[video] Ron Paul Interview On CNN State Of The Union 03/04/12

[Immortal Technique]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PlUhNZeySI

Or


http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp7roc_ron-paul-interview-on-cnn-state-of-the-union-03-04-12_news

Airing Date March.04, 2012

Ron Paul Interview On CNN State Of The Union

[anewvoice]

Did anyone catch the new phrasing "stop them from having the aptitude for developnig nucleary weaponry". Backing down from the "they have a bomb" rhetoric?

[anewvoice]

Quoting McNamara on the need to change policy rather than apologize, score!

[sailingaway]

Did anyone catch the new phrasing "stop them from having the aptitude for developnig nucleary weaponry". Backing down from the "they have a bomb" rhetoric?

Haven't watched it but yeah..... sounds like code for 'bomb them back into the stone age....'

[ohgodno]

Did anyone catch the new phrasing "stop them from having the aptitude for developnig nucleary weaponry". Backing down from the "they have a bomb" rhetoric?

Candy Crowley has been with CNN from the start of the network. She doesn't need to tow the line that hard because of seniority. Any one of their young reporters or 'up and coming' personalities will be damn sure to be out in front with whatever propaganda needs to be pushed though. Its just like any job, people trying to get ahead, dont read too much into it.

[Liberty74]

Impressive interview and responses from Ron.

Wake the fuck up America. Our foreign policy causes most of the terrorism.

[Feeding the Abscess]

When he makes his way to California I'm seriously going to give him a hug. What a beautiful interview.

[sailingaway]

so...do we think those are hotel drapes behind him, from Alaska?

Much more noticable satellite delay.

[Heman5up]

I likes how Ron Paul sloooowwwwed down while talking complex topics. It works.

[coolguy67]

I don't like the interviewer guy.

[sailingaway]

Right now, after a tragedy, it might be better to point out that the federal govt took the money for this and now should pay it, until we straighten the system out, but he isn't wrong, on FEMA. It is just that one reason there aren't other programs now is the federal govt took taxes for this and pretends it is covered.

[sailingaway]

I don't like the interviewer guy.

guy?

[Paulistinian]

Candy the Hutt?

[coolguy67]

Oh, that's a woman? My mistake.

[sailingaway]

front page for the video, by the way!

[Student Of Paulism]

Right now, after a tragedy, it might be better to point out that the federal govt took the money for this and now should pay it, until we straighten the system out, but he isn't wrong, on FEMA. It is just that one reason there aren't other programs now is the federal govt took taxes for this and pretends it is covered.

Yea, he spoke so well in both this one and Face The Nation, and my only gripe was this FEMA issue. I wish his answer had a bit more detail on what HE would do about it, if he feels the Feds shouldn't be involved. Didn't really seem like he gave much closure on it and in the very few times at some events when it was brought up, he is going to have to do a little better than the 'charity' thing. That just isn't going to cut it and is going to cause some serious flak going his way. You can't honestly think people are going to be thrilled with hearing that, when they have basically lost everything and expect random people to help them. This is an area people are afraid to go all in on with Ron, as they feel he is abandoning people on social/welfare issues and entitlements, and drifting way too far to the right.

[JJ2]

Yikes, he called President Bush "Ronald Reagan"! :o

[runamuck]

Yikes, he called President Bush "Ronald Reagan"! :o

Yea I caught that too

[nobody's_hero]

Oh, dang. "In 08, soldiers used the koran for target practice and ronald reagan apologized"

I hope no viewers caught that, except ours.

[George_K]

Bad answer on the hurricane victims question. The only thing people got out of it is that FEMA is bad and theres apparently nothing that he would do to help the people.

[WD-NY]

Yea, he spoke so well in both this one and Face The Nation, and my only gripe was this FEMA issue. I wish his answer had a bit more detail on what HE would do about it, if he feels the Feds shouldn't be involved. Didn't really seem like he gave much closure on it and in the very few times at some events when it was brought up, he is going to have to do a little better than the 'charity' thing. That just isn't going to cut it and is going to cause some serious flak going his way. You can't honestly think people are going to be thrilled with hearing that, when they have basically lost everything and expect random people to help them. This is an area people are afraid to go all in on with Ron, as they feel he is abandoning people on social/welfare issues and entitlements, and drifting way too far to the right.

And it's the fact that Ron did not really provide a clear alternative that leads me to believe that he's not delivering specific policy speeches/blue-prints because doing so would risk his ability to live forever within the spiritual-leader realm of airy/lofty platitudes about the awesomeness of "liberty", "less government" and "sound money"... dishing out specifics opens Ron up to all the people who specialize in gauging the 'viability' of policy (re: running numbers, crunching data, gaming out outcomes, etc.) and frankly, think 30 years of being on the 'outside looking' has made it difficult for Ron to transition into the role of "executive".

Obama gets a lot of shit for his big empty 'we are the change we've been waiting for' /puke messiah speeches, but in many ways, that's exactly what Ron is doing with his unspecific & unchanging rally speeches + interview answers that offer little in the way of specifics or ways to bridge the divide between the problem and Ron's solution. (n.b. Obama's 'messiah' speeches were, of course, clearer, more coherent and persuasive than Ron's since he read from prepared text). But let's be real and admit that Obama at least had the 'balls' (respect for his supporters) to also offer up specific policy proposals that could be analyzed and debated by all the TV analysts and online journalists/bloggers.

I mean, this was Ron's answer (with some abridging):

Q: Is there a role for fed money in helping these citizens getting their lives back together?

A: Not really, because it's not authorized... because there's no such thing as federal money...fed money is just what they steal from the states and steal from you and me... but to say you don't support federal money doesn't mean you don't care for people. FEMA is inefficient... I live on the gulf coast and I got re-elected by criticizing FEMA because the people who had to put up with FEMA after the hurricanes had nothing but frustration and anger for having to deal with them...it's so wasteful and inefficient. But you know, the guard units and other things within the states are certainly there. People who live in hurricane alley should have insurance for doing this. But under major disasters, if there is a need for help - say for the military to come in - that is not a tragic violation... but to say that any accident that happens in the country is to say "send in FEMA! send in the money! send in the government!" There's a much better way of doing this... and helping it. The FEMA I was constantly told by the people in my district, they just get in the way. They take over the law enforcement and they hinder the voluntary group and they hinder the state organizations.. exactly opposite of what we should be doing.
(n.b. note how by the end of his FEMA answer, Crowely is basically just like "uhuh yeah hmm ok c-ya"... I can only imagine what she was thinking... probably something along the lines of: "ok, wow. Is this guy serious or does he honestly still not get it? I just served him up a golden opportunity to ignore the BAIT about "federal money" and instead offer up a "compassionate" and heartfelt response to all the people listening...and if he felt like it, paint a picture for what disaster relief would look like in a Paul administration. Heck, he even had time to go "bill clinton" on them and tell a story about his personal experience with deadly weather as a 12 term congressman from a coastal district (e.g. how the destruction brought the community together, how everyone worked hand-in-hand to rebuild/restore each other's homes & businesses, and how this experience helped shape his current position that FEMA not only inhibits local/state organizations from manifesting a more community-lead response, but also is less efficient and costs more money).... but noooooo, that would be "fake/phoney"! Far more "honest/real" to get all defensive and start going off on how FEMA sucks and the government has no constitutional right to lend assistance/$$ to the thousands of people and communities FLATTENED/KILLED by random fucking tornadoes. LOLz! Srsly?? And he didn't even once say his "hearts and prayers go out to all the families affected by these storms"..! AMAZING! )

=======
=======

If Ron is going to throw out ridiculous statements like this after the news media has been breathlessly covering the tornado story ALL WEEKEND (showing aerial footage of entire houses/blocks leveled + interviews with the friends & family of the dead - e.g. Survival stories emerge from the South, Midwest after deadly tornadoes scar hundreds of miles (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/ap-news-in-brief-at-558-pm-est/2012/03/03/gIQAnSqLpR_story.html)), he damn well have a better answer than the verbal diarrhea he casually shat out in this interview.

You want to make those statements Ron - FINE. But you damn well better back it up with viable "SPECIFIC ALTERNATIVES" and have real "EVIDENCE/DATA" that backs up said alternatives. Does anyone else not find comments (re: gaffs) like this insulting given the $30million+ we've donated to his campaign?? His answer on FEMA was political malpractice given the complete lack of any alternative - his "cold/heartless" response makes even the most "aloof + professorial" version of Obama look Bill Clinton-esque.

We're lucky Ron isn't leading the 'not-romneys' right now because if he was, the comments he made about FEMA (while the tornadoes are still a threat) would've created a political shitstorm on par with the clusterf**k Santorum created after his dumbass comments about college, birth control, Obama's faith and whatever other ridiculous things he said last week.

Of course, Santorum followed those comments/gaffes up with a prepared speech after the Michigan primary (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/rick-santorums-michigan-primary-speech-full-text-and-video/2012/02/28/gIQAtFsJhR_blog.html?tid=pm_politics_pop) that effectively (according to most pundits) neutralized and re-spun/framed his gaffes into not-romney "strengths"! Amazing right?! I especially enjoyed the pandering bit about his mom, wife and daughter! /sigh

Sorry team, but while 95% of Ron's interview was great... his comments on FEMA were deplorable given the fact that he offered up nothing but vague platitudes about the states handling their own disaster recovery being more "efficient". The reason I'm digging so hard into this one interview though is because I believe it offers up the perfect example for why we aren't winning and why we won't (and don't deserve to) win barring a complete 180 by Team Paul to address these shortcomings. At some point, the grassroots either needs to call out the campaign for being intellectually dishonest in regards to promising "real solutions" and "real change" to all the bad policy (both past, present and future) coming out of Washington DC.

It's been almost 5 months since Ron presented the Plan to Restore America (Oct 18th, 2011) - 5 long months since Ron last put himself and the ideas/solutions he believes in out there for reporters, analysts and American voters to legitimately debate/discuss/rate/review/etc the specifics of his proposal.... That to me pretty much sums it all up. The "messiah" shtick and speeches are all well and good - without it, there'd be no 4,000+ people rallies - but at some point you have to get real and start backing up the rhetoric with legitimate alternatives/solutions.


Not backing up the empty-platitude-talk with specific/verifiable ALTERNATIVES = NOT SERIOUS


Obama presented both "spacious speeches" & "policy blueprints" in 2008 and won. I have no doubt that if Ron had presented a "blueprint" + prepared speech for each and every "ISSUE" that the press has ranked him over the coals over, we would have several states in the bag, a lot more money in the bank and most of the momentum going into Super Tuesday.

#butidigress

[Jaycee4]

I only partially agree with you. I thought his "there's no such thing as federal money, except what they steal from the States and you and me" was a classic. I believe in a President Paul world, the States would setup their own disaster management, supplimented by personal insurance. The tax payers and the States would have a lot more money than they do now. I do agree, however that I would have liked to have heard more detail. I'm sure he (as well as anyone else doing one of these interviews) was told ahead of time how long / short to keep his answers.