it's precisely because he's not a typical politician that he received support in the first place, and that his support continues to grow.

^Ditto^