Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Ron Paul Shines on Meet the Press Russert comes out swinging but gets knocked out before the final bell.by Big Louie
(libertarian)
Sunday, December 23, 2007
It was the absolutely most aggressive interview I have ever seen by Russert on "Meet the Press" He dredged up every slimy thing he could find to attack Dr. Paul. Yet, Dr. Paul was able to rebut EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!.
My belief that DR. Paul is the man for our times has just been confirmed. He was able to answer every single, stupid attack that has been launched against him the past few weeks. For this, we should thank Tim Russert, even though I do not believe he did it for the betterment of the Revolution.
Be careful of the seeds you sow, Neo-Cons, for someday you will have to reap the Harvest. This interview was like a much needed summer rain. It will allow our Revolution to flourish. Dr. Paul is the the sunshine that gives us our energy to grow.
It was better than any boxing match I have ever seen. Neither competitor flinched, neither dodged nor ducked. For 30 minutes, they stood toe-to toe. Russert was knocked down in every round, but seemed to get up stronger. DR. Paul was stunned by a few jabs, but never staggered nor fell and always responded with a firm uppercut or roundhouse. 3 minutes per round, 10 rounds, RON PAUL WINS BY TKO!!!!
And now without the flowery analogies
I was terrified at every single questions Russert asked. I couldn't see how Dr. Paul could possibly give a satisfactory answer. but Dr. Paul KICKED HIS ARSE!!!!! Not only did he answer the questions, but, I think, put to rest a lot of crazy claims that have been leveled against him.
The views expressed in this
article are those of Big Louie only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Big Louie is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Tim Russert forgot to ask one further question:
"Congressman Ron Paul, have you stopped beating your wife?"
or
"Congressman Paul, why do you hate black people so much?"
I agree. At first I thought Russert was unfairly attacking Ron Paul, but I reviewed other interviews on my Stop Wasting Money blog and found he also went after others, especially Rudy Giuliani.
as usual, tim russert showed his true colors to corporate media and i agree, this is a unusually biting interview compared to other candidates with "extreme" baggage. what we saw was another attempt at character assassination and it just goes to show, Ron Paul is a master of verbal juijitsui. One can not undermined the light of truth when its shown and i think this elevated Ron Paul to the public alot better than it did tim russert.
If you don't like liberty, justice, peace and prosperity, if you don't support the Constitution, if you don't agree with the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the Founding Fathers, you certainly will not like Ron Paul.
I don't know about kicking Russert's ass. But I knew Ron Paul would handle adversity with aplomb, based upon his handling prior questioning. Dr. Paul had a lengthy grilling and showed his debate stamina and skill.
Meet the Press' staff had to really scrape the bottom to find those sidebar "quotes" that were written by reporters almost exclusively from his 1988 LP candidate run for President. I note no video or audio clips from them, though there are recordings from that era from him floating around on the web. A couple of what the reporters had said were obvious misstatements of his position from that time by a reporter who could not conceive of a candidate calling for the elimination of vast parts of government even at the time.
Though this minutia is undoubtedly lost on the average GOP voter, the messages being relayed by Dr. Paul on Meet the Press were pretty clear. Eliminate government.
I didn't like the way Russert had to bring up many possition stances and quotes from 20 years ago for Ron to defend against or explain...which he sufficiently did. At least he wasn't doing coke and skipping work 20 years ago like some other people.
Posted By: Robert Douglass
Date: 2007-12-23 09:57:31
I've watched all the Meet the Press interviews and Russet wasn't any more brutal with Paul than the others. I'm terribly disappointed with Ron's performance. He seemed easily flustered and unprepared. This is a setback for the campaign. Do I still believe in his message? Yes! Do I still support him? Yes! Am I saddened by this counterproductive lost opportunity? Yes.
Posted By: Louis Nardozi
Date: 2007-12-23 11:08:19
Well, you kind of have to expect that type of hatchet job. I did my OWN little fact checking expedition and found the advertisers for this little shindig.
GE lists 824 items regarding defense contracts on their website for 2007. http://www.ge.com/search/index.jsp
Boeing lists 72,200 items regarding defense. http://tinyurl.com/2nm5y8
Fidelity Investments - tax and 401k services, need I say more?
Hummer - child company of AM General the company that makes all the HMMWV's for the Army
UBS - Another banking company, certainly they have nothing to fear from Dr. Paul, right?
Toyota - makes cars which are CURRENTLY cheaper to make in Japan (and then assemble here).
Aleve - you think Bayer Pharmaceuticals has a reason to fear Ron Paul - who wants to allow yound adults to opt out of SS and Medicare and is vehemently opposed to socialized medicine?
ABE - (shill for coal companies) do they have nothing to fear from Ron Paul's desire to deregulate nuclear power so we have safe, clean unlimited power?
CVS - A Pharmacy whose bread and butter is insurance and Medicare. Dr. Paul wants to remove the incentives for hospitals to overbill us.
Xerox - another defense contractor. Here's a link to their defense contracts of 2006. http://tinyurl.com/2wjzbb
MasterCard - Huge banking coop.
Why didn't Mr. Russert let us know that he had a HUGE conflict of interest BEFORE THIS SEGMENT AIRED? When half of your advertisers are in defense, the other half split between banking and Big Pharma doesn't that constitute NEWS? I mean, Mr. Russert dug back 20 years or more on Dr. Paul to try to find "dirt". Why not look in your own mirror? I find the FACT the Mr. Russert did NOT disclose this relationship highly disturbing.
I watched the interview and I believe that Tim Russert treated Ron Paul the way he treats most or maybe a little more hostile than usual (i.e. Russert always tries to find quotes from way in the past that contradict a persons position or try to expose 'skeletons in the closet'). But if you have to go back 20 years it seems ridiculous. It would have been much better if he focused on issues. I give Ron an A for answering the questions but because the questions were so negative I give the interview a C or D for positive publicity. Clearly if Ron wants to get to the next level he will have to be prepared to answer these questions. Infact he should have one of his staffers start going through newspapers and writings NOW because you and I know his political enemies are.
I didn't think Russert was exceptionally harsh. Ron does need some more polish. He needs to have some figures at the top of his head and he needs to have some things broken down to soundbite level.
First of all, My piece was an opinion piece, not a news article. I will try to do that later with a full assessment and breakdown of the interview.
I agree that Tim Russert is tough on his guests, but it seemed to me that he went a little further across the line with DR. Paul. There were several times that Dr. paul was clearly getting the upper hand on Russert and he quickly moved away from the subject or acted like he didn't clearly delivered messages.
These will be covered in a later article.
There are those who said they were disappointed by his performance. My reply to them would be that he escaped unscathed and a LOT better then most of the politicans who have been on the show.
He did seem a little frustrated at times, but that would be from the fact that Russert was either asking irrelevant questions ie. 3rd party run or was not allowing Dr. paul to fully explain his position ie. Earmarks (which I thought he answered quite well.)
My opinion still stands. Ron Paul Rocks.
Please read my upcoming article about the debate issues . Also, you should read my article "Fair Weather Patriots"
He didn't knock it out of the park, but he acquitted himself well. There was nothing that would change already-made-up minds, though. Hopefully, some "undecideds" now have enough info to vote in his favor during the primaries/caucuses.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-12-23 12:57:42
I think Ron Paul did better than I would have expected. Tim Russert is a tough interviewer. He engages in a style that I have long objected to among interviewers: ask a question, then before your interviewee can utter five words in reply, barge in and ask another question...and make sure that the questions are designed to play word games that seem to trap your interviewee because you make him sputter by interrupting him. It's a hostile form of interview that a lot of people engage in beside Mr. Russert. Bill O'Reilly on Fox is a master at it. So are Sean Hannity and Chris Matthews.
But none of these people are true interviewers. They prefer the role of hatchet men, and many of their viewers enjoy it for the same reason that many people go to see auto races...because they like to watch spectacular crashes. Yet the bottom line is that their interviews produce less relevant information than they should when all is said and done.
This is the kind of cheap journalism that you have to expect on the campaign trail. A lot of journalists falsely think that to get to the truth you have to try to embarrass your guest via verbal jiujitsu. They could learn a lot from Larry King, who is often considered to be a soft interviewer. Yet King manages to get much more useful information out of his interviewees than the others do. Barbara Walters has a similar style, and she also has elicited much more information from her interviewees. Both King and Walters have been criticized for throwing too many softballs, but in the final analysis, when you look at what their interviews have uncovered, their approach is far more effective.
Given the fact that this is typical of what you find on the campaign trail, I think Dr. Paul handled it very well. Instead of reacting angrily, he laughed at it. What a great way to defuse the impact of a sucker punch!
Anyone who already holds any of the views Dr. Paul holds, but who had not previously heard much about him, had to be favorably impressed by this interview. We'll see starting January 3rd how many Republicans actually feel that way.
I have to say that after checking out Tim Russert and how he supposedly treated Hillary Clinton, perhaps he was just being Tim Russert. It is refreshing to have a candidate whose serious political "dirt" happens to be allowing his district to receive disaster relief funds.
Paul
The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.Me thinks For this, we should thank Tim Russert fo showing his truer colors
Will you all stop whining about how tough Russert was? That is what he is known for and he is tough on everyone. I was glad he was tough. I say "Bring it on!" I don't really think he asked one unfair question. I hate to know that the bloggers and pundits out there are going to paint us as whiners. Grow a spine people! Politics is dirty business. Dr Paul can handle himself...
Some people are saying that Russert gave a fair interview to Ron Paul simply because he has used the same "attack mode" on most other candidates. I disagree that Russert's attacks are always fair, because that is like saying sleazy prosecutors who have a long history of slandering innocent defendants and honest witnesses, right along with the guilty ones, are being fair. Russert, just like those prosecutors, may be very consistent in his hostile attacks, but that is certainly not the same as always being fair. Honest and ethical journalists would never intentionally try to frame every person they interview.
I thought Dr. Paul did fine considering he was hit with stuff that was over 20 years ago. There was just one area there where Tim should have let Dr. Paul respond and he wouldn't let him, other than that I think we know that this is going to be a battle to the finish.
Thanks for posting the NWO sponsors. That says it all. That's MSM for you. Internet is king and hopefully some of the viewers will have felt the sincerety and conviction of Dr.Paul and google him.
Too bad he didn't talk monetary policies, that's his fortay.
Let's see if Russert is soft with Huckebee the CFR newest protegee.
Russert did Paul a favor. Now Paul knows exactly what the establishment is going to hit him with. Paul needs to clarify his positions (especially for soundbites!) and practice rebuttals regarding earmarks, etc. He has gotten much better in the last few months but he could definately improve. Especially if he is going to go toe to toe with Hillary. She is a master orator.
Second, what a performance. He never loses his train of thought! His understanding of what he's talking about is miles deeper than any of the conventional talk we are all so polluted with.
My biggest (or maybe second biggest) problem with Dr. Paul was solved when I heard how he long ago repudiated Reagan's mad massive borrowing (that turned us from a Creditor nation, tops in export, to a Debtor nation, tops in import), what Lloyd Bentsen called "hot checks" in the debate against Potatoe Quayle. I can't begin to convey my relief when I heard that.
The only other real oucher is his dismissal of MIHOP as absurd.
I can only hope he would listen to reason after any election.
Great list of fascist sponsors, Mr. Nardozi! I'm saving it to HD while I have the chance.
Also I forgot to mention my joy at hearing Dr. Paul naming Fascism so correctly as Corporations in control of government, specifically the Military Industrial Complex. It's almost as if he were quoting FDR:
"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."
This to me proves that Dr. Paul's insistence on private property rights will not likely be used to prop up the Monopolies that Capitalism so easily devolves into when our backs are turned.
Ron is not a sound bite person. The reason we love him is because he is a well-reasoned thinker. TV is for sound bites. The office of the President requires thought and preparation. Ron has been preparing for 30 years.
However, I do wish that he had known the number of troops stationed in other countries. Actually, I bet he does, but the number didn't just pop into his mind.
I also thought that he could have answered the question about requests for his district by reminding Tim that he also introduced a resolution to declare war. Then pointed out that he voted against both.
But mostly I like the way the interview ended. Russet tried to end with the Lewis "society" denying the quote, but Ron got in the last word, his supporters had in fact found the quotation. The End.
To listen to this interview took a lot of patience. Russert, the man was as obvious as could be to political junkies, but to the PUBLIC this interview was revealing. It seemed to make DR. Paul go into a sort of defensive mode @ times,as if he had something to hide or be ashamed of. WE KNOW what is going on here, It is the JOB of the MSM to continue to discredit the good DR. To make him out to be a bit of a fringe candidate. Just a little more acceptable than say a Lyndon Larouche etc.. I think that this type of attack will intensify as OUR DR. becomes ever more popular. One interview does not frame a election. But not quite handling a type of attack quite right will encourage more and more repitition. We could end up with a nonissue becoming the next BIG NEWS STORY. Better to be totally prepared for what will come. As our DR. gets closer to the goal the attacks will come out of nowhere and everywhere about nothing and everthing. The Truth Will Set You Free, Ron Paul has been AT THIS LONG ENOUGH To know what the future will hold. It will be important that the grass root base digs in and works harder than ever these next few weeks. This Revolution has started.
ALL I CAN TELL YOU AMERICANS ....." MR. RON PAUL " IS THE ONE , AND IF YOU MISS THIS CHANCE, THE FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL CURSE YOU AT YOUR GRAVES.YOUR COUTRY HAS BEEN HIGHJAKED BY SOME PEOPLE,WHO DISTROYED EVERY ASPECT IN THE SOCIAL LIFE .....FAMILY,ETHICS,PUT EVERYBODY IN DEBT,TAKE YOU 30 YEARS TO PAY FOR A HOUSE IF YOUR LUKCY... EXPENSIVE SCHOOLS .... WAKE UP PEOPLE ... MR.PAUL IS THE PROPHET....FOLLOW HIM!!!!!
I will have to go back and watch the others but on the face of it it seemed unfair that he was scrapping the bottom of the barrel to come up with majority of Gotcha questions. NBC is own by GE which makes a bunch of money off the military contracts which would be diminshed in a Paul administration. Why would a anti-establishment canidate get a fair enterveiw from the establishment?
I love Ron Paul. I have put my money where my mouth is as well. I'm a little scared for him. He is going up against all the evil forces of this world. Seriously. The folks behind the nwo have worked patiently for years to build their agenda. Are they going to let one little man destroy it all? I don't think so. Someone ease my fears and convince me otherwise.
Sorry Okie, I can't ease your fears. I have the same ones. I told my wife that I felt bad for Dr. Paul because we had put a price on his head by supporting him. There is no way the NWO will just ignore him and let him destroy decades of their work.
When Glen Beck asked Dr. Paul who the conspiracy was; Dr. Paul copped out (in my opinion) by calling it "a conspiracy of ideas." Wrong. It's called the CFR. It's been around Washington D.C. since the early 1920's. The CFR has dominated US foreign policy for over 80 years now. The people Dr. Paul has not named have names.
The roster of CFR members has names like Bush (Sr. not Jr.), Cheney, Clinton (Billy), Gingrich, Rockefeller (David Sr., David Jr., Jay and two others), Ginsberg, Breyer and O'Connor.
I could go on; but why bother? The list is out there for all to scorn. The Council on Foreign Relations is a sworn enemy to the US Constitutiion. Many believe that the PNAC group (at least half CFR members) was/is behind the terrorist attacks and subsequent cover-up of 9-11-01. (You can make a case.)
It's make or break for those of us who want to live in a country governed by written constitution and not by Executive Orders and Presidential Directives; things that no one even bothers to read or publicize.
So what I'm saying here is; imperfect as he surely is, Ron Paul is not just our last chance; he's a great chance. I love Ron Paul and think he would make an outstanding President of the US and a great world leader as well. Something we need desperately.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
