Ron Paul on Meet the Press

Those are some very loaded articles. First off, the National Ledger guy writes that he's "extremely disappointed with his performance", so there he's acknowledging some kind of personal emotional investment in this. The other two articles are very transparent in their agendas: "After admitting he would decriminalize drugs at the national level" is a good example of that. "Admitting?" Please. Find some better articles.

Please do not give the National Ledger site attention or clicks. The author is biased but his hit pieces reach the first page of Google News results as if some how objective news.
 
It's awesome how the only ways they can attack RP are on issues that are quite simply, very absurd. Earmarks? And then he votes against them? Oh how dare he! Just because you're against the system doesn't mean you can't use it.

All in all, a very good interview. RP handled himself great.

lol
Nice one ;)
 
You guys need to take your rose tinted glasses off. Ron Paul looked bad. He sounded shrill. Especially when he kept saying stuff like, "oh, come on, that's a misquote" and he got HAMMERED on the earmark question, and also on the question about running as a third party candidate. He looked bad, I was really disappointed.

The more I read your comments the more I’m stating to believe you work for tax hike mike…
 
The thing I noticed after Ron’s interview was the demeanor of Tim and the pundits. There was an embarrassed strain as one might experience have after having had to kill the family dog. I almost got the feeling that Tim was a little disgusted with himself and the other two were a little sickened.

Tim got Ron’s message but feigned confusion to reinforces the average viewer’s confusion over policies for the majority of Americans sounds pretty arcane. His bring the military home is clear and easily grasped, but the current and finance are not.

Ron needs some professional help to hone his more abstract ideas into more readily absorbed format. If nothing else, the seed of “why are spending all this money overseas” will take root, especially as the economy tanks next year…or, to be more correct, as the public realizes it has tanked.
 
Note to Tim Russert: Amending the Contitution is Constitutional!

Tim Russert: "you say your a strict constructionist to the constitution and yet you want to amend the constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be US Citizens."

Ron Paul: "Amending the constitution is constitutional, what the contradiction there?"

Gotta laugh at that one.
 
One other thing: I agree with BGDubb, but maybe the most important point is that Ron is changing the debate. Huck as already picked-up on it, and others will too.

I'm expecting to hear Edwards pick up Ron's "pull back the overseas spending" line.
 
Note to Tim Russert: Amending the Contitution is Constitutional!

Tim Russert: "you say your a strict constructionist to the constitution and yet you want to amend the constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be US Citizens."

Ron Paul: "Amending the constitution is constitutional, what the contradiction there?"

Gotta laugh at that one.

Indeed ;)
I bet Tim felt pretty stupid
 
i think russert threw everything he had at Paul, and that was everything anyone could ever throw at him...even democrats...I think this is awesome, and RP came out better than any other candidate...

I can't wait to watch Huck crumble next week, i'll be laughing the whole time!
 
He did phenomenally on the earmark thing.

He does not believe in the tax code, BUT of COURSE he will use his tax credits. Why is that hard to understand....that was a brilliant example. SOme poeple will be lsot becasue of their lack of understanding.... oh well.

If you pay money for a service.... right or wrong, then you deserve the benefit of the service. The only way Paul could have looked "bad" is if he voted to get rid of taxes yet still claim a tax credit.... make sense? No

Great job, Russert was hard, Paul did very well for those able to think for themselves.
 
He did phenomenally on the earmark thing.

He does not believe in the tax code, BUT of COURSE he will use his tax credits. Why is that hard to understand....that was a brilliant example. SOme poeple will be lsot becasue of their lack of understanding.... oh well.

If you pay money for a service.... right or wrong, then you deserve the benefit of the service. The only way Paul could have looked "bad" is if he voted to get rid of taxes yet still claim a tax credit.... make sense? No

Great job, Russert was hard, Paul did very well for those able to think for themselves.

+1
 
Dr Paul actually answered the questions that were asked. When I have watched other politicians on MTP. They will give the question a sentence or two of lip service without really answering it. Then shoot off on another tangent.

The voters will appreciate todays interview after they see Huck and Obama do the two step boogie next week.
 
I don't think he did that great. We all know his philosophy inside out, so we immediately understood what he was trying to say even when he didn't explain himself well. If I were an average voter who knew absolutely nothing about him, I don't know how compelled I would be to research him further.

And really, that's what it takes to be a Paul supporter. We know exactly what his philosophy is and how he would implement it. Other candidates' supporters only have a vague notion of what their guy's plans are. We know specifics and we understand the underlying principles.
 
I thought it was a great interview. Ron Paul actually got to talk about his issues instead of being asked BS questions about other candidates, running as a third party candidate, etc.

Not to mention, wasn't Meet the Press originally not going to interview Ron Paul? Then when we bombarded them with emails, they didn't ignore them, but actually listened to us and put Ron Paul on the show.

Listening to the Public + Questions on Issues = KUDOS. The MSM needs more of this.
 
Back
Top