Topic: Ron Paul
How Russert (unwittingly) gave Ron Paul credibility Why Tim Russert's drilling of Ron Paul on Meet the Press proves Paul's credibility.by jaded
(libertarian)
Sunday, December 23, 2007
If you didn't know Ron Paul went toe to toe with Tim Russert this morning on Meet the Press. (Here's the transcript.) As other's have noted, Russert didn't cut him any slack. The first part of the interview was dominated by fiscal policy (abolishing the income tax and slashing spending) and foreign policy (pulling our troops out of all foreign bases, cutting off foreign aid, and not going to war without a Congressional declaration. BTW, even if you hate him, Buchanan wrote a great article on Paul's foreign policy.) The two issues go hand in hand because one of Paul's major fiscal points is that our foreign involvement is extremely expensive. Russert continually tried to force Paul to account for how he was going to make up for the loss of federal revenue that would follow the elimination of the income tax. He just wouldn't get it: Paul doesn't need to make up for the lost revenue because federal spending would also be slashed. We can afford to lose revenue so long as we drastically cut expenditures. Paul made a particularly good point: Without the income tax the federal government would still have revenue comparable to what it had ten years ago.
In the second part of the interview the heat got turned up a bit with Russert apparently out to catch Paul in a contradiction.
For example he adamantly accused "Dr. No" of himself earmarking money. Paul quickly pointed out that he never voted for those bills. In the quick pace of the interview this may have seemed like a "gotcha moment," and Russert tried to play it off as one. But consider what Paul was saying: Congress drafts bills that included large earmarks. Paul, as a representative took the position that IF this bill passes, his tax-paying constituents have as much a right to their share of tax money as any, so he will get money earmarked in the bill for them. BUT he doesn't support pork-barrel spending, so although he put the earmarks in the bill (in case, dispite his efforts, it passes) he votes against the whole bill because it is inflated with earmarks.
Regardless of Russert's accusations of inconsistency, this is a subtle and altogether logical, consistent, and principled approach. His position is, as I read it: I oppose earmarks and vote against them, but if we are going to have them anyway, i.e., if I can't stop a pork-barrel bill, then at least, in fairness to those I represent, I need to get some of the tax money back for my district, rather than have their taxes going to other districts.
Getting nowhere on this, Russert turned the discussion to term limits: Paul supports term limits but Paul has served 18 years. Paul made the obvious point that supporting mandatory term limits is not the same as running on voluntary term limits.
To my mind this seems like a perfect analogue to the prior point on pork spending: I oppose the system and want to change it, but until I get the rules changed I'm going to play by the rules everyone else is using, otherwise I'll get walked over. This is principled politics at its best. If a man of principle can't distinguish between absolute non-negotiable principles and, so to speak, really-good ideas he won't survive a day on the Hill: His principles will render him impotent.
Russert also tried to capture Paul in his claiming to be a strict constructionist yet calling for a constitutional amendment. Com'on Russert! Can't you do better than that? Constitutional amendments ARE constitutional.
He proceeded to question Paul's view on civil rights (opposing the Civil Rights Act and the Civil War) and tried to catch Paul flip-flopping on his opinion on Reagan, before questioning Paul's consistency in running as a Republican. To all these Paul had perfectly consistent replies, that effectively diffused the hot questions. There were some other interesting points in the interview; ending the war on drugs, abolishing the Dept. of Education, Corporatism/"soft-fascism" but you'll have to read it to get the scoop.
All said, re-reading the transcript, my impression is this: Russert was hard on Paul, whether in an attempt to be a thorough journalist or to discredit him I won't try to say.
The critical point to note is this: Paul was subjected to a harsh and informed attempt to embarrass him. Yet he didn't embarras himself. We take it for granted that politicians flip flop, say stupid things, change their mind on substantial issues to pander to polls, and so on. It's more a matter of how well they recover from (read: "distract from") their oops's than whether they make them. For Ron Paul, there is no recovering from faux pas's because no one seems to have yet caught him in one, even after digging through newspapers back to the 80's. And Russert's attempts to catch him in one, aside from not working, occasionally bordered on the laughable (think of the accusation that it is inconsistent to be a strict constructionalist and call for a constitutional amendment). The very fact Russert, in trying to give Paul a workout and make him sweat, had to use such poor material just shows how dead consistent Paul has been.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 289 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of jaded only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. jaded 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.
Posted By: Michael Santomauro
Date: 2007-12-23 19:09:30
Actually, it is safe to say that virtually every mainstream publication or or other type of media organ is "nothing more than a screen to present chosen views." The great battle over the last century has been a battle for the mind of the Western peoples, i.e., non-Jewish Euros. The chosen won it by acquiring control over essentially the complete mainstream news, information, education and entertainment media of every type, and using that control to infuse and disseminate their message, agenda and worldview, their way of thinking, or rather the way they want us to think. Since at least the 1960s this campaign has been effectively complete. Since then they have shaped and controlled the minds of all but a seeming few of us in varying degree with almost no opposition or competition from any alternative worldview. So now most of us are mentally trapped in the box the chosen have made for us, which we have lived in all our lives. Only a few have managed to avoid it or escape it, or to even sometimes see outside of it, and so actually "think outside of the (Jewish) box."
Jason George over at the Swamp used the misquote of Randolph Bourne that was in the transcript, and before they could get any of the comments reviewed and posted several dozen Paul supporters almost simultaneously pointed out that "War is the HEALTH of the State." None of the "official" journalists apparently had any idea what Paul was talking about. http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/ron_paul_takes_on_repubs_from.html
Posted By: Louis Nardozi
Date: 2007-12-23 20:51:38
Tim Russert is really something. He investigates OTHER people back to what they said 20 years ago, but does Mr. Russert disclose his OWN conflicts of interest? No, instead he silently plans his character assassination attempt without letting anyone know he has a dog in the fight. Well, you kind of have to expect that type of hatchet job from someone who in bed with the status quo. I did my OWN little fact checking expedition and found the advertisers for Meet The Press.
GE lists 824 items regarding defense contracts on their website for 2007.
Boeing lists 72,200 items regarding defense.
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 young 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.
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 that Mr. Russert did NOT disclose this relationship highly disturbing.
I also believe Mr. Russert was compelled to ask questions beyond the limits and without much respect to Mr. Paul. He,s not this rude to his friends on the show. He acted like his job depended on discreding Ron. He asked John Mcain tough questions, but with respect, he knew John would have embarassed him on national TV just like Ron Paul did on every bogus question that was asked. I'm ashamed of you Tim, you were my most favorite interviewer.
I also found Mr. Russert's treatment of Dr. Paul to be a bit discourteous. I'm grateful, however, that he did ask some important questions. Dr. Paul answered them as he always does -- consistently.
Excellent piece and review of the interview. In my view, the way Tim Russert interviewed Ron Paul didn't differ much in style from the way he usually interviews Republicans.
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.
