Ron Paul on NBC's Meet the Press - Sunday 12/23

I had expected a heated exchange between Tim Russert and Dr. Ron Paul. That is Russert's style and he has conducted his interviews similarly with all the candidates thus far with the recent exception of Huckabee. Though I am a devoted Ron Paul admirer and supporter, there are times when he could be a bit more polished during such harsh interviews. His principled views on the issues are always the most important and relevant aspects of his campaign. Persona and image are always second. That is the truest way to judge a political candidate. Still, there are ways he can appear more articulate and revealing regarding his viewpoints. It may be that much of the blame can be placed on Dr. Paul's advisors. I am wondering how thorough his campaign manager, national press secretary and event coordinator prepared him for his MTP appearance.

There is never a need to qualify or apologize about his quest to adhere to the constitution. That is precisely why his supporters endorse him and his ideas. There is no mention of government schools in the constitution. It is unethical and unlawful, on face value, for government to take money forcefully from those who earn it and dole it out to those who do not. Dr. Paul should say this plainly and firmly, over and over again.

Many Libertarian issues are complex even with the Constitution and Bill Of Rights as guidelines. Supporters of Dr. Paul need to make room for debate in an attempt to find the answers.

The Sinclair Lewis comment Ron Paul quoted was very relevant for a different reason. Barry Goldwater feared the religious right more than any political foe in the years prior to his death. But to comment on Huckabee's Christmas television spot only to admit later that he did not see it prior to making his remark is, I am sorry to say, irresponsible. If Fox News caught him "completely cold" Congressman Paul should have tempered his response accordingly.

Other aspects of the Meet The Press interview were simply game playing by Russert. Paul's comments about Reagan, George H. and George W. are tempests in teapots. Ron Paul's views are completely consistent with his belief system. These three so called "conservatives" are anything but true to their own political philosophy. In terms of his opinion on Reagan, look closely and a viewer can clearly see that the word "traitor" was not a direct quote. "I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan administration." were the only words actually attributed to Ron Paul. To Libertarians and believers in small government, Reagan was indeed a traitor. He abandoned much of his small government beliefs that he learned from his mentor, Barry Goldwater and did little to stop excessive government spending and overregulation. Though Russert went out of his way to spotlight Dr. Paul's disenchantment with the Republican party, not one word was mentioned about the smear tactics fellow Texas Republicans used on Paul during his congressional election campaign.

Another cheap shot was the Eric Dondero statement about Dr. Paul's reaction following 9/11. Accelerated "Big Government" is exactly what citizens received following the attacks. Tim Russert may not recall New York Senator Chuck Schumer exclaiming soon after the tragedy that "The era of small government is over". The difference is that Schumer is trying his best to make it so; Dr. Paul is working hard to keep it from happening. Regrettably, Ron Paul's response to Russert's question was again a defensive one when he should have been on the offense. Paul should have never said that he was surprised by Russert's question and that Dondero was a disgruntled employee. He would have benefited by saying something like, "Tim, as a patriot American, to suggest that I was not horrified and saddened by the events of that morning is simply absurd, But there is no denying that a more intrusive and oppressive central government is exactly what good citizens didn't bargain for, but got after 9/11." Something like that would have made Dr. Paul sound confident in his convictions and competent. Instead, Ron Paul reminded viewers of a sweating, question evading executive on a 60 Minutes gotcha interview.

Ron Paul did fine with some of the questions posed to him on Meet The Press. Overall, however his responses lacked some forethought and sure-footedness. Supporters of Dr. Paul need to be careful that they do not fall into the trap of fanatic followers. He's our guy of course, but our guy right or wrong makes those in his corner appear slightly delusional. This may unintentionally sway undecided voters away from Ron Paul and hand them over to a less principled rival. Let us be as honest with ourselves as we are with the constitutional convictions we strive to preserve and uphold. I wish Ron Paul nothing but success from the first primaries, through the nomination and ultimately to the White House.

At last you got someone to believe in..Ron Paul

I am from India so can't vote with you...but my BEST WISHES are with you and Dr. Ron Paul

anyways look here:

PLZ DON'T IGNORE

Censoring Paul Archives:

I watched the interview, and Russert came across as a mental midget. I mean, really, I don't know what the hype is all about this guy. Anybody with a staff of researchers could have done a better job than Russert. His whole line of questioning was based on quoting what other Lame Stream Media Outlets have said. Not one original question on Russert's part.

Dr. Paul handled it with aplomb, didn't back down from his positions, and spoke plainly about his beliefs. And so what if bringing the troops home means that over 500,000 thousand won't have jobs overseas. The purpose of gubment is not to provide jobs. If you believe that, then a 50% reduction makes perfect sense. The same with IRS line of questioning. "That's alot of revenue, if you get rid of it, where do you make up the difference? Duh, if you cut the size of gubment, you don't have to! Its a basic, fundamental position about what the role of gubment is in society.

Anyhoo, I thought Russert came across a mental midget and Dr. Paul was reasoned and calm, if not a little exasperated at Russert's idiotic line of questioning. Because in Dr. Paul's mind, the fundamental principle is the role of gubment, and if you believe it should be limited by the Constitution, then all of his positions make perfect sense. "Should we go to war if North Korea invades South Korea? What a stupid question. If the Congress goes to its constituents and they say yes, then Congress declares war and then we go to war. Russert, just another talking potatoe head journalist.

Its the Constitution, stupid!

For God and Country!

A simple look at this kiss73's profile says it all...we can see that they registered on this site less than two days ago..nearly immediately after the MTP interview, yet they state that they are one of us loyal Paulites! This person is only here for the spin factor and should not be taken seriously from this point on! An obvious plant!!

"Whenever I despair, I remember that the way of truth and love has always won. There may be tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they may seem invincible, but in the end, they always fail. Think of it: always"
Gandhi

ron paul 2008

I believe in the decriminalization of all drugs but this is a radical view to more than half of all voters and this could be used against Dr. Paul if he isn't careful on how he approaches this. I am not saying to pander but as we all know Faux and all MSM will be salivating when they ask him this question.

Just finished with the last and best segment of the Russert interview. I though Dr. Paul was great. I never thought in my life I would hear these positions getting airtime on corporate TV.

My favorite part in this segment was an old excerpt from a newspaper column that referenced Dr. Paul calling Bush 41 a bum. Bush Sr. may be a fine man, but as a President, he was a bum and the guy responsible for driving me out of the Republican party with all his waffling Rockefeller Republicanism and new world order pap.

It was a beautiful seque from that to the question on why Dr, Paul is running as a republican. To paraphrase...the party left me, I didn't leave the party (exactly my position).

That along with his criticism of Ronald Reagens inability to shrink the size of government layed the perfect ground work to respond to the facism question.

He knocked this one out of the park. His point of a "soft facism," not a Hilter or Mousillinni type, is exactly spot on. The power elite carry on about you're either with us or against us. They are in bed with big money and big money is in bed with them to insure access to sweatheart deals. This is the facism of Juan Peron in 50's Argentina. It's not about dragging people out of their houses for no reason and sending them to jail...generally...it's about power, money, and pervasive corruption that stifles hope for those without connections.

This is really big stuff. Hundreds and hundreds, if not trillions, of dollars are on the line, and if the Ron Paul campaign gets significant traction I'm concerned about what powerful insiders would be willing to do.

Merry Christmas to all and God bless you.
Chairman

Man - how could anyone say that this interview was negative??? I thought Dr. Paul KICKED ASS!!!

I've worked with Russert before and he's a pretty big boy...Pretty much everyone is a little intimidated right off the bat.

Great Interview Ron Paul. Let's continue the Revolution at

www.wakeuplate.com

A good election blog

I think one of the toughest points to communicate about the principles our Founding Fathers imparted into the Constitution is that those principles work best when used together in a system of governance. This seems especially true in situations like in MTP where the interviewer selects narrow topics and then does not let Dr. Paul thoroughly explain his ideas. For example, in the part of the interview where Mr. Russert asks Dr. Paul about the amount of money the income tax brings in, I think it would have been helpful if Dr. Paul had explained that right now, our federal government could continue to fund its current policies without any revenue from income taxes because our fiat monetary system allows the government to monetize debt (i.e. the government sells Treasuries to the Federal Reserve, who buys them with "dollars" created from nothing, thus increasing the "inflation tax"). So the amount of revenue generated from the income tax is essentially irrelevant. Even so, I think it would make a great talking point for Dr. Paul to let US citizens know (in specific"dollar" values) how the money both from debt monetization and income taxes is spent/wasted. This way, he could validate 2 Constitutional principles at once: first, that a foreign policy of non-intervention is generally the best (for all involved); and second, that a sound monetary system and fiscal responsibility work best to insure a humble foreign policy.

RH

I just watched the interview for the second time and the only complaint I have is Tim would not let ron finish his views. and I would have liked to see ron tell Tim "let me finish" I know its always easier to sit and watch and critic but I give ron a 9 in that interview and I think getting a 5 or about with tim as the interviewer is difficult. A friend called me and said they saw Ron on meet the press and were very impressed.

Let me repeat that, he quoted ERIC DONDERO! That's how seriously these asshats took this interview. It was designed to be a hostile interview and a hit piece. And now the word in the rigged media is that he's not ruling out a third party run? If you think Ron Paul is getting smeared now, wait until he starts winning primaries.

Paul did great. I just watched the full set of videos. Thanks for having them here. Tim Russet lost a lot of points with his masters.

Mitt Romney was anti endorsed yesterday by the concord monitor.

www.wakeuplate.com

Ron Paul has never gotten an anti endorsement. Keep Fighting to put somebody real in the White House.

... so I've read through countless posts here and elsewhere in the blogosphere about this appearance by Paul on MTP. My hand was clenched on the armrest dreading some kind of deplorable performance by Paul judging by the comments I had read. I decided to give it a full day to mentally prepare.

I finally watched the full interview this afternoon, and have to say that despite the need for Paul to more frequently use quantified specifics to make his proposals appear well thought, this was easily a net positive interview. I think to the casual or typical MTP viewer (which are not here on Daily Paul), repeated efforts by Russert to catch Paul in some kind of ethical compromise or intellectual dishonesty failed entirely. That's a win, especially with all the squirming we heard about with Giuliani after his appearance. My knuckles are back to normal again.

The best article I've read all week is a critique of Giuliani in The American Conservative by Salon's Glenn Greenwald. It is truly decimating and will mark a milestone in the decline of Giuliani's campaign. I have never read this line of argument against Giuliani before, and would expect Greenwald to write a similar piece on Romney shortly. I highly recommend it for those among us who are deeply concerned about the march to fascism that Paul and others have noted in recent years:

http://www.amconmag.com/2...

i could live the rest of my life in comfort never hearing the word "troll" used as an insult to anybody that says anything negative about Ron. it makes the user sound like a third grader. please face the fact that Ron did not look his best in this interview. I'm a fervent supporter of Dr. Paul's, but please be realistic. this is too important to look like a bunch of little brats who got their feelings hurt. press onward in this fight for liberty!

anyway we can find out Tim's impression of this interview.? It looked like he enjoyed his talk with Ron.

Guys, we need to kick reality. We are all Ron Paul Fanatics. We must confess this. We think everything he does is golden and great, regardless. But, I must say that his appearance on MTP was down right bad for his campaign. Dr. Paul seemed very un-prepared, un-informed and un-confident. Really people, he didn’t even have a come back or any facts on what he would do when and if he did away with the income tax. Or even know how much money the income tax brings in. He talks about this all the time, but he gets on MTP and looks like a deer in highlights on the issue. Also, how in the given world did he not even know how many troops we had around the world? Another issue he talks about all the time, but here he showed he knew no facts. I’m sorry friends, but Dr. Paul seemed very un-presidential to say the least. He should have totally dodged any and all questions about issues that have nothing to do with him being President in 2008. He could have easily avoided these questions by reminding Tim that they have nothing to do with being the president of the USA right here, right now. Paul had a huge opportunity with his appearance on MTP. The show is seen by 2-3 million people. He struck out big time. Hate to say it but he seems as though he almost intended for a bad showing on this program. In the matter of the last week he has called the Civil War a mistake for slavery, Reagan a Failure, the Israel govt. a conspiracy, Huckabee a Fascist (sort of), The Civil Rights act wrong and had no stance on his own issues in front of the American public on Sunday morning. Paul could have netted thousands of new voters, convinced those undecided to back him and put more confidence in those who already love him…..he failed on all fronts on MTP. I’m sorry, so sorry, but this appearance will go down as his ultimate public failure. He’s going to lose those voters, like me, who had some concern if he can handle being a President. The MTP appearance has me worried that he can’t handle being a Congressman, let alone a President. I love his stance on most issues, I do, but the American people want a president who is strong, charismatic, knowledgeable, confident, assuring and honest. Paul did not come across with many of these on Sunday. He should have turned the interview around and discussed the issues that people really care about here and now. Talked straight and with facts. 95% of Americans are not historians or know much at all about any history. Dr. Paul is maybe too smart sometimes. He lost a lot of votes on MTP. People will be running from him now. The headlines have already been crushing since Sunday. Sorry but that is the spade that needs to be called. We need to all wake up a bit, step back and look at the big picture.

i have been watching it hover around 18.5 million and after the interview and the day the ticker is up $200000 in donations....i think that speaks volumes about the interview. people must continue to treat dr. pauls ideas and this revolution as a viral video...this is viral idea SPREAD IT.

RON PAUL 2008

The biggest thing that jumped out at me, when Russet showed that clip of RP on Fox news commenting on the Huckabee ad, Russet cut the part out where RP said something to the effect of I don't think that applies to Huckabee, right after he made the facism remark. So Russet(Mr. Potato Head) really was trying to end it on a negative note to make RP look bad by cutting that part out and not showing it to the people watching the interview. I wish RP had called him on that.

Much better than I remember, when I watched it live, the first time. The Good Doctor didn't seem well rested from the night before; the visible morning bags under the eyes, or it could be a really early taping. But I initially took him being flustered from fatigue, but really it seemed to do more with lil Timmie cutting him off and keep switching topics, without allowing the Doctor to finish his sentences. The Eric Dondero quote was such a lame and useless low blow. Nevertheless, I don't remember any other time in history anyone of worth on network TV who raised the questions of our dire monetary situation in concert with the nexus of failed domestic and foreign policy of guns&butter/warfare-welfare state.

Personally above all, my support for the Doctor stem from his position on the monetary policy. As we all know money makes the world go around, but when the monetary system is not one reflective of a Republic, but a private consortium of international banking coterie, you'll always end up with TYRANNY. I see ridding Federal Reserve and IRS as the biggest challenge of our lifetime. When the banks own you, they own your destiny. When warfare and welfare depend on inflated currency, it funds it and recycles the deadly policy.

As an independent who have on the most part always supported fiscal conservatives, but socially liberal candidates, the only issue I had with the doctor was perhaps on abortion and the death penalty. But after much research into eugenics, and the fact that the govt at both federal and state were involved in aborting babies of single black mothers without their consent as late as 1974, in the case of North Carolina, it doesn't take much to realize that any govt involvement in abortion is equivalent to condoning eugenics.

Plus from a legal standpoint, these issues and murder/manslaughter and general violent crimes have always been dealt with at the state level. Along with civil liabilities involved in doctors committing intentional or inadvertent birth-related malfeasance, certainly cements legal rights of the fetus.

Does life begin at conception? Well, personally as a non-judeo-christian, I believe in the existence of soul and re-incarnation. So while at a philosophical level, to me, much like energy, life cannot truly be killed. But physically, where and when does life begin?

It'd be hypocritical of someone who believes that a zygote is, in fact, a life, then only to go blow the head off a deer on weekends, out of some naturally perceived mammalian biological superiority. If so, then do we forward the same sentiment of biological superiority of other mammals that we feed on? To vegetation? By some accounts, physicists were able to measure "lifeforce" in plants before and after a leaf, or a petal was taken off.

So should we as a nation founded upon eclectic concoction of Christian sensibilities and occult interference, but a secular Republic nonetheless, adopt the path of Janes of India, where they believe in lifeforce and the God almighty to be existent in all things that they carefully tread as to not crush insects, on foot, and wear surgical masks in streets as to not accidentally inhale reincarnated insects? Who knows? Just thinking out loud. I certainly have more questions than answers.

But at a policy level, I cannot agree more with the Doctor; the more difficult the moral and legal ramifications an issue has, leaving it to the States to figure it out. At least we'd have 50 different options play out to see which makes the most sense.

Who would have ever guessed that I'd be against Roe vs. Wade. I do think allowing the fetus to be killed up to the last portion of the third trimaster, certainly is murder. But much like the drug war, the GOP needs a wedge issue to use it to get the votes. So I do believe that the establishment certainly do NOT want to see abortion abolished. After all, the GOP had full control of the Congress, the Supreme Court and the White House, for the 1st 6yrs of the GWB residency. Not a single overture, or even a rhetoric was made toward overturning Roe vs. Wade. If it did get overturned, I certainly missed that one. With OBL allegedly responsible for 911, he's still around, Al-CIA-da's in full force in MidEast, and the 109th's most crucial issue of the day? Gay marriage, and MBL's steroid use. Oh let's forget about losing 350 some tons of $100,000 bricks of cash in Iraq, among other things. Priorities, right folks?

One question for the neoCONS is, how did all of our previous Presidents keep us "safe" from the non-existent "islamo-fascists" for 231yrs before GWB? Answer that with a straight face, then perhaps may be we'll consider the neoCONS post 9/11 fascist tyranny kept us "safe." I don't see Muslims in Iran or Iraq or anywhere else attacking Billy the Kid in the 19th century, anyone?

Heck, at this point I have hard time disagreeing with Dr. Ron Paul on anything. Is he that common sensical??

The simple answer would be, YES.

With natural charm, albeit coupled with visible fluster with good cause, the Good Doctor seems to have sailed through MTP "interview," very well. How first time viewers tuning into Ron Paul Revolution perceived the interview, only time will tell. After all, 1st impression is important, and it did take me a second viewing to come around, as well. New-bes 1st impression of Ron Paul remains to be seen.

But anyone with a modicum of common sense and curiosity, and if at all, they consider, or are aware that this Republic is in dire straits would not hesitate to listen more closely to what Ron Paul has to say.

Hey, anyone watching someone who can bring up the military industrial complex, ending the MidEast wars/occupation, bringing home the entire half million plus troops from overseas, shoring up those already dependent on entitlements, ridding the IRS, Federal Reserve, and the nexus between the warfare and welfare state with failed monetary policy and system, all in a 33min Sunday seating, has got to be impressed with the Doctor. Especially those of liberal persuasion. They certainly don't see Pelosi, Hitlery, Edwards, or Obama/Oprah bringing up ending the war before 2013, the military-medical-financial-mediatainment industrial complex. After all, the Dems, too are the beneficiaries of the guns&butter largess.

Ron Paul Revolution, forever!

PRESIDENT RON PAUL 2008!!!
B E L I E V E