Dr. Paul on CNN again tonight at 10PM 5-27-07

[theblatanttruth]

Ladies and gentlemen, I do believe we are making great headway - very quickly. His spot is right after an "Inside Investigation" on the war medical effort showing some pretty graphic stuff, so I think tonight will be another one-two punch on getting this message out to the american public :D

They also called him a "rock star"





Link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=zex8uW_9pqo
.
.
.

[TruePatriot44]

Should be interesting, I do like the rock star nickname.

[Seth M.]

10 est?

[theblatanttruth]

10 est?

Yeah my bad, I didn't specify.

10 PM EST

[enter`name`here]

I thought it was on at 11 est

[Seth M.]

ty :D

[theblatanttruth]

I thought it was on at 11 est

After you said that I thought I may have read it wrong but I just checked CNN's programming schedule and it says CNN Newsroom at 10PM, and a re-run of the Combat Hospital thing at 11PM :confused:

Anyways Ron Paul is making another one of his appearances, and they are getting more numerous :D anyone noticing a trend here?

[TruePatriot44]

I saw it on a commercial, pretty sure it said 10 EST.

[MsDoodahs]

I saw a live promo about it earlier today.

I had the set on mute and looked up to see Dr. Paul on the screen. So I turned up the volume and this guy was saying that he had interviewed Dr. Paul and that he has taken the interview and juxtaposed Dr. Paul's comments with snips from GW's speech the other day. :eek: :cool:

I think that could be VERY powerful. :D

Oh, and the talking head newsbabe who was there said, "didn't they try to ban him" and the guy said, "that didn't work out too well for them."

:D

[DavyDuke17]

Post from angelatc on another thread


I looked on YouTube for other Sunday Spotlight clips, and looked at the time icons in the corner. It looks like it's on between 10:30 and 10:40 pm, EST.

[Suzu]

Will we be able to watch it on the CNN website during the broadcast?

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

I don't know if I can take the anticipation of waiting for the YouTube link again. Just copied this from the front of this forum:

Most users ever online was 120, 05-25-2007 at 11:22 PM.

We were all biting our nails that night. LOL. No one has more fun on a Friday night than Ron Paul supporters.

[MsDoodahs]

lol, that is sooo true.

In the intro they called him A MAVERICK REPUBLICAN.

:D

[peruvianRP]

Ron paul will be on CNN tonight. he is the "Spotlight Person"

[Razmear]

In the preview they refered to him as "A maverick Republican" and he is their Sunday Spotlight, whatever that might mean.
I don't have the ability to rip this to YouTube, but I'm sure you can expect it within minutes of Ron's piece going on air.
Watching CNN now, waiting for his spot.
eb

[MsDoodahs]

Sheesh, I've been watching the news channels off and on all day, just heard about the people taking to the streets in Venezuala (sp).

[Sir VotesALot]

What's with all of the pseudo-dramatic music during his promos? He's just an honest guy!

[cujothekitten]

I pretty much just got home, good thing too cuz I didn't know he was on tonight. Thanks for the heads up!

[Bradley in DC]

No cable here, can someone keep us updated?

[cujothekitten]

Joking about Rudy now

[mtbaird5687]

Hes on right now, yay.

[CasualApathy]

Whats happening?

[mtbaird5687]

and now hes not on anymore haha. quick little interview but he got some good points in.

[DrKevorkian]

I think he did pretty well there. I wish he would have had more time though. They gave him less than 5 minutes

[mesler]

I'm not sure how folks will receive his mentioning that some Republicans didn't want us getting involved in WWI and WWII.

[MsDoodahs]

YAY RON!!!!

I thought it was very good.

Am I alone in this?

[cujothekitten]

It was basically just a quick interview about his war stance and he got to give his thoughts about some bush video clips.

[MsDoodahs]

I'm SOOO glad he's addressed the "you are an isolationist" bullshit charge.

Non interventionist and isolationist are NOT the same thing.

[murph]

What a great contrast between Bush and Dr. Paul. Iraq invited us over there? Give me a break!

[cujothekitten]

I'm not sure how folks will receive his mentioning that some Republicans didn't want us getting involved in WWI and WWII.

We didn't want to get involved in WWI and WWII until we were attacked by the Japanese. We didn’t enter to help the Jews.

[peruvianRP]

He did good as always. The intervierr ass said..." you sound like a 1930 isolist"
Paul said. no asshole I dont say that..read my words "non-intervention".

he did good but I wish people ask him other national issues you know.

[CasualApathy]

Mike Gravel got like 8 min

[Razmear]

Many good points, they played a Bush talking point and had Ron reply to it.
One negative towards the end is he gave the impression that he would not have supported entering WW2. I winced a little bit there.

I'm sure someone will have it on YouTube within minutes.

eb

[LibertyOrDie]

Is it just me, or did that report sound like he had never even read a book for himself before? He sounded of someone that had no personal thoughts outside of what he was told to think?

[cujothekitten]

Many good points, they played a Bush talking point and had Ron reply to it.
One negative towards the end is he gave the impression that he would not have supported entering WW2. I winced a little bit there.

I'm sure someone will have it on YouTube within minutes.

eb

We didn't even want to enter WWII until we were attacked, just like during 9/11.

[a_texian]

Darnit! I just saw this and noticed that it was already 9:32pm (Central Time). I only caught about 1min of it, but it appeared to be an interview that was decidedly friendly towards Dr. Paul. From what little I saw, it certainly didn't appear to be an attack piece.

Oh well.....it's back to "hurrying up and waiting" for the YouTube Gurus!

:D

Ed

[CasualApathy]

Well, you cant really argue with the fact that it was a good thing that the US entered WW2... If he really said he wouldn't have, thats a major blunder.... :(

[llamabread]

I thought he did good, but I'm getting tired of the media coverage being only about his foreign policy. I know its gained him alot of praise and attention, but people need to see his views on other issues, especially the economy. An uninformed listener used to MSM biases and lies just thinks "Ohh, a republican against the war. How nice."

But anyway, short and to the point.

[Razmear]

We didn't even want to enter WWII until we were attacked, just like during 9/11.

I agree, most of us here agree, but wait for the spin if "They" latch on to it and make it an anti-Paul talking point, like Maher did with the civil war thing before becoming a convert.

eb

[llamabread]

Well, you cant really argue with the fact that it was a good thing that the US entered WW2... If he really said he wouldn't have, thats a major blunder.... :(

He didn't say that. He said that there were Republicans who were against both world wars to iterate his point about Republicans being non-interventionist.

[aravoth]

youtube link?

[PennCustom4RP]

I'm not sure how folks will receive his mentioning that some Republicans didn't want us getting involved in WWI and WWII.

I dont think this will be an issue, as we did not enter WWI at onset in 1914, not until 1917 did we go in, nor did we enter WWII at onset in 1939, not until attacked in 1941 by Japonese did we go in. We were staying out minding our own business in both wars, only until we were dragged in did we participate, pretty much common knowledge with Reps and Dems.

[Sir VotesALot]

He didn't say that. He said that there were Republicans who were against both world wars to iterate his point about Republicans being non-interventionist.

I was waiting for someone to point this out.

[wwycher]

Lets put Ron Paul the Republican who is against the war on during Memorial Day weekend. Argh....

[wwycher]

And meanwhile that jerk from New Mexico gets an hour on Meet the Press. Argh.....

[wwycher]

Appitizers, I want a friggin' steak.

[wwycher]

At least they did not take up all his time with Rudy.

[romelll]

I dont think this will be an issue, as we did not enter WWI at onset in 1914, not until 1917 did we go in, nor did we enter WWII at onset in 1939, not until attacked in 1941 by Japonese did we go in. We were staying out minding our own business in both wars, only until we were dragged in did we participate, pretty much common knowledge with Reps and Dems.

Not entirely true.
WWI -We got involved because the Brits owed our banks a ton of debt. We got in at the turning point when the Germans had Britain and France on the ropes. If we did not intervene the debts would have been unpayed. (Great tactics in that war. Lets charge the machine gun position..."

WWII We were involved in the Lend Lease act supporting the Russians and Brits prior to the Japs bombing Pearl Harbor. It has been hinted the Roosevelt wanted us in the action earlier. However, with the Lend Lease Act, Germany or Japan could have interpret that as a breach of Neutrality.
That being said, the Germans had U-boats entering the Chesapeake Bay from time to time before War was formally declared (which is also an act of aggression.)

[CAKochenash]

did i miss the youtube link somewhere?

[Razmear]

Haven't seen it on the search yet on You Tube.
The show is rebroadcast at 1am est in case whoever grabs this stuff missed the first chance.
Ron comes on about 25 minutes into the show.

eb

[kylejack]

Someone please post this. I have an addiction I need to feed, and only interviews with Ron Paul can satisfy me. Give me my fix!!

[angelatc]

I thought it was very savvy!! The interviewer was able to play the devil's advocate in the form of a hard-nose neo-con without being seen as overly hostile to Dr Paul.

He did that by asking Dr Paul to respond to statements that the President had made. One of those statements was that we will leave Iraq if the government asks us to. Dr Paul said he thought that it was good that the President was thinking that way.

The interviewer asked Paul if he would pull the troops out immediately, and Paul said Yes.

[NewEnd]

I'm not sure how folks will receive his mentioning that some Republicans didn't want us getting involved in WWI and WWII.

But WW I sucked... and Wilson was elected on "he kept us out of the war" and then the media hyped up the zimmerman telegram, and Wilson (D) betrayed his principles and entered WW I, thinking he could change the world.

Wilson is one of the worst presidents ever, IMHO, for this. America did not want that stupid war. World War I was a waste.

Futhermore, the next president, Harding (R), had the HIGHEST POPULAR VOTE PERCENTAGE EVER!!! He was later villified for corruption, and being a do-nothing president, but he beleived that is exactly what the people wanted.

Only near his death did he discover his friends were corrupt, but he died of a heart attack, while in office, IIRC.

[CurtisLow]

Someone please post this. I have an addiction I need to feed, and only interviews with Ron Paul can satisfy me. Give me my fix!!

LMAO! :D

[skyorbit]

Is this on YouTube yet?

Tracy

[aravoth]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zex8uW_9pqo

[CurtisLow]

Thank you! nice interview.

[NewEnd]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zex8uW_9pqo

thank you!!!!

[kylejack]

Ahhhhhhh, now I can drift off into a heavy sleep. Thanks!

[findmemonkey]

Thank you

[Cunningham]

I guess any exposure is good exposure but i'm getting tired of seeing the same interview with slightly different questions. I'm starting to worry that since the media can't ignore his internet popularity there just going to make him seem like a one issue canidate by only asking him "non-intervention" questions. I hope in the next debate he'll get to say somethings about domestic policy that gets him as much press as the Rudy dust up did.

[asvusa]

I loved the CNN spot. Here's my idea:

I hope you like what I designed.

http://www.cafepress.com/goronpaul

RON PAUL T-SHIRTS, HATS, BUMPER STICKERS, COOL STUFF FOR WOMEN, MEN, KIDS AND PETS. :) 50% of the proceeds go to the Ron Paul 2008 campaign.

Please repost the link and start showing your colors. People will ask about Ron Paul if you are wearing his name and face. Check it out please!

1,000,000 people donate $25 per month for 12 months, that's a whopping $300,000,000 (three hundred million!!!)

Let's donate consistently and spread the word.

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zex8uW_9pqo

Thanks, aravoth! I managed to go to bed without waiting up for the link last night, so it was something to look forward to this morning.

RP did very well. It was essentially a debate between him and Bush. The anchor did a nice job -- didn't catch his name.

[StagirasGhost]

Just once, when interviewers label Ron a "pro forma isolationist from the 30's," I'd like him to respond:

"There is a context, Sir/Mam. History has proven the position true. As opposed to labeling me, as I certainly do not label you a mainstream ventriloquist puppet, why not evaluate my position of limited government promulgating free markets, free of force and coercion? This is the heart of my message, the main tenet that defines republicanism."

Nevertheless, any and all exposure is good exposure. He's also done well in destroying the left vs. right orientation.

[TheDuke]

The man who is promoting unregulated (no WTO, no North American Union, no government quota or subsidies,...) free trade, is called a protectionist :confused:

Probably the media will start twisting the true meaning of the word for their own interests again... like FOX/O'Reilly has raped the true meaning of the word 'liberal' (I think Adam Smith, if he was still alive, would want to kick O'Reilly in the balls, but then again, who wouldn't :p ).

[qednick]

I'm not too sure O'Reilly actually has any balls. If he did, he wouldn't talk over guests, tell them to "shut up" or simply cut off their microphones. If he had balls, he'd give everyone their time on the soap box and allow them to express their views.

[Carl_S]

Paul's line about WWII was an error.

Here's the transcript of that portion:

Q: You sound like a proforma 1930's isolationist.

A: No, I'm not an isolationist - I'm a noninterventionist - because the founders of this country, that I listen to carefully, were very much - they were not protectionists at all. They were free traders, they wanted trade and travel and friendship-

Q: If fact that's your point. You say you're the true republican when it comes to the republican candidates.

A: Right, and Robert Taft is the example I use. He did not want to be in NATO. And there was a strong element in this country that didn't want to go with World War I and World War II. Even the president has advocated peace - we'll never take you to war in Europe. And I like that old saying. Don't go to war in Europe and don't go to war in the Middle East. It's best for Americans to stay at home, mind their own business, become a wealthy, prosperous country. Set a good example, and they'll want to emulate us. We can't force our ways on other people through the point of a gun.

=== end of interview ===

Most Americans believe that America won WWII and prevented Europe and Britain from falling to Nazi Germany. You simply cannot come anywhere close to implying that America should have stayed out of Europe in WWII.

In my opinion, Paul needs to be very careful here when discussing nonintervention. He is vulnerable on this point because Giuliani and McCain will draw parallels between Nazi Germany (Hitler), and Al Qaeda. They can effectively argue that the reasons America had to be involved in WWII are the same reasons America must have an active military throughout the World - and particularly the Middle East - to prevent the rise of evil.

On WWII, Paul simply needs to say that WWII was a just and Constitutional war. Congress made a formal declaration of War in that case, so America was right in fighting to defeat Nazi Germany. All American wars since have been unconstitutional because they are not debated by congress and are fought without a formal declaration of war, as required by the Constitution.

Never try to link the concept of nonintervention with WWII (my opinion.) The concept of nonintervention goes out the window once Congress declares war.

[Bradley in DC]

Paul's line about WWII was an error.

Here's the transcript of that portion:

Q: You sound like a proforma 1930's isolationist.

A: No, I'm not an isolationist - I'm a noninterventionist - because the founders of this country, that I listen to carefully, were very much - they were not protectionists at all. They were free traders, they wanted trade and travel and friendship-

Q: If fact that's your point. You say you're the true republican when it comes to the republican candidates.

A: Right, and Robert Taft is the example I use. He did not want to be in NATO. And there was a strong element in this country that didn't want to go with World War I and World War II. Even the president has advocated peace - we'll never take you to war in Europe. And I like that old saying. Don't go to war in Europe and don't go to war in the Middle East. It's best for Americans to stay at home, mind their own business, become a wealthy, prosperous country. Set a good example, and they'll want to emulate us. We can't force our ways on other people through the point of a gun.

=== end of interview ===

Most Americans believe that America won WWII and prevented Europe and Britain from falling to Nazi Germany. You simply cannot come anywhere close to implying that America should have stayed out of Europe in WWII.

In my opinion, Paul needs to be very careful here when discussing nonintervention. He is vulnerable on this point because Giuliani and McCain will draw parallels between Nazi Germany (Hitler), and Al Qaeda. They can effectively argue that the reasons America had to be involved in WWII are the same reasons America must have an active military throughout the World - and particularly the Middle East - to prevent the rise of evil.

On WWII, Paul simply needs to say that WWII was a just and Constitutional war. Congress made a formal declaration of War in that case, so America was right in fighting to defeat Nazi Germany. All American wars since have been unconstitutional because they are not debated by congress and are fought without a formal declaration of war, as required by the Constitution.

Never try to link the concept of nonintervention with WWII (my opinion.) The concept of nonintervention goes out the window once Congress declares war.

Dr. Paul is correct. Most Americans did NOT want the US involved in WWI or WWII. We elected presidents who promised (but lied) to keep us out of "Europe's wars."

[NMCB3]

There was no error in the statement at all. I do agree however that they will use WWI and II as some sort of an ideal that we should hold to.

[Brandybuck]

I'm not too sure O'Reilly actually has any balls.
Sung to the traditional tune:

"O'Reilly... has only got one ball!
Hannity has two but they are very small!
Savage can somewhat manage,
But Michelle Malkin has no balls at all!"

[propanes]

The suggestion of non-interventionism could be used against Ron Paul as in,

"If Ron Paul had been President in 1940 then we'd all be ordering sushi in german."

[Carl_S]

There was no error in the statement at all. I do agree however that they will use WWI and II as some sort of an ideal that we should hold to.

My point is, Paul cannot imply that the U.S. should have stayed out of WWII. Make that statement in a debate and you're toast.

I fully support Ron Paul and know he understands the intellectual subtleties of the issue. In a debate or interview, you can't get those subtleties across in the time allowed.

This is the big league. Giuliani and McCain have large staffs who will certainly review what Paul and other candidates say on CNN in order to prep their candidate for the next debate. Paul does not have that kind of staff. My hope is that this forum can fill-in and give his campaign constructive criticism so he can avoid mistakes in the next debate coming up in a couple of weeks.

[ronpaulitician]

Any chance Paul meant that we didn't want to get involved in WW2, and didn't, until we were attacked in Pearl Harbor?

[ronpaulitician]

This is the big league. Giuliani and McCain have large staffs who will certainly review what Paul and other candidates say on CNN in order to prep their candidate for the next debate. Paul does not have that kind of staff. My hope is that this forum can fill-in and give his campaign constructive criticism so he can avoid mistakes in the next debate coming up in a couple of weeks.
I think it may be worth it to have a forum specifically for figuring out what Paul's opponent's will attack him on, and then figuring out what the answer to those attacks should be PRIOR to the actual attack.

[Bryan]

I think it may be worth it to have a forum specifically for figuring out what Paul's opponent's will attack him on, and then figuring out what the answer to those attacks should be PRIOR to the actual attack.
Noted- good idea.

[ronpaulitician]

Noted- good idea.
How about "offense" (questions to ask the other candidates, like "Mr. Giuliani, did you read the 9/11 report?") and "defense" (answers to likely questions from the moderators/other candidates, like "Are you suggesting we should not have participated in WW2")?

[MusoSpuso]

Ron must be absolutely and crystal clear about his distinctions between isolation and non-intervention specifically in reference to his WW2 comment.

He needs to make it clear that once we were attacked, the war was justified as a war of defense and since a formal declaration of war was made by congress. Cannot afford to muck up this distinction.

[Korey Kaczynski]

Any chance Paul meant that we didn't want to get involved in WW2, and didn't, until we were attacked in Pearl Harbor?

However, the Japaenese attacked us because the US set sanctions against them. Classic example of blowback.

But, yes, the war was justified going into once Japan attacked us, and Germany followed suit by declaring war. However, the US could have done more to not go into it by not declaring sanctions against other nations (which is technically an act of war, though...).

People will say that you're a big bad meanie for not wanting to rescue the poor, poor Jews, but knowledge of the holocaust came AFTER the war started. Still, the slur of being an anti-Semite never was a logical accusation.

[Carl_S]

I think it may be worth it to have a forum specifically for figuring out what Paul's opponent's will attack him on, and then figuring out what the answer to those attacks should be PRIOR to the actual attack.

I like the idea of a special forum section for debate preparation. You know Giuliani and McCain have lots of staff working just on debate prep. Perhaps we can do the same for Paul.

The problem is that forums are lousy for organizing ideas. Handing Paul a printout of the forum thread with 50 rambling posts is not going to help him very much.

What you really need is a Wiki. We could setup a private Wiki that known members of this forum could login and edit. On that Wiki is a single page, perhaps called "Debate Notes". We organize the page as best we can, bulleting out each issue with the concise points Paul needs to make to get his message across. You could also include danger points to avoid (like bringing up WWII when talking about nonintervention). The relevant issues could be discussed ad nauseum on the special section of this forum.

When we're done, email the thing to Justine and hope that it finds its way to Ron Paul. As far as I know, Paul does not read these forums, so someone on his small staff will need to carry the ball from us to him.

The private Wiki is also advantageous because the debate prep notes would not be posted on a public forum. We don't want to make it too easy for the other guys...

It's easy to create the Wiki -- let me know if anyone else is in support of the idea and I'll get it done.

BTW: If you're not familiar with what a Wiki is; it's an online document that many people are able to access and edit. Wikipedia is the world's largest Wiki.

[Bradley in DC]

Ron must be absolutely and crystal clear about his distinctions between isolation and non-intervention specifically in reference to his WW2 comment.

I don't mean to pick on this comment, but I wasn't sure where to jump in. Dr. Paul has argued that Americans pick the peace candidates (or those pretending to be). In addition, he has argued that (US foreign policy) actions have consequences (blowback).

Many observers, including Winston Churchill, believe that if the United States had not intervened in WWI, there never would have been a WWII.

[Searchronpaul]

In the CNN Spotlight video, I see a more "Presidential" Ron Paul,
a Ron Paul more conscious of his body language and dress, a more
confident and composed Ron Paul, a Mr. Paul who has looked into
the mirror alone and said, I am the President of the United States...

...and I will lead this conversation -- I will lead this country.

# # #

[Kuldebar]

Sometimes being smart is a burden, don't you all agree?

See, Ron Paul, like many of us realizes that WW2 actually was part 2 of WW1 largely due to the Treaty of Versailles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles).

Anyway, nothing happens in a vacuum and no, I'm not excusing Germany's Chancellor or blaming America...lol But, the point remains that certain situations are conducive for certain things to happen: A defeated broken nation with a wrecked economy has domestic turmoil which culminates in a rise of nationalism and a political party focused on laying blame comes into power...

So, yes, it would be a bad idea to touch on this subject during a 15 second soundbite...