Ron Paul on Meet the Press

[Leroy_Jenkems]

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.

+1

 

[D B Branyers]

Watch the video where they interview Romney. By comparison, it almost seems like they were showing favoritism to Paul. Either that, or they just had no dirt on the guy

In any case, after watching these segments, I have a newfound respect for MTP for their "show no mercy" approach.

 

[braumstr]

I like Russert because he hammers people who need it. I think the only semi-gotcha from this one was on earmarks.

I understand completely what Paul is doing with earmarks and agree with it, but saying Russert did not understand or had it wrong was ineffective to me.

The question went to integrity. RPs biggest selling point, to many at least, is integrity. Putting the pork in and then voting against it begs for a clarification. You cannot make that go away by saying someone does not understand.

Now, I think a better answer would have been along these lines:

The system is corrupt. I cannot penalize my constituents by not working within the system, even though we know its broken. I express my ideology of being against it by voting against the actual legislation that has the pork in it. What else can I do and still be fair to the people in my district?

But then I am playing Monday morning qb, I think he did very well...Other than that one issue, he held up very well to the Russert waterboarding.

 

[Kuldebar]

Ya, gotta love those 5 minute long questions without being allowed enough time to address/refute the several points, false premises and misquotes of the questioner. It's what passes for hard hitting journalism these days.

I wonder what the ratio of Ron Paul's time to speak was when compared to Russert's windbaggery?

 

[microsect]

Good interview. Ron Paul handles himself very well.

 

[Second_Tier_My_Ass]

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.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

This is by far the toughest test of our candidate so far, and he did VERY well. There is no way to come out of a hour long attack interview completely unscathed, but now Ron is on the record debunking the worst mud that could be dug up on him.

Now lets go get some more voters.

 

[MrCobaltBlue]

After watching this interview, they should change the name of the show to "Meet the Bitch Slap Tim", Dr. Paul did very well, only thing Tim did to trip him up was give outdated quotes and misinformation which Dr. Paul quickly corrected.

 

[bluemarkets]

my favorite paul quote ...

Tim - ".. so if Iran invaded Israel what do we do?.."

Paul - " ...well they're not going to, that is like saying Iran is going to invade Mars ..."

 

[BGDubb]

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.

 

[lupester]

Two views of the interview

My wife watched and at 1st thought Tim was going after him. She did not understand thats what Tim does with everyone. But at 1st she did not like the earmark thing after thinking about it she thought his move was of high integrity, putting the earmarks in because the people who hired him asked him to but voting against it because they are not right.

Another guy, about 60 years old, I turned on to Ron Paul who was a democrat said Ron Paul did an excellent job defending himself. His foreign intervention answers were very clear with historical proof that his ideas work. My friend did state that Dr. Paul stuttered a little when the cutting the IRS came up. Dr. Paul needs some numbers to explain his views.

I have another guy I used to work with that kept telling me he likes some of Dr. Paul's ideas but why was he not on Meet the Press. I was happy that Dr. Paul gets on close to the primaries. I think he may turn some people on his foreign affairs after the good explainations he gave today.

 

[rachmiel]

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.

I checked out your posting history.. You sound like a worrywart. I think most people disagree with your assessment. I know personally that a family member of mine who is not wearing rose-colored glasses saw the interview and came away with a positive impression, so I think your opinion is unfounded.

 

[BGDubb]

I'm a realist. Check the blogs. People are panning his performance. Big surprise that someone related to a ron paul supporter thought he did well. Ask someone that knows nothing about him, and isn't related to you.

 

[BGDubb]

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=31287&cat=5

http://www.huliq.com/45370/ron-paul-meet-press

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272617859.shtml

 

[trout007]

I would like more shows like this. I think it's good to test the Good Doctor. I have been listening to him for years now but it's shows like this that really try to grill you that helps you see his true greatness.

 

[rachmiel]

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=31287&cat=5

http://www.huliq.com/45370/ron-paul-meet-press

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272617859.shtml

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.

 

[Cali4RonPaul]

Its good that Dr. Paul is tested in this fashion, he is highly intelligent, a number of the questions caught him off guard, but im sure he will be prepared the next time the media throws these type of questions at him.

To put it in perspective look at Rudy's interview on meet the press it was a disaster, Romney also caught bad reviews.. All In all Ron paul fared well..

 

[bluemarkets]

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.

Ron Paul took every misquote and out-of-context question in stride, and as always explained himself very well.

Compare the other interviews by Russert to Paul, and Paul's responses are pretty much airtight

Dont know what interview you watched ...

 

[specsaregood]

I'm a realist. Check the blogs. People are panning his performance. Big surprise that someone related to a ron paul supporter thought he did well. Ask someone that knows nothing about him, and isn't related to you.

Ron Paul did excellent, but you are entitled to your negative opinion.

Here you go, from a non-supporter:
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=5286
"The maverick Republican libertarian shows Tim Russert for the fool that he is."
excerpt
"That said, I thoroughly enjoyed Paul's performance on Meet the Press today, parrying each of Tim Russert's attempts to find a gotcha moment with honesty and conviction -- two things Russert was obviously unpracticed in dealing with. There's the old saying about it being better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt, but that's not quite true. Russert and other self-important, bloviating TV pundits like Wolf Blitzer and Chris Matthews get paid millions of dollars to remove all doubt. What a pleasure it was to watch Paul reveal that truth for all to see."

 

[knappz]

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.

Dr. Paul was constantly misquoted through out the interview, and did explain the use of Congressional earmarks perfectly. He has constantly voted "no" on earmarks and yet still had a duty to represent the people of his district. Paul knows that if a bill is going to pass regardless of his voting against it, why not then try and return some of the money to the people he represents. "it's like taking a tax credit or a tax deduction. I want to get rid of the income tax, but I'm still gonna give you all the tax credits possible."

Why should he make a statement this early in the race, after racking in a ton of cash running as a Republican, that he would or would not run as a third party... what part of that makes Dr. Paul look bad?

Tim Russert gonna have to try much harder next time. Great overall interview