Vent On Tim Russert Thread!

[katooom]

Although RP did ok, I agree I would not sent MTP vids as representative RP vids to new recruits. John Stossle vids much better, NH Telegraph vids much much better. But MTP was not a complete disaster as some insinuate.

 

[angelatc]

P.S.

Dr. Paul should accept federal matching funds for the same reason!

A soon to be famous quote (That I just made up)

Use the system as it exists to gain the power to change the existing system.

I disagree. If he accepts the matching funds, it seriously underminds his authority to spend his money in the areas that he thinks it wold best be spent in.

Have you read up on all the restrictions? It isn't "free money," it comes with terrible contraints and restrictions.

We'll give him all the money he needs!

 

[stylesbjj]

Tim Russert has been very tough on all the candidates. He really confronts them. I wouldn't make it too big of a deal.

 

[VinceLiberty]

I'm not about to send a 30 minute fumbling hatchet job.. they can find that shit on the news every day, I'm not going to do the work of the MSM, just like you said... they are the ones who cut him to shreds... I have other interests. I know his record and am willing to let a bad interview slide--a non supporter won't be so easy going... you need to realize that when you send out the bad videos

If anybody watched the program through to the end, you'll have seen Russert closing the show by showing off a Bizarro cartoon that shows "little Timmy Russert" grilling Santa Clause about some obscure promise made on December 12, 1957. In other words, this is what Russert is known for - rapid-fire questions based on detailed research on a candidates' past statements and actions. It has nothing to do with Paul, so let's get over that. What were we expecting - softball questions about his interest in organic gardening? Please.

A few notes about the performance specifically:

1) Paul's audience for the past 30 years has largely been a small, sympathetic crowd (Mises Institute, etc.) Before this campaign, he had literally never been interviewed by the MSM or seen on television - he's still growing and learning to deal with the exposure. He does need better advice and preparation in this respect.

2) Given (1), he held up very well. Where candidates really die on MTP is when they try to deny or obfuscate their flip-flops - Russert goes in for the kill when this happens. RP's interview never came close to this, because RP has nothing to hide. Although a few of the more detailed facts unfortunately escaped him, he ably defended everything that Russert threw at him.

3) This is essentially the "worst" that the MSM can throw at him. The fact that Russert tried to focus so much on RP's 1988 statements (to little effect, since RP still proudly holds the same views) indicates that there is little "current" to go on. Most of what Ron Paul talks about today, like withdrawing from Iraq, is wildly popular and easy to defend. Better to talk about the Civil War, instead, then.

Fundamentally, many people coming to RP's camp are drawn primarily by his intregrity and straight-forward manner. Despite the slip on some detailed facts, the interview shows this side of him in spades, and we should use it to spread the word. If we can't take the heat, what are we doing in the kitchen?

 

[USAF Vet Dan]

I think he did VERY well

This was a tough interview and I don't think it went well at all... he answered some stuff correctly... all in all, I don't think he HURT himself, but he didn't pick up any new voters today, for sure.

Thoughtbombing, I'm not singling out your perspective. I'm using it only because it seems to be a good example of that of others here who thought Ron Paul didn't do well in this interview.

I think Ron did extremely well in defending the typical "Meet the Press" attack. My opinion isn't biased... it isn't a "he can do no wrong because I like him" opinion. Putting myself in the shoes of someone who didn't know anything about RP, I would have found him to be honest, on point, logical in his responses, and tough enough to stand up to Russert's volleys.

I'm sure everybody would, in retrospect, see things they could have said better after such an interview. I think RP scored 90% or better.

 

[NMCB3]

I read this thread before watching the interview, so I was prepared to be disappointed. Imagine my surprise when Ron Paul did very well! I think some of his harshest critics are his supporters. MTP is not an easy format for a politician. RP handled it well and made Tim look foolish on several occasions.

 

[last4ever]

I'm not about to send a 30 minute fumbling hatchet job.. they can find that shit on the news every day, I'm not going to do the work of the MSM, just like you said... they are the ones who cut him to shreds... I have other interests. I know his record and am willing to let a bad interview slide--a non supporter won't be so easy going... you need to realize that when you send out the bad videos

And if you're so extremely one sided about a candidate non supporters won't be so easy going either.

A good way to present this video would be to present both the John Stossel interview and then this MTP interview. You explain "Here's Ron Paul and here's what the media is saying, I'm going to show you a very positive interview in which Ron is given an opportunity to shine, and then I'm going to show you the MTP video which illustrates how Ron Paul is able to deal with the pressures brought up about his record"

It's important not to present a candidate in a dogmatic fashion, because whether you're positive or negative, people won't listen. Instead we need to be balanced, "Here's why I like Ron Paul, and here's what he's said in all the interviews, I think he's a real hope for America, but I want you to do your own investigation and come to your own conclusion, and not vote for Ron just because I say he's great".

 

[Maverick]

3) This is essentially the "worst" that the MSM can throw at him. The fact that Russert tried to focus so much on RP's 1988 statements (to little effect, since RP still proudly holds the same views) indicates that there is little "current" to go on. Most of what Ron Paul talks about today, like withdrawing from Iraq, is wildly popular and easy to defend. Better to talk about the Civil War, instead, then.

Yeah, but there was some things that he said in '88 that he didn't really clarify all that well and it came off sounding like they didn't jive with what he's saying today. Public education, for instance, is still something I'm confused about. Russert used an old quote where RP said he would "abolish public education" but then RP said something like "well, that's not part of my platform today." Doesn't he still stand for that though? Why would he not include it in his platform? Wouldn't he still prefer private education over public even today?

 

[braumstr]

Russert is tough and fair to all.

I will not be engaging my spam bot on him.

 

[Maverick]

Russert is tough and fair to all.

I will not be engaging my spam bot on him.

Oh that reminds me. Hopefully nobody sends hate mail to Russert. He's just doing his job, and it's job to be tough. At least he's been more fair than some others I could name. If you e-mail Russert, please thank him for having RP on the show, and if you have any criticisms about how the interview was handled please address that in a respectful manner. That means no throwing around words like "hack" and "shill" ok?

Last thing we need is to give the press more ammo about how we're all A-holes or something.

 

[thoughtbombing]

and then I'm going to show you the MTP video which illustrates how Ron Paul is able to deal with the pressures brought up about his record"

I don't think he handled it well... he had plenty of time to explain himself and I personally was put off by some of his answers... namely would you get rid of the CIA... FBI... Income tax...

He waffled on all of those and that was the main reasons I was voting for him! NO CIA, FBI OR INCOME TAX IN THE CONSTITUTION... that's the answer I was looking for. If there was another candidate running who was for those things, against the war and had a decent record, I'd be voting for someone else based upon this interview alone... he backslid on a LOT of issues that are real winners because he seemed to think it would be perceived wrong.

Do a youtube search for Wolfe Blitzer when he is questioning him POST NOV 5TH and hammers him on ROSA PARKS and the Freedom Medal he voted against... THAT is how you flip it on an interviewer--just because it's Russert and Meet the Press is no excuse to answer those questions poorly. Second of all, he didn't know ANY numbers, facts or figures. Then he would say shit like "oh, well I don't think that's a direct quote"

it is or it isn't, he said it or he didn't... I DON'T *THINK* IT WAS A DIRECT QUOTE???

CRAP! Again, maybe we saw a different interview, but he looked like a fish out of water to me, and I freakin adore the guy! Did you see how he answered Rudy/Mccain/Huckabee in the debates?

At least Romney is smart enough to stand back and watch the others get torn to shreds. I didn't expect a nice fluffy interview with smiles and marshmellows and a joint being passed around between two stoner buddies--but I expected Ron Paul to answer the questions the same way he has been until today...

so YES TO THE CIA... YES TO THE FBI... YES TO SOME FORM OF TAXES IN THE SHORT TERM...

With a single stroke of his pen he can stop enforcing ALL OF THE ABOVE, from day one... today he completely blew those points. Everything else he said gets lost in translation... I didn't hear much after that part because I was trying to not be sick. And again, I actually really like the guy. I just think this wasn't as good as people are saying... if you think it was, you're in the wrong thread anyway.

 

[orp]

agree, not lilkely to convert

This was a tough interview and I don't think it went well at all... he answered some stuff correctly... all in all, I don't think he HURT himself, but he didn't pick up any new voters today, for sure.

I agree. For me the biggest problem is with the campaign people. Going into these kinds of tough interviews, Ron Paul needs NUMBERS. It is tough, but fair, to ask Ron where the money will come from if the income tax is abolished. Where are the people who are in the campaign who should do the research to have this nailed down?
No one who does not support Ron Paul is going to be swayed by the fact that we didn't have an income tax before 1913. Forget that line! The campaign should be providing Ron with precise numbers. Also, it is inexcusable that Ron Paul should be in the position on national TV of having to be informed by the interviewer what the number of bases or troops overseas is, since Ron is calling for them to be shut down and troops brought home. How much money would be saved? "A lot" is not an acceptable answer.

I think Ron Paul did very well and had a couple of very good responses. Particularly about Korea and his comparison with Viet Nam. Take some of the money from those money bombs and pay some people to do some really extensive research and provide Ron with the numbers he needs to make an effective response to the kinds of tough questions he will continue to be asked.

 

[einjun]

but if this was your first exposure to Ron Paul, you aren't voting for him.

I politely disagree.

He still had a lot of balls talking about fascism coming to America (loss of civil liberties), influence of corporations, standing his ground on foreign policy, etc

I assume everyone (almost everyone) who watched at least knows MTP is not meant to be easy.

I also think Russert did a fair job. To people who think Russert concentrated more on showing Dr. Paul' as a charlatan, well that's all Russert has to work on. One of Dr. Paul's strongest appeals is his integrity. So it is natural that Russert would test that.

I think as guys we should look for tough challenges and hard interviews. Tough situations and how they are dealt with are all that will matter in the end.

 

[adrok]

Wanted to make sure everyone saw this. Just looked at the yahoo home page and this is one of the top stories:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071223/ap_po/ron_paul

 

[einjun]

Wanted to make sure everyone saw this. Just looked at the yahoo home page and this is one of the top stories:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071223/ap_po/ron_paul

That's an AP story.
I hate them
They write mis-informed articles on RP and major news outlets run with them.

 

[last4ever]

That's an AP story.
I hate them
They write mis-informed articles on RP and major news outlets run with them.

It's not mis-informed. It's exactly what he said, what part of that article is untrue?

 

[diggronpaul]

Ron did well

 

[Peace&Freedom]

It seems to me Paul should have been asked to be on MTP 20 years ago, when asking him questions about statements from his 1988 campaign WOULD be appropriate. BUt spending that much time on it seemed to be a 'fringing' technique. Subliminally, the casual viewer who was hearing Paul for the first time would think, "hmmm, marginal questions, must be a marginal candidate. I'll stick with Rudy, who is more suited for dealing with the real issues." Note that the AP story after the interview only talks up earmarks, drugs and aid to Israel---so Russert's attempts to position Paul as a 'sideshow issue' candidate is already working.

 

[rachmiel]

It's not mis-informed. It's exactly what he said, what part of that article is untrue?

Exactly. Wasn't really a bad article, which means it can only spread word of the RP revolution.

 

[last4ever]

You really need to read Propaganda and/or The Technological Society by Jacques Ellul. Learn about the "techniques" that are used in society to manipulate the "mass man."

You speak from a position of deep naivite which is quite damaging to yourself and the revolution.

In short, this interview was highly skewed. And hiring a media consultant is the anithesis of everything Dr. Paul stands for. You probably do not understand this, but we are attempting to build a society devoid of "technique," as described by Ellul. Continuing along Ellul's philosophy will push us down a road that we do not wish to go down. Dr Paul undestands this. You need to become educated in the world of "technique" so that you may also understand the steps that the mass man needs to take in order to preserve individual liberties.

I don't believe hiring someone to help present thoughts and ideas more clear and articulable during a media interview is the antitheses of what Ron Paul stands for. If it is then I'm supporting the wrong candidate, because I would hope Ron Paul stands for individuals bettering themselves, and not relying on Government to tell us how to act.