Ron Paul on Meet the Press

[Eagle1]

Everyone note HOW Russert and his two guest journalists JUST IGNORED Paul appearance - no comment or questions by Russert on Paul. It's as though he never appeared as a guest.

I'm for Ron Paul, but Dr. Paul needs to have facts to back him up especially on how to deal with revenue with the IRS gone. Russert hammered him and all Dr. Paul could say was cut spending.

You can't run a national campaign on the mantra of Freedom, Liberty and cut spending without ANY FACTS TO BACK THEM UP. I get the impression that no one in Paul's campaign is even briefing him??

If ONLY he had this informatin by Reagan's own Cost Control report to throw back at Russert?

http://www.devvy.com/notax.html

President's Private Sector Survey On Cost Control
A Report to The President (Reagan)

January 15, 1984. Available from the Congressional Research Service.
The excerpt below can be found on page 12.

"Importantly, any meaningful increases in taxes from personal income would have to come from lower and middle income families, as 90% of all personal taxable income is generated below the taxable income level of $35,000.

Further, there isn't much more that can be extracted from high income brackets. If the Government took 100% of all taxable income beyond the $75,000 tax bracket not already taxed, it would get only $17 billion, and this confiscation, which would destroy productive enterprise, would only be sufficient to run the Government for several days.

Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:

With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments.

In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government."

 

[AlexMerced]

I'm not sure what more you want him to say, if you want to have less income you spend less... it's not very hard to understand and Paul presented numbers. Russert was going to press him no matter what his response, it's what Russert Does.

The victory is the Russert didn't make Ron Paul sweat like Giuliani and Romney who crumbled under Russerts scrutiny.

 

[last4ever]

Everyone note HOW Russert and his two guest journalists JUST IGNORED Paul appearance - no comment or questions by Russert on Paul. It's as though he never appeared as a guest.

I'm for Ron Paul, but Dr. Paul needs to have facts to back him up especially on how to deal with revenue with the IRS gone. Russert hammered him and all Dr. Paul could say was cut spending.

You can't run a national campaign on the mantra of Freedom, Liberty and cut spending without ANY FACTS TO BACK THEM UP. I get the impression that no one in Paul's campaign is even briefing him??

If ONLY he had this informatin by Reagan's own Cost Control report to throw back at Russert?

http://www.devvy.com/notax.html

President's Private Sector Survey On Cost Control
A Report to The President (Reagan)

January 15, 1984. Available from the Congressional Research Service.
The excerpt below can be found on page 12.

"Importantly, any meaningful increases in taxes from personal income would have to come from lower and middle income families, as 90% of all personal taxable income is generated below the taxable income level of $35,000.

Further, there isn't much more that can be extracted from high income brackets. If the Government took 100% of all taxable income beyond the $75,000 tax bracket not already taxed, it would get only $17 billion, and this confiscation, which would destroy productive enterprise, would only be sufficient to run the Government for several days.

Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:

With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments.

In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government."

We need to stop crying foul, we need to stop complaining about coverage from MSM, because we as supporters know that MSM coverage for Ron will never be enough. They could cover him ever second of every day, and we'd still complain that there aren’t enough seconds in the day.

Ron just had an hour interview on one of the toughest shows for candidates to appear on. I think Tim is allowed to change the subject after the interview is over. I've said all along that MSM is censoring Ron, but we can't expect the media to spend 24/7 on Ron before during and after an interview. We need to focus on the issues and work on spreading Ron's message, not attacking MSM.

 

[RickNHouston]

Everyone note HOW Russert and his two guest journalists JUST IGNORED Paul appearance - no comment or questions by Russert on Paul. It's as though he never appeared as a guest.

I'm for Ron Paul, but Dr. Paul needs to have facts to back him up especially on how to deal with revenue with the IRS gone. Russert hammered him and all Dr. Paul could say was cut spending.

You can't run a national campaign on the mantra of Freedom, Liberty and cut spending without ANY FACTS TO BACK THEM UP. I get the impression that no one in Paul's campaign is even briefing him??

If ONLY he had this informatin by Reagan's own Cost Control report to throw back at Russert?

http://www.devvy.com/notax.html

President's Private Sector Survey On Cost Control
A Report to The President (Reagan)

January 15, 1984. Available from the Congressional Research Service.
The excerpt below can be found on page 12.

"Importantly, any meaningful increases in taxes from personal income would have to come from lower and middle income families, as 90% of all personal taxable income is generated below the taxable income level of $35,000.

Further, there isn't much more that can be extracted from high income brackets. If the Government took 100% of all taxable income beyond the $75,000 tax bracket not already taxed, it would get only $17 billion, and this confiscation, which would destroy productive enterprise, would only be sufficient to run the Government for several days.

Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:

With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments.

In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government."

None of this would have made the slightest bit of difference because Russert's predetermined format was intentionally designed to "over power" Ron with meaningless, mindless gobblygook consisting of out of context mis-statement of facts, in-correct and salaciously misquoted positions and out right lies, delivered in his classical "tough guy, schoolyard thug" manner. This interview has no comparison to that of any of the, here-to-date, previously interviewed candidates from this series. I did not like it, although, in my opinion, most people came away from it, seeing it for what it really was.

 

[JWallace]

The positive here is: RP did really well, great even; most other candidates & pols meltdown on Russerts' show; we - the Revolution asked and begged for RP to be on and it RP was put on; if the writer's strike ends soon, RP will have many more chances during prime-time - if we push for it.

While we can't always get so lucky like the Glen Beck show when it turns into a love fest, RP & supporters should be proud of our candidate. Tim's gotchas were weak, point to an evolution in RP position (not a flip-flop or sudden pandering shift) and nothing compared to all other candidates who have been on MTP.

 

[rasheedwallace]

all i know is wtf is with the 30 minutes.

i haven't seen the guests yet as i am in PT, but this is nonsense. and they bring back huckleberry next week? wtf is this.

russert did what russert does, thats fine, but we need an hour.

 

[rachmiel]

Can't believe some people are disappointed with this interview. RP's the man! I'm proud to be supporting him and every time I see him perform well in a tough interview like this, I gain even more confidence in him.

 

[rjo43084]

Can't believe some people are disappointed with this interview. RP's the man! I'm proud to be supporting him and every time I see him perform well in a tough interview like this, I gain even more confidence in him.

Exactly. The man did well in the interview, end of story. Quit being so pessimistic and nitpicky about everything portrayed on MSM>

 

[Hangly Man]

Agreed that he did pretty well. Also agreeing that he should have more specific answers ready for someone who asks. Even a supporter like myself is naturally curious about exactly how the revolution is going to go down.

 

[specsaregood]

Everyone note HOW Russert and his two guest journalists JUST IGNORED Paul appearance - no comment or questions by Russert on Paul. It's as though he never appeared as a guest.

I choose to believe that the ignored him because he came off well and there was no disasterous moment to ridicule.

 

[dvictr]

video pleaze

 

[Jason726]

You have to admit, it was nothing but negative questions. No other candidate got question after question of attacks.

 

[rachmiel]

You have to admit, it was nothing but negative questions. No other candidate got question after question of attacks.

Actually, go to the MTP homepage on MSNBC.com and give a watch to Hillary or Rudy's interviews, and watch them squirm. Even if you might feel the questioning was a bit less rigorous, this style is really par for the course on the show. So I am not disappointed by the interview at all, and I'm glad I don't have to downgrade my opinion of Tim Russert after this!

 

[Jason726]

I guess it was the type of questions that stuck out at me. Most of them were irrelevent to his campaign and seemed to be used out of context.

 

[rasheedwallace]

he wasn't unfair to ron. MTP grills.

watch the others. its the same with all them too, just an hour.

 

[rasheedwallace]

netcast is up.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/10005061#10005061

 

[chadism]

I loved that interview.

 

[Melissa]

I loved that interview.

me too it was great and he showed he had humor while talking

 

[Wilkero]

He did a great job in the interview. Even though Russert usually grills his guests, he seemed to be trying to make RP look crazy. My father watched and said he thought RP handled it great, but that the questions were highly biased. I agree. It seemed like Russert was trying to marginalize him as much as possible. My father was really impressed with his response to the question about earmarks.

However, I think this was great exposure. It really helps when he gets a chance to explain his positions.

 

[RufusTDoofus]

The good doctor should at least be able to quote dollar amounts or percentages when asked simple questions about the Fed's income tax revenues. To respond with "a lot" makes him appear un-Presidential. He's the smartest guy running for President but answers like that certainly don't make him appear to be all that bright. He should have been prepared for that soft ball question.

I think the only unfair aspect of the questions is that Russert/NBC put him in the position of defending 20+ year old statements and quotes attributed to third parties made or written about the candidate.

Just look at the citations of the quotes as they are flashed on the screen. Russert reads the statement as "you said ......" but the quote is actually attributed to a third party, it's not a quote from Ron Paul. So when the transcript of the show comes out it contains the spoken dialog. The transcript of the interview won't include the on-screen quote citations. The effect of which is to divorce the quotes that were cited on screen and essentially make them the words those of the candidate.