Morning Joe just talked about Ron Paul with Tim Russert

[crhoades]

Joe brought up that Tim was having RP on Meet the Press this Sunday. Tim said something about it being Joe's guy. With a glint in his eye, Russert said that he has read Paul's whole platform and that Sunday was going to be great. Something along the lines of you won't believe what this guy stands for...Joe went on to say that his son and Tucker has endorsed him.

It should be a grilling interview. If Paul can withstand it, he should do well. But I've got a feeling that he will be taken to task for his views. We'll see.

Sorry. No YouTube. It did happen though.

[rfbz]

yeah I saw that too, Tim was like wait till you see this interview with RP

[EvilEngineer]

I know people make a big deal out of "Meet the press" however I can't say I've ever watched it. Same with many of the shows Dr. Paul has been on. Oh well different audience, though like with fox news I think this is going to be an ambush disguised as an interview.

Oh, and youtube?

[rfbz]

Meet the press is definitely big. That shows makes news.

[SteveMartin]

I was more worried about the Glen Beck thing personally. I know Russert basically took down Giuliani, undressing him so that all (or at least some) of hist nasty warts showed clearly to the public.

However, RP doesn't have those kinds of bones in his closest. I think he'll convert Russert a bit, the same way he did Beck.

[literatim]

I've never even seen the show before besides a couple clips.

[JoeySweets]

Was it a Malicious "I'm gonna tear him apart" look from Russert or a

"I'm gonna let Ron speak the truth and I'm gonna subtly endorse him for president/ french-kiss him" look

[crhoades]

Was it a Malicious "I'm gonna tear him apart" look from Russert or a

"I'm gonna let Ron speak the truth and I'm gonna subtly endorse him for president/ french-kiss him" look

Somewhere in between. More of a let's have some fun.

[LFOD]

Hotshot newspeople get it into their heads that Ron Paul's positions are just such easy pickings to ridicule. Never the case. Tim can let loose with whatever he thinks he's got. Maybe he's planning on the old "isn't it completely unrealistic to think we can do away with the income tax? How would we fund the government?" He probably thinks he has "tough questions" that nobody's ever asked Ron Paul before. :-D

[mkrfctr]

ya if anything this one calls for a youtube ...

some one should just buy like 6 or 8 tivos or w/e and just record non stop all the major news channels ...

maybe start a chip in .. haha

[tomveil]

Hotshot newspeople get it into their heads that Ron Paul's positions are just such easy pickings to ridicule. Never the case. Tim can let loose with whatever he thinks he's got. Maybe he's planning on the old "isn't it completely unrealistic to think we can do away with the income tax? How would we fund the government?" He probably thinks he has "tough questions" that nobody's ever asked Ron Paul before. :-D

This is why I'm not scared.

He's always got an answer. He can turn any question around, talk about it with wisdom and poise, and make people understand his view. Maybe they don't agree with him still, but they see where he's coming from. And if he's got time to explain WHY we should get rid of the Deptartment of Education, then he'll be able to convince some people.

I know a lot of teachers. EVERY SINGLE ONE of them hates the DOE more than anything else!

Ohh.....that's something we should do.

School Teachers For Ron Paul!!!!!!!!

Have a page where school teachers can explain their views on the DOE and what changes should be made! Why should we listen to what OTHER people say teachers tell them, and just LISTEN TO THE TEACHERS????

Anybody here teach?

[GHoeberX]

To be honest, I think we should fear Tim Russert; remember what he did to Hillary (quoting Bill); he spoke with Kucinich about UFOs and he let McCain contradict himself (that was a really painful moment) etc. etc. Russert could damage Paul BIG TIME.

And now he's enthusiastic.... Dr. Paul is in trouble...

[Arek]

Haha we're finally being mentioned every day in the news it's just strange. THe media finally realized Ron Paul= ratings...

[RPFTW!]

To be honest, I think we should fear Tim Russert; remember what he did to Hillary (quoting Bill); he spoke with Kucinich about UFOs and he let McCain contradict himself (that was a really painful moment) etc. etc. Russert could damage Paul BIG TIME.

And now he's enthusiastic.... Dr. Paul is in trouble...

I agree, I predicted Glenn Beck would be a good interview but I'm a bit worried about Russert

[tomveil]

Gotta have faith in our boy. He's not new at this. :) He's got confidence, you can see it every time he talks. We're the reason for it. He won't let us down.

[ladyliberty]

This is why I'm not scared.

He's always got an answer. He can turn any question around, talk about it with wisdom and poise, and make people understand his view. Maybe they don't agree with him still, but they see where he's coming from. And if he's got time to explain WHY we should get rid of the Deptartment of Education, then he'll be able to convince some people.

I know a lot of teachers. EVERY SINGLE ONE of them hates the DOE more than anything else!

Ohh.....that's something we should do.

School Teachers For Ron Paul!!!!!!!!

Have a page where school teachers can explain their views on the DOE and what changes should be made! Why should we listen to what OTHER people say teachers tell them, and just LISTEN TO THE TEACHERS????

Anybody here teach?


I was a teacher - I have an MEd in Special Education

[orion846]

i just hope this forum realizes that meet the press is a GRILLING INTERVIEW format. tim DUG HARD into rudy, romney, etc, that's what he does.

i can see this forum getting all bitchy that he's not licking RP's ass when the interview happens, cus they dont understand thats the point of the show

[ladyliberty]

Gotta have faith in our boy. He's not new at this. :) He's got confidence, you can see it every time he talks. We're the reason for it. He won't let us down.

I believe in Ron Paul!

[tomveil]

I was a teacher - I have an MEd in Special Education

Keep an eye on the forums. Looks like we're going to start a site up where people can sort of tell their own story on why they support Dr. Paul. I think it'd be a great idea to also have "issues" pages where people who were experts in those fields could just write about it. Would you be willing to honestly state your thoughts about Dr. Paul's suggestion that we get rid of the DOE?

[LSUiLike]

Ron Paul won't have trouble with Russert. The best Russert can do is the same old crap that Fox and friends resort to. Paul is constantly getting grilled. Paul knows this stuff back and forward. The crap that Beck is preaching is old news to Paul. Russert may be more substantial, but Paul will be fine. I guarantee it.

[pikerz]

Have faith. He should be good and rested for this one.

I think MTP will ask very tough questions, but I believe since he knows he will be able to explain himself fully he will be relaxed and confident going into this.

[pikerz]

Ron Paul won't have trouble with Russert. The best Russert can do is the same old crap that Fox and friends resort to. Paul is constantly getting grilled. Paul knows this stuff back and forward. The crap that Beck is preaching is old news to Paul. Russert may be more substantial, but Paul will be fine. I guarantee it.

Fox plays very dirty, underhanded, and in ways that are more difficult to counter.

[hellah10]

dr. paul should have no problems against Russert... this will be excellent exposure for us

[Artsy74]

RP will be fine for this.

You can't make the truth contradict itself.
You can't make the truth stumble over it's own words.
You can't make truth change it's words, wording, or story, to fit it's argument.

He'll be rested up, and I'm sure his campaign people know all about Russert.

All other candidates are liars which make it easy to trip them up.

If anything you should Worry about Russert and the incredibly hard time he's going to have trying to grill RP, and get a garbled contradicted response that he wants.

[Austin]

I expect him to bring up the abolishment of the CIA, the FBI, Homeland Security, Department of Education, Neo-Nazi supporters, and every other thing possible.

I also expect Dr. Paul to handle each every topic with finesse and confidence, winning over more voters with his sincere straight talk. Even on national television, in the hot seat, Ron will not pander. One of the reasons I love this guy.

[FreeTraveler]

Gotta have faith in our boy. He's not new at this. :) He's got confidence, you can see it every time he talks. We're the reason for it. He won't let us down.

+1

[Ethek]

Fox plays very dirty, underhanded, and in ways that are more difficult to counter.

The areas that I have seen Paul falter on is how to pay for Government if there is no income tax. I know his positions but Ive never seen them line itemed about wheres the money coming from, at least in an interview.

I can see some global warming/environment/climate change questions being thrown up. I think Paul should bring up how historical data used by NASA and cited numerous times was quietly found to be in error and changed. Now the data is not outsdanding in any way. Clearly state how much he thinks the environment should be protected but that personal property rights are the way to do this. Soften it up with how he wanted to be a park ranger.

I can possibly see some questions on old campaign tactics coming up somehow as well.

[partypooper]

Joe brought up that Tim was having RP on Meet the Press this Sunday. Tim said something about it being Joe's guy. With a glint in his eye, Russert said that he has read Paul's whole platform and that Sunday was going to be great. Something along the lines of you won't believe what this guy stands for...

i hope this means that he will grill him on the policy issues as opposed to personal issues (e.g. the newsletter), which he often does. meet the press is one of few shows that i watch with some regularity (once a month or so). it can be make or break show for a lot of people.

[pikerz]

The areas that I have seen Paul falter on is how to pay for Government if there is no income tax. I know his positions but Ive never seen them line itemed about wheres the money coming from, at least in an interview.

I can see some global warming/environment/climate change questions being thrown up. I think Paul should bring up how historical data used by NASA and cited numerous times was quietly found to be in error and changed. Now the data is not outsdanding in any way. Clearly state how much he thinks the environment should be protected but that personal property rights are the way to do this. Soften it up with how he wanted to be a park ranger.

I can possibly see some questions on old campaign tactics coming up somehow as well.

He says pay for government by reducing global empire. These costs are not insignificant-- they are MOST of what we are paying for aside from debt interest.

As he has outlined, we get money from other places, such as capital gains and corporate profits. We need only to cut the budget to year 2000 levels to eliminate the income tax.

[Knightskye]

He'll be rested up, and I'm sure his campaign people know all about Russert.

Really? Aren't they the ones who told Paul that Jon Stewart was an "affable gentleman"? :P

[Forefall]

The worst thing Russert can come up with is, "You know that you have two first names, don't you?"

[Highstreet]

I was more worried about the Glen Beck thing personally. I know Russert basically took down Giuliani, undressing him so that all (or at least some) of hist nasty warts showed clearly to the public.

However, RP doesn't have those kinds of bones in his closest. I think he'll convert Russert a bit, the same way he did Beck.

He will try to make the recent tinfoil beliefs stick, but I think Paul has a pretty damn good answer.

[orion846]

mark my words

MTP focused on corruptiveness with Rudy
MTP focused on flip flopping with Romney

MTP is going to focus on "practicality" with RP - they'll question how realistic it is to say you can get rid of the IRS, CIA, homeland security, etc. those are all nice things to say, but if you can't deliver, why should anyone vote for you?

that'll be how he digs RP

[Conza88]

What's he doing to attack? that $500 bs.. rofl, he'll get smacked outta the park on that one.

I pity the person who takes on Ron Paul... RESISTANCE IS FUTILE, YOU WILL LOSE TO HIM. GIVE UP WHILE YOU STILL CAN!

great insight orion, I agree.

[Midnight77]

Russert will also bring up Global Warming, the Racist Article from the Ghostwriter, the $500 from Stormfront, the Bunny Ranch endorsement, possibly 9/11 Truthers associated with him (I hope he doesn't go down this path), and the fascist comment on FOX against Huckabee's ad.

[Ron LOL]

MTP is going to focus on "practicality" with RP - they'll question how realistic it is to say you can get rid of the IRS, CIA, homeland security, etc. those are all nice things to say, but if you can't deliver, why should anyone vote for you?

This is basically the picture that I see too. And it's not really unreasonable, either. We get a lot of the "what" and "why" from Ron Paul. But often times the "how" is left out -- or at the the very least, unclear if you haven't been listening to RP for a very long time.

But it's a good thing!! For many people, these are real issues. How many times have we all heard "I like him, but he couldn't change anything" from friends and family? We shouldn't run from the hard questions. We should be charging in to them at full force.

Ron Paul will probably trot out the usual argument that as commander in chief, the one positive change he could make right away is to bring our troops home. He'll then concede that domestic change will require the cooperation of congress, and that it's unlikely he'd get it...but that a Ron Paul presidency will send a "clear message" to congress in the form of a mandate from the people: that if folks want to get re-elected, they had better fall in line.

I've been happy with that explanation so far, but I'd really like to see Russert push RP on the issue for the sake of greater clarity. Again, we need to charge right in to the tough stuff.

So yes, I see "practicality" as a key issue.

I'd also expect some NAU stuff, and maybe a remark on the Sinclair Lewis quote.

I'm actually glad that Russert probably won't waste time on our fundraising success. He'll probably lead with it and give it about a minute. MTP is for hardcore policy stuff, and in my mind, the closer the interview sticks to that, the better Ron Paul will do.

I'm really looking forward to this one.

[Stealth4]

Hotshot newspeople get it into their heads that Ron Paul's positions are just such easy pickings to ridicule. Never the case. Tim can let loose with whatever he thinks he's got. Maybe he's planning on the old "isn't it completely unrealistic to think we can do away with the income tax? How would we fund the government?" He probably thinks he has "tough questions" that nobody's ever asked Ron Paul before. :-D

I still havent heard a great answer on how we will fund the gov't with no income tax. The only two answers I have heard are "small tarriffs and such" and " we didnt have the income tax before 1913" To me this is not enough info. I personally dont think RP can get rid of the income tax in 4 years and thats fine with me, but I'd lke to understand his ultimate goal.

What other sources of revenue does the fed. gov't have that RP thinks are acceptable? I mean we will need money for the military, congress, etc even if we drastically cut the budget and bring all troops home.

If someone has a good answer to my question above, please PM me your reply as well, I may not remember this threat later and Im heading out.

[daviddee]

...

[daviddee]

...

[Falseflagop]

If RUssert gets smart, should wake people up by this comment:

RP: Hey Tim you work for NBC which is owned by GE, as the largest DEFENSE CONTRACTOR don't they have an interest in keeping the WAR GOING !!!

A comment like this will wake up alot of PEOPLE!

[daviddee]

...

[moostraks]

My money is on the ghost writer issue from long ago paired with the now oft used $500 donation as a gotcha.
I also agree with the practicality issue of making his ideas come to fruition. It isn't like the Lone Ranger can change the White House. He needs to show how he can get agreement with others to make these ideas work. He needs to emphasize any bipartisan deals he has been effective with. Then be prepared for them to say well then you aren't really a Republican. It is a double edged sword.
That's my two cents worth...
Mary

[Stealth4]

Huh? This has been beaten into the ground.

Income tax only pays for 30% of the budget.

We can eliminate the need for the tax dollars if we end the global empire and simply go back to the 2000 budget.

davidee - NO!

1. Its not been proven to me that income tax is 1/3. I took a look and found it to be 1/2.

2. Regardless name me the other sources of revenue that make up the rest of the fed. gov't income.

Your reply wont convince anyone to vote for RP, because 1) its not quite true, if we got rid of the income tax we'd go back to 1996 levels, not 2000 levels and 2) it doesnt explain to anyone where the other money comes from.

[Thomas Paine]

Looking back, I think Russert's grilling of Ghouliani will be seen as the beginning of the end of his race for the GOP nomination.

[Stealth4]

Also,

Is Ron Paul really for Tarriffs? I think he IS for small tarriffs, since has said so on TV but this article says otherwise.

"Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and countless other economists have demolished every fallacy concerning tariffs, proving conclusively that unilateral elimination of tariffs benefits the American people. "

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=412

[LastoftheMohicans]

Huh? This has been beaten into the ground.

Income tax only pays for 30% of the budget.

We can eliminate the need for the tax dollars if we end the global empire and simply go back to the 2000 budget.

Here is a pie chart for 2006 government "income" and outlays.

http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/fedbudget/fedbudget-spending-income-chart.htm

[walt]

If RUssert gets smart, should wake people up by this comment:

RP: Hey Tim you work for NBC which is owned by GE, as the largest DEFENSE CONTRACTOR don't they have an interest in keeping the WAR GOING !!!

A comment like this will wake up alot of PEOPLE!

OMG I would have a Rongasm for sure... :D :D :D

[wgadget]

I think (and hope) MTP will be asking RP why he's so low in the polls, and hopefully Ron will give America a good, firm, logical explanation of how the polls are rigged and/or lacking.

A lot of people would probably vote for him if he were doing better in the polls.

[daviddee]

...

[BillyDkid]

Did you see where they had Chris Matthews on and they took that opportunity to play Shmuckabee's Christmas ad 4 or 5 times and talk about what a stroke of genious it was? With the media carrying your water who the hell need any money?

[Ron LOL]

davidee - NO!

1. Its not been proven to me that income tax is 1/3. I took a look and found it to be 1/2.

2. Regardless name me the other sources of revenue that make up the rest of the fed. gov't income.

Your reply wont convince anyone to vote for RP, because 1) its not quite true, if we got rid of the income tax we'd go back to 1996 levels, not 2000 levels and 2) it doesnt explain to anyone where the other money comes from.

As an engineer, I absolutely cannot stand hand waiving arguments where numbers can be used instead -- and this is even worse, because the hand waiving argument is about numbers!! Accordingly, this is one of Ron Paul's most frustrating positions for me. I e-mailed the campaign asking them to spend money on a CPA or a tax pro or something to do an analysis to see if Ron Paul's claim is correct, but of course I got no reply.

Seriously though, I don't know why they won't do this. It would be such a handy thing to have. Whenever anybody tells RP that eliminating the income tax is unrealistic, he could just throw the report at them...

[daviddee]

...

[Stealth4]

Here is a pie chart for 2006 government "income" and outlays.

http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/fedbudget/fedbudget-spending-income-chart.htm

Ok for income I remove the DEFICIT - since we will have a balanced budget with RP. And I remove social security because even if we still have that money - that goes to a specific program which still will remain in place - in fact we may need to use some regular gov't income to supplement to take care of those dependent while allowing others to opt out.

So we would lose the 1.04 trillion in income tax income, but still have (354 billion +171 billion = ~$520 billion) total for general gov't spending. So we'd lose 2/3 of govt income for general spending, but since we have a deficit, we'd have to cut government spending by 3/4 to balance the budget and live of of ~500 billion.

My question is now:

- Do you think RP is FOR those "other taxes" and "corporate taxes"?

- What are "other taxes"

[Todd]

Meet the press is definitely big. That shows makes news.

But I questioned it's legitimacy when it had Colbert on as a legitimate candidated. Even if it was parody it was a mockery for a News program. Nevertheless; Ron has to be on his toes with Russert. Go Ron!!

[Stealth4]

As an engineer, I absolutely cannot stand hand waiving arguments where numbers can be used instead -- and this is even worse, because the hand waiving argument is about numbers!! Accordingly, this is one of Ron Paul's most frustrating positions for me. I e-mailed the campaign asking them to spend money on a CPA or a tax pro or something to do an analysis to see if Ron Paul's claim is correct, but of course I got no reply.

Seriously though, I don't know why they won't do this. It would be such a handy thing to have. Whenever anybody tells RP that eliminating the income tax is unrealistic, he could just throw the report at them...

Thank you! I am an engineer as well and this drives me nuts. Because RP seems against all taxes and tarriffs ( http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=412 ) so where would our income for our reduced gov't come from!?

Im not quite satisfied with "corporate taxes and other taxes"

[daviddee]

...

[LibertyEagle]

As an engineer, I absolutely cannot stand hand waiving arguments where numbers can be used instead -- and this is even worse, because the hand waiving argument is about numbers!! Accordingly, this is one of Ron Paul's most frustrating positions for me. I e-mailed the campaign asking them to spend money on a CPA or a tax pro or something to do an analysis to see if Ron Paul's claim is correct, but of course I got no reply.

Seriously though, I don't know why they won't do this. It would be such a handy thing to have. Whenever anybody tells RP that eliminating the income tax is unrealistic, he could just throw the report at them...

I agree. He needs to come up with more specifics on several issues. Including the environment. He doesn't talk enough about what HE WOULD DO. He talks around a couple of the issues.

[Ron LOL]

But I questioned it's legitimacy when it had Colbert on as a legitimate candidated. Even if it was parody it was a mockery for a News program. Nevertheless; Ron has to be on his toes with Russert. Go Ron!!

Yeah, but I really think that's more a result of the MSM still not knowing how to handle Colbert and Stewart. They honestly don't get it. See Stewart's Crossfire appearance from some years back for another example...

[John of Des Moines]

RP: I also received a donation from your son... Should I return that also?

It is completely false, but it would really catch Tim off guard :)

No. Paul should reply "I received a donation from Huckabee's son, you know the one who thought it was funny to hang a dog, and which caused then Governor Mike Huckabee to fire the state police chief because he, the chief, wouldn't cover up the crime by Huckabee junior. Now, should I return that donation as well?"

[evadmurd]

I'd like to see him bone up a little on names and issues. Get a little grilling from someone else. I can't help but remember the difference in GWB from the first debate to the 2nd one. He was laughed at the first time and by the 2nd one, he actually gave the air he knew what he was talking about.

Just a little preparation could make a huge difference in how he appears.

[Ron LOL]

I'd like to see him bone up a little on names and issues. Get a little grilling from someone else. I can't help but remember the difference in GWB from the first debate to the 2nd one. He was laughed at the first time and by the 2nd one, he actually gave the air he knew what he was talking about.

Just a little preparation could make a huge difference in how he appears.

The SNL (http://youtube.com/watch?v=lKCVlxbTync) bit that followed was even better :)

[Todd]

I still havent heard a great answer on how we will fund the gov't with no income tax. The only two answers I have heard are "small tarriffs and such" and " we didnt have the income tax before 1913" To me this is not enough info. I personally dont think RP can get rid of the income tax in 4 years and thats fine with me, but I'd lke to understand his ultimate goal.

What other sources of revenue does the fed. gov't have that RP thinks are acceptable? I mean we will need money for the military, congress, etc even if we drastically cut the budget and bring all troops home.

If someone has a good answer to my question above, please PM me your reply as well, I may not remember this threat later and Im heading out.

If Ron's reasearch about the 1995 budget is correct then that would be enough evidence for people to realize that ending the income tax is possible as well as practical. I think he often quotes that without the income tax the budget would be about 1.5 trillion....the same amount as it was in 95'. He says "Can you live with the size of Government the way it was in 1995?"

I can...

[Stealth4]

If Ron's reasearch about the 1995 budget is correct then that would be enough evidence for people to realize that ending the income tax is possible as well as practical. I think he often quotes that without the income tax the budget would be about 1.5 trillion....the same amount as it was in 95'. He says "Can you live with the size of Government the way it was in 1995?"

I can...

That 1.5 trillion includes social security and medicare taxes. With out it the gov't would have $520 billion

[Todd]

That 1.5 trillion includes social security and medicare taxes. With out it the gov't would have $520 billion

Then it is a viable solution.

I'm in the 5th district Virginia...Bedford area.

[werdd]

Ron i heard you flip flopped on liking chocolate chip cookies, how can you run this country.

[nathanmn]

Ok for income I remove the DEFICIT - since we will have a balanced budget with RP. And I remove social security because even if we still have that money - that goes to a specific program which still will remain in place - in fact we may need to use some regular gov't income to supplement to take care of those dependent while allowing others to opt out.

So we would lose the 1.04 trillion in income tax income, but still have (354 billion +171 billion = ~$520 billion) total for general gov't spending. So we'd lose 2/3 of govt income for general spending, but since we have a deficit, we'd have to cut government spending by 3/4 to balance the budget and live of of ~500 billion.

My question is now:

- Do you think RP is FOR those "other taxes" and "corporate taxes"?

- What are "other taxes"



Taxes is the main thing that disappoints me when Ron Paul talks it. He basically gives two answers, one is that he wants to get rid of the individual income tax(and the IRS, but I think he just means the IIT and the IIT tax code). He says we would have to cut spending back to 2000 levels, but I think he has said 97 levels once too. The other is that we never had income taxes before 1913? and used excise taxes, tariffs, etc.

He doesn't clarify either position very well, or talk about how he would get there. Even getting rid of the individual income tax would be a tall task, especially since the medicare/medicaid costs are going through the roof. However, there would still be corporate income tax and payroll taxes, which are both big sources of government revenue.

The 1913 thing I think he is just using as an example of how far we have lost our way, or perhaps of what his perfect, ideal tax situation would be. However, he needs to articulate all of that.

[Xanax Nation]

His concern is the Federal Govt. He has said that none of what he proposed would work unless they cut spending. Work toward eliminating the nanny state spending in the Govt. and if the states want to lay and collect taxes for projects, that is their perogative. I'm sure shortfalls from the Fed Govt. will be made up this way. Let the people actually vote if they want something passed, instead of robbing me to pay for projects in France.

http://omnibusting.heritage.org/2007/12/18/earmarks-spreading-like-well-weeds/
$576,000 to manage weeds
Rodent control in Alaska ($113,000)
Olive fruit fly research in France ($213,000)
Hunting and Fishing Museum in Pennsylvania ($200,000)
Louis Armstrong Museum in New York ($150,000)
A bike trail in Minnesota ($700,000)
A river walk in Massachusetts ($1,000,000)
A post office museum in downtown Las Vegas ($200,000); and
The Lincoln Park Zoo in Illinois ($37,000)

Working to reduce the welfare/warfare/warfear state will go a long way towards reducing spending. Eliminating the borrowing from the reserve will reduce the interest. That total of $496 billion in non-defense discretionary spending from the chart is heinous in itself, and a lot of it is non-Constitutional. These are all areas that can be pruned to offset the revenue from our income tax. It's not going to happen overnight, but we need to begin in '09 to right the ship. http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/fedbudget/fedbudget-spending-income-chart.htm

But, this will all go over Russert's head. It's just another news story to him.

[nathanmn]

I bet Tim Russert asks questions like these:

"So, you think cocaine and heroin should be legal? Are you insane?"

"How can you talk about getting rid of the income tax, when we are running high deficits and future Medicare and Medicaid liabilities are massively underfunded?"

"Are you serious about getting rid of all overseas US military bases? We wouldn't be able to project force or even support our Navy without some of those bases."


Well, stuff like that. The two latter questions I hope Ron Paul has some very intelligent responses and he articulate everything very well. I want to hear realistic responses too. The first one I've heard him knock out of the park pretty well. I hope he mentions we had to use an amendment to prohibit alcohol back in the day, so how is drug prohibition constitutional?

[kylejack]

To clarify for the confused people, individual income tax made up 43% of the 2006 budget. Eliminating individual income tax would be possible if we cut spending back to pre-2000 levels, however we would still be running about a $350B annual deficit. If we wanted to do it with no deficit, we'd have to go back to 1996 spending. I did a full analysis myself and the above is what I found.

[Falseflagop]

And then RP says isn't your employer a HUGE DEFENSE CONTRACTOR that benefits tremendously from the WAR?

What would TIM say then?

[kylejack]

"Are you serious about getting rid of all overseas US military bases? We wouldn't be able to project force or even support our Navy without some of those bases."
We've been world police for far too long, and a lot of American blood has been paid for things we never should have been involved in. Let someone else save the world for a while. As to effectiveness, even without bases we can strike anywhere in the world within 24 hours. During Operation Shock and Awe, bombers were launching from Kansas, dropping bombs in Iraq, and flying back to the United States. When we have that kind of weapons technology, we don't need bases around the world to project force when we need to. For larger conflicts, we can have our carriers and battle fleets anywhere in the world in large numbers within a month. Nobody matches our military power. Other than China, nobody even comes close.

[fireworks_god]

Hopefully he doesn't ask about voting down and speaking agansit pork spending bills that he has added items to, knowing that they will vote anyways...

I don't know anything about that, but its something I've seen neo-conservatives propose on other boards. I don't know if that would come up or not, but its the only thing, if true, that someone could really have some leverage on Ron Paul with.

[Perry]

Anyone know how long this interview will be? Hopefully more than 10 minutes.

[nathanmn]

We've been world police for far too long, and a lot of American blood has been paid for things we never should have been involved in. Let someone else save the world for a while. As to effectiveness, even without bases we can strike anywhere in the world within 24 hours. During Operation Shock and Awe, bombers were launching from Kansas, dropping bombs in Iraq, and flying back to the United States. When we have that kind of weapons technology, we don't need bases around the world to project force when we need to. For larger conflicts, we can have our carriers and battle fleets anywhere in the world in large numbers within a month. Nobody matches our military power. Other than China, nobody even comes close.

Sounds pretty good. I hope Ron Paul answers it like that. I think having a few navy bases on the other side of the world to support our carrier groups and what not isn't a bad idea. I bet this is one of the things Ron Paul will have to clarify and explain though.

[hueylong]

Dr. Paul stands up for what he believes in, and there is no artifice. This is the first time in 35 years around politics that I've seen a political candidate that actually has integrity. He will say what he believs in, regardless of whether he thinks it will gain or lose him votes.

He will do fine against Russert.

Huey

[Gimpster]

Carrier groups are so 1940's.

"There Are Only Two Types Of Ships: Submarines and Targets."

[kylejack]

Sounds pretty good. I hope Ron Paul answers it like that. I think having a few navy bases on the other side of the world to support our carrier groups and what not isn't a bad idea. I bet this is one of the things Ron Paul will have to clarify and explain though.
Well, keep in mind that we've got U.S. territories like Wake Island and the Marshall Islands. At minimum, I'd like to see us get out of Germany, Japan, and Korea, and all the Arab countries. I mean, Europe doesn't have to maintain militaries because they know that Big Daddy USA is there to protect them, and so they spend their own money on socialism and whatever else they want to spend it on. Our military presence there is subsidizing their social welfare programs because they don't have to spend on military. Its high time for them to take care of themselves.

[kylejack]

Carrier groups are so 1940's.

"There Are Only Two Types Of Ships: Submarines and Targets."
I don't expect we'll see another big sea battle, but carriers are important for the airpower they can deliver. I was amused recently when the Chinese submarine popped up unexpected in the middle of our wargame exercise. Very impressive.

[Ethek]

Hopefully he doesn't ask about voting down and speaking agansit pork spending bills that he has added items to, knowing that they will vote anyways...

I don't know anything about that, but its something I've seen neo-conservatives propose on other boards. I don't know if that would come up or not, but its the only thing, if true, that someone could really have some leverage on Ron Paul with.

Dr. Paul's position on this is easy. He doesn't agree with the Tax and will vote against any unbalanced budget. However, he is not above getting his district its money back.

[Leslie Webb]

I think one of the tough questions Russert asks may be something like this:

"Let's say there is another genocide going on, in Africa, in a country like Rwanda. Thousands of people are dying every day, and there are tens of thousands of refugees who need food, shelter, and medical care. With your noninterventionist foreign policy, are you saying that our government, the most powerful in the world, should stand aside and do nothing?"

I think Ron would have to come back with a shorter version of something like the following:

1) we cannot understand regional conflicts, who is right and who is wrong in religious and tribal feuds that go back for generations

2) because we do not understand these conflicts, intervention makes them worse. The side we back in a conflict will tyrannize over its enemies

3) aid through voluntary organizations is more effective than aid through government. For example, the American Heritage on May 16 of this year (http://www.heritageblogs.org/index.php/category/foreign-aid) reported that 65% of the US government's food aid budget goes to overhead; in contrast, private organizations such as Save the Children use up only 10% of their budget on overhead.

4) government aid is ineffective because political influence determines the companies that get the contracts for food, for other aid, and for shipping, and the interests of those who receive the aid are secondary. Former President Jimmy Carter, for example, has pointed out how agribusinesses benefit from foreign aid. The low prices which food aid surpluses create drive local farmers out of business.

5) our record of military intervention in the developing world has been disastrous, with millions dead in Viet Nam and Iraq. Our record of non-military intervention has been just as disastrous. In books and writings since 1946 the great development economis Lord PT Bauer of the London School of Economics has shown that the central planning, foreign aid, price controls, and protectionist policies that US and Western development experts have inflicted on the developing nations have perpetuated poverty in these nations. The World Bank in 1997 reached the same conclusion. Backed by aid, the governments of these nations embarked on white elephant, showcase investments; private investors lacked confidence in the regimes held up by foreign aid and thus refrained from investing; "powerful rulers acted arbitrarily. Corruption became endemic. Development faltered, and poverty endured."

We may feel good about giving to aid victims in local conflicts; however, for more than 50 years, since the end of World War II, we have seen that when our government intervenes, and provides aid to a local government, either emergency aid or long-term development aid, the process becomes corrupt. Political influence on our end determines which companies get contracts to supply the aid; political influence in the country receiving the aid determines which members of the local oligarchy get to distribute the aid. After the local rulers take their cuts, the persons for whom the aid is designated receive a pittance.

In this country we can see the same thing. Since 2004 hurricanes have ravaged the Gulf Coast. Ask anyone who lives down there who has been quicker on the scene to help and supply food and other goods to hurricane victims-- WalMart or FEMA. FEMA then gave out most of its no-bid contracts for trailers for Katrina victims to politically well-connected large companies such as Fluor and Bechtel rather than to local companies. What's worse, the trailers leaked formaldehyde.

With this question about Rwanda you are asking the US government, the same organization that masterminded the FEMA debacle on Katrina, to rush in and save the day. Our government cannot handle disasters in this country. What makes you think it can handle humanitarian crises overseas? It should get out of the way and let private organizations do the work.

[kylejack]

Russert loves to dig in a candidate's past. Its his #1 tool. We have to consider the possibility that he'll talk about racist newsletters, Darfur divestment, TSA comment, and etc.

[rollingpig]

I think one of the tough questions Russert asks may be something like this:

"Let's say there is another genocide going on, in Africa, in a country like Rwanda. Thousands of people are dying every day, and there are tens of thousands of refugees who need food, shelter, and medical care. With your noninterventionist foreign policy, are you saying that our government, the most powerful in the world, should stand aside and do nothing?"

I think Ron would have to come back with a shorter version of something like the following:

1) we cannot understand regional conflicts, who is right and who is wrong in religious and tribal feuds that go back for generations

2) because we do not understand these conflicts, intervention makes them worse. The side we back in a conflict will tyrannize over its enemies

3) aid through voluntary organizations is more effective than aid through government. For example, the American Heritage on May 16 of this year (http://www.heritageblogs.org/index.php/category/foreign-aid) reported that 65% of the US government's food aid budget goes to overhead; in contrast, private organizations such as Save the Children use up only 10% of their budget on overhead.

4) government aid is ineffective because political influence determines the companies that get the contracts for food, for other aid, and for shipping, and the interests of those who receive the aid are secondary. Former President Jimmy Carter, for example, has pointed out how agribusinesses benefit from foreign aid. The low prices which food aid surpluses create drive local farmers out of business.

5) our record of military intervention in the developing world has been disastrous, with millions dead in Viet Nam and Iraq. Our record of non-military intervention has been just as disastrous. In books and writings since 1946 the great development economis Lord PT Bauer of the London School of Economics has shown that the central planning, foreign aid, price controls, and protectionist policies that US and Western development experts have inflicted on the developing nations have perpetuated poverty in these nations. The World Bank in 1997 reached the same conclusion. Backed by aid, the governments of these nations embarked on white elephant, showcase investments; private investors lacked confidence in the regimes held up by foreign aid and thus refrained from investing; "powerful rulers acted arbitrarily. Corruption became endemic. Development faltered, and poverty endured."

We may feel good about giving to aid victims in local conflicts; however, for more than 50 years, since the end of World War II, we have seen that when our government intervenes, and provides aid to a local government, either emergency aid or long-term development aid, the process becomes corrupt. Political influence on our end determines which companies get contracts to supply the aid; political influence in the country receiving the aid determines which members of the local oligarchy get to distribute the aid. After the local rulers take their cuts, the persons for whom the aid is designated receive a pittance.

In this country we can see the same thing. Since 2004 hurricanes have ravaged the Gulf Coast. Ask anyone who lives down there who has been quicker on the scene to help and supply food and other goods to hurricane victims-- WalMart or FEMA. FEMA then gave out most of its no-bid contracts for trailers for Katrina victims to politically well-connected large companies such as Fluor and Bechtel rather than to local companies. What's worse, the trailers leaked formaldehyde.

With this question about Rwanda you are asking the US government, the same organization that masterminded the FEMA debacle on Katrina, to rush in and save the day. Our government cannot handle disasters in this country. What makes you think it can handle humanitarian crises overseas? It should get out of the way and let private organizations do the work.


WOW, you totally nailed it!!

[Rintrah54]

Russert can be pretty hardcore. His interview with Romney was absolutely brutal in my viewing. However, Ron Paul tends to really step up his game in the face of tough questions and continually surprises me with his mastery of every topic thrown at him. He may not have the charisma, but he has the smarts.

I think he'll do great.

[yongrel]

Russert will grill Ron on his positions, but if he gives Ron time to answer then there will be no problem.

I expect to see Tim Russert ask Ron Paul about the success of the surge, abolishing the Department of Education, entitlement programs, and the like to try and trap the good Doctor.

And if Russert wants to make the interview unpleasant, he'll talk about the Civil War, the racist article, Dondero, prayer in schools, etc...

I think it will be a tough but fair interview.

[kylejack]

Donderoooo? God, I hope not. That guy needs to seep away into obscurity. I think I liked him better when he was presumed kidnapped in Mexico.

[Ethek]

WOW, you totally nailed it!!

Yeah, I hope someone in the campaign is scribbling notes from that.

[krott5333]

Huh? This has been beaten into the ground.

Income tax only pays for 30% of the budget.

We can eliminate the need for the tax dollars if we end the global empire and simply go back to the 2000 budget.

where does the other 70% come from?


And I think PERSONAL INCOME TAX is the 30%, corporate income tax is another story.

[kylejack]

where does the other 70% come from?

And I think PERSONAL INCOME TAX is the 30%, corporate income tax is another story.
Yes, 43% from individual income tax. The rest comes from gas tax, corporate income tax, payroll tax, and other places.

[stevedasbach]

School Teachers For Ron Paul!!!!!!!!

Have a page where school teachers can explain their views on the DOE and what changes should be made! Why should we listen to what OTHER people say teachers tell them, and just LISTEN TO THE TEACHERS????

Anybody here teach?

I taught high school science for 21 years and college for 2 prior to coming to DC as Executive Director of the Libertarian Party. I returned to teaching in 2002 and currently teach science at Falls Church HS in Virginia.

Oh, I was also a member of the NEA for 20 years (before resigning in disgust), served a couple of terms as president of the local union, and negotiated several of the contracts.

And yes, the Department of Education should be torpedoed and sent to the deepest part of the ocean. I can think of nothing that would improve education faster than getting rid of the DOE.

[videogeek]

Russert will absolutely be tough on RP, and it's exactly what needs to happen. He will ask questions of substance (like the one about genocide), and RP will be given time to answer. Our man will not go into the studio unprepared, and the best thing that could happen to this campaign right now is for our candidate to be given the opportunity to answer the tough questions instead of only being given time for 30 second soundbites. Some people will watch and say, "this is not the guy for me..." that's fine. Many more will watch and just like you and I, say - "you know, I don't agree with him 100% on everything, but this man has integrity, and sound philosophy from which he logically determines his policy positions... he's got my vote."

[stevedasbach]

Anyone know how long this interview will be? Hopefully more than 10 minutes.

The full hour.

[bgoldwater]

Russert is going to grill him. That's his job and he does it to everyone. That is why I like Russert.

[jacmicwag]

I think Ron needs to hire Leslie Webb as a media consultant.

One thing about Tim is that he really does thoroughly research the person he is interviewing. For us, that's a good thing. And Russert is a real journalist unlike Hannity, Beck and the like. He will definitely challenge Ron in ways he needs to be challenged. A fabulous opportunity for Ron to further clarify and explain his beliefs. This interview has huge upside potential. Ron will be ready for this one. It is a tremendous honor to be invited to this show.

[firebirdnation]

This is why I'm not scared.

He's always got an answer. He can turn any question around, talk about it with wisdom and poise, and make people understand his view. Maybe they don't agree with him still, but they see where he's coming from. And if he's got time to explain WHY we should get rid of the Deptartment of Education, then he'll be able to convince some people.

I know a lot of teachers. EVERY SINGLE ONE of them hates the DOE more than anything else!

Ohh.....that's something we should do.

School Teachers For Ron Paul!!!!!!!!

Have a page where school teachers can explain their views on the DOE and what changes should be made! Why should we listen to what OTHER people say teachers tell them, and just LISTEN TO THE TEACHERS????

Anybody here teach?

My wife is a school teacher and Ron Paul supporter. She hates the No Child Left Behind BS.

[Bilgefisher]

If Ron Paul is to legitimately prove to people he is the man for the job, then he is going to have to fight these tough fights. Its nothing new to the man. He's been doing it his whole political career.

[pacelli]

ya if anything this one calls for a youtube ...

some one should just buy like 6 or 8 tivos or w/e and just record non stop all the major news channels ...

maybe start a chip in .. haha

Tim Russert's full interviews can be seen at: h ttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608

The full netcast can be viewed after 1PM eastern this sunday at:
h ttp://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&brand=msnbc&tab=s53&?f=00&vid=e10461f7-89e1-415c-aa58-80d1b6f8066e&playlist=videoByTag:mk:us:vs:1:tag:hotvideo_m_edpi cks:ns:MSNVideo_Top_Cat:ps:10:sd:-1:ind:1:ff:8A

[Maltheus]

I've been looking forward to a MTP interview for sometime. The show has been bad recently, but that Romney interview shows that Tim still knows how to hit hard. And that's precisely what will make this such a great interview. Such much of my hatred of most politicians comes from how much shit, they seem so full of, on shows like this. They can never answer the questions outright, because they have no firm ground to stand on. This interview will show just how presidential a presidential candidate can be. Not like these other smarmy mouthed hypocrites. Speaking truth to power is Paul's primary appeal.

[DrNoZone]

I will be impressed if Tim can come up with even ONE question that stumps Ron Paul and makes him look even a little bit bad. Sorry Tim, you just can't do it.

[Question_Authority]

He needs to come up with a better explanation about global warming. He doesn't have to change his views, he just needs to change his explanation and omit his questioning of whether it is happening or not. I would say 85% of the people I know believe global warming is real and it is urgent and nothing Ron Paul says will change their mind.

[Hope]

RP has had to face both Hannity and O'Reilly. I think he can handle Tim Russert.

[hawkeyenick]

He needs to come up with a better explanation about global warming. He doesn't have to change his views, he just needs to change his explanation and omit his questioning of whether it is happening or not. I would say 85% of the people I know believe global warming is real and it is urgent and nothing Ron Paul says will change their mind.

I would say 100% believe it's real...the debate is whether it's man-made or not. We may never know that one.

[bc2208]

I would say 100% believe it's real...the debate is whether it's man-made or not. We may never know that one.

I am not convinced it's real. It may be, but I've seen enough evidence to show that the moderate warming of the 20th century is nothing unusual, especially considering that we started recording meteorological data at the coldest point in the last 5,000 years.

[Goldwater Conservative]

I hope the interview is tough but fair. Paul can handle it if he's brings his A-game, and proving himself there is a great way to get helpful coverage. If Russert spends more than 5 minutes total on newsletters, 9/11 truth, that one racist dude, and an independent run, then I'll be worried.

[wbbgjr]

RP will do just fine as long as he gets the time to explain his views.

I think a lot of the new RP supporters don't understand that we want reporters to ask hard questions as long as RP has time to explain his positions. What makes RP different from all other candidates is that he bases all his views on a few principles, such as the Constitution, the confidence in the free markets, libertarism. In other words they can't trip him up.

other candidates don't really hold real beliefs. they never delve deep in thinking about the issues, but go by what feels good emotionally.

[TwiLeXia]

Definitely youtube this

[rollingpig]

is it on youtube yet?

[hawkeyenick]

I am not convinced it's real. It may be, but I've seen enough evidence to show that the moderate warming of the 20th century is nothing unusual, especially considering that we started recording meteorological data at the coldest point in the last 5,000 years.

Hence that would mean that it's real.

People argue the method, not whether it's happening or not. Hell mars is coming out of an ice age because of a solar warming cycle.

[cujothekitten]

I watch Meet the Press and I'm really excited about this interview. Tim Russert is pretty hard hitting but he asks good questions. If Ron Paul sticks to his convictions, which I'm sure he'll will, the interview should be great.

This is a serious news show, unlike Beck. The people that watch it are intelligent and know what's going on in the world. The show has shed light on some major issues and made news more than a few times. I put it up there with 60 minutes.

[traviskicks]

I'm looking forward to it, Russert is one of the best journalists out there, IMO, tough but fair (even if a bit ideologically flawed).

[traviskicks]

[QUOTE=cujothekitten;679035]This is a serious news show, unlike Beck. QUOTE]

The Beck interview was the best interview I've seen Paul give, IMO.

[peznex]

This is a long thread and may have already been mentioned, but we should get EVERYONE we can to watch it on TV.
If they see a huge ratings boost, then it would be big news. They may have him on again or something, or even mention it. Money talks!
TV bomb.

[slantedview]

Hotshot newspeople get it into their heads that Ron Paul's positions are just such easy pickings to ridicule. Never the case. Tim can let loose with whatever he thinks he's got. Maybe he's planning on the old "isn't it completely unrealistic to think we can do away with the income tax? How would we fund the government?" He probably thinks he has "tough questions" that nobody's ever asked Ron Paul before. :-D

I agree. I think that the hotshot news guys (nice choice of words) simply see "abolish the IRS", and think it's ridiculous and easy to mock without really understanding the basis for the position.

Tim is in for a surprise. EVERYTHING Ron says and stands for is based on rock solid reason and principle.

[krott5333]

wheres the youtube?

[cujothekitten]

This is a serious news show, unlike Beck.

The Beck interview was the best interview I've seen Paul give, IMO.

The google interview was better in my opinion. Glenn Beck is a bit of a joke when it comes to any real news. He's paid to give his opinion and reminds me of tabloid newspapers. I liked the interview but I bet if you look back at it you'll find Beck did most of the talking.

I like my news to be more informative and of a higher caliber.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I don't even think Ron Paul prepares for any interview lol he says the same thing to everyone.

[jp5065]

This is a long thread and may have already been mentioned, but we should get EVERYONE we can to watch it on TV.
If they see a huge ratings boost, then it would be big news. They may have him on again or something, or even mention it. Money talks!
TV bomb.

Only people who have AC Neilsen boxes on there TV's can make the ratings go up...

[Ron Paul Fan]

THIS INTERVIEW WILL MAKE OR BREAK THE CAMPAIGN! Old people watch this show like it's their job and they don't use the internet so it's a great recruiting tool! I THINK RON PAUL WILL HANDLE DEMOCRAT TIM RUSSERT JUST FINE! Giuliani went on there and got absolutely CRUSHED and is now in FREE FALL! Romney went on there and they spent the entire interview talking about his FLIP FLOPS! Huckabee was supposed to go on this week but is too SCARED! Ron Paul is the ONLY one who will give a good performance!

[Mark]

I was a teacher - I have an MEd in Special Education

There's a http://academicsforpaul.com/ website, College professors.

What's a good name for K-12 Teacher's website?

[richk]

Ron Paul won't have trouble with Russert. The best Russert can do is the same old crap that Fox and friends resort to. Paul is constantly getting grilled. Paul knows this stuff back and forward. The crap that Beck is preaching is old news to Paul. Russert may be more substantial, but Paul will be fine. I guarantee it.

With all due respect, you are dead wrong. Russert is fair, but very tough. This ain't no "Fox and Fiends" show. This is the big leagues. Intelligent people watch this show. It's not only about knowing "your stuff". It's about answering tough questions and failed judgements concerning a 1992 newsletter. It's about claiming to be the "champion of the Constititution", yet writing that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are "replete with references to God" when in fact that is false. It's about defending your stance on Civil Rights legislation, etc. etc. when at the same time people are calling you a racist.

There's a few other subjects, contradictions they can throw out there. I'm not going to get into them, just be aware this ain't no friggin' picnic. :confused:

You have no idea how many landmines Ron is going to have to sidestep here. Let's hope he is up to the task.

Of course, I hope he comes out smelling like a rose. :D
This interview could make or break this campaign.

P.S. You "guarantee" it. That's a comical statement. Nice pep talk to the "fans". You have nothing to do with it. This is not a sporting event.

[dircha]

My guess is that the allegations of racist remarks in his newsletter will come up. Russert is going to pick that up.

And there is a lot of "dirt" - controversial libertarian positions - in the statements he has made over the years and in his 1987 book.

And depending on how the interview goes, clips of Russert reading thse controversial remarks will run on all the cable news channels.

But he is going to have to deal with all of these issues, all of these statements, sooner or later if he plans to stay in this.

[richk]

Russert loves to dig in a candidate's past. Its his #1 tool. We have to consider the possibility that he'll talk about racist newsletters, Darfur divestment, TSA comment, and etc.

Exactly. This is the stuff to fear. Everytime Russert asks a question, he references a quote from the interviewee (Paul). And Paul , as ethical and principled as he is, has 30 years of writings to dissect. That's a lot of material to defend (if necessary). I am not too worried abouit issues. I am worried about detailed solutions to the issues. Along with some of the stuff I mentioned in my other post. Let's hope there's not too much unknown dirt out there. IMHO this is the critical juncture in the campaign. Russert is not a smear artist; if he has dirt you can be for sure that it will have to be addressed in an intelligent manner from Dr. Paul.

Tremendous upside for this campaign, though. It's a necessary risk. :)

I got my fingers crossed and saying my prayers. :D

[vegetarianrpfan]

...It's about claiming to be the "champion of the Constititution", yet writing that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are "replete with references to God" when in fact that is false. ...

The Declaration of Independence pretty clearly states that all rights are given to us by our Creator.... I would consider that "replete."

------------------------------
Libertarian Girl
http://www.libertariangirl.com

[CavortingChicken]

Why no youtube come on guys!!! Please..

[N13]

RP is ready and "tested" for the big leagues.

It won't be easy, but he will do fine and present his message effectively.

Grade A exposure.

[ThePieSwindler]

Ron Paul won't get trapped up in any sort of contradiction - that we can be assured of. The biggest issue will be coherently explaining his policies for actually getting his views implemented. Which of course, he will gracefully respond that it is possible, but it cannot just be done by one man, and must be worked through with the congress. He will answer everything honestly and thoroughly, so i dont think there is TOO much to worry about, even if people come off disagreeing with some of his views, they will see very quickly that he is incredibly honest and intelligent.

[richk]

The Declaration of Independence pretty clearly states that all rights are given to us by our Creator.... I would consider that "replete."

------------------------------
Libertarian Girl
http://www.libertariangirl.com

You consider one reference replete??
I am not going to debate this with you for obvious reasons, but there is 1 reference to God in both those documents. Replete means an abundance of...
For someone who is an expert on the Constitution, to make a statement that these 2 documents are replete with references to God, is quite a misstatement. And yes, it concerns me if this is brought up. It damages his credibility. Enough said??

[ThePieSwindler]

Does anyone know if MTP is live or filmed beforehand?

[doronster195]

youtube bump!

[frasu]

youtube bump!

+1

[ThePieSwindler]

Does anyone know if MTP is live or filmed beforehand?

Question answer bump.

[richk]

Ron Paul won't get trapped up in any sort of contradiction - that we can be assured of. The biggest issue will be coherently explaining his policies for actually getting his views implemented. Which of course, he will gracefully respond that it is possible, but it cannot just be done by one man, and must be worked through with the congress. He will answer everything honestly and thoroughly, so i dont think there is TOO much to worry about, even if people come off disagreeing with some of his views, they will see very quickly that he is incredibly honest and intelligent.

See my previous post. Memo to all...I love this guy. But he is not perfect and not without qestionable writings and judgements. I hope he is ready.

[ThePieSwindler]

See my previous post. Memo to all...I love this guy. But he is not perfect and not without qestionable writings and judgements. I hope he is ready.

I saw your previous post. All these allegations you talk about exist, but he has answered them sufficiently before. Although russert will hit hard, its not like he will be able to TRULY trap Ron Paul in a contradiction, which is Russert's most dangerous tactic. Ron will simply have to answer honestly some tough questions, but he will, and he will come out showing how strong his integrity is. His "controversial libertarian" positions are things he has brought up before, and whenever they are properly explained, they usually clear things up very, very well. There is no need to conceal truth, it stands out on its own. Ron Paul might have some difficult things to respond to, but he's done it before and he can do it again. It just so happens to be coming in one interview.

[cero]

youtube

[rightobeleftalone]

When I watched Ron Paul lecture the head of the Fed, ole helocopter Ben I thought to myself that Ron is fearless, prepared and courageous. He will have no trouble with some empty suit talking head like russert.

[Vvick727]

How amazing would it be if they interviewed Black, and when asked about his white supremacy, he just answered:

"Dr. Paul has inspired me to no longer be a white supremacist."
or something along those lines. it would be perfect

[richk]

I saw your previous post. All these allegations you talk about exist, but he has answered them sufficiently before. Although russert will hit hard, its not like he will be able to TRULY trap Ron Paul in a contradiction, which is Russert's most dangerous tactic. Ron will simply have to answer honestly some tough questions, but he will, and he will come out showing how strong his integrity is. His "controversial libertarian" positions are things he has brought up before, and whenever they are properly explained, they usually clear things up very, very well. There is no need to conceal truth, it stands out on its own. Ron Paul might have some difficult things to respond to, but he's done it before and he can do it again. It just so happens to be coming in one interview.

How did he answer the "replete with refences to God" question. That's the one that concerns me. How can an "expert" on the Constitution make those comments?

[user]

I think those of you who are absolutely sure this will be a perfect interview are being very optimistic.

We can use this interview to judge the campaign staff. If it doesn't go well, they will probably deserve most of the blame. They need to prepare RP. I've noticed two instances where RP has appeared to flip-flop and MTP may try to use those against him.

[richk]

I think those of you who are absolutely sure this will be a perfect interview are being very optimistic.

We can use this interview to judge the campaign staff. If it doesn't go well, they will probably deserve most of the blame. They need to prepare RP. I've noticed two instances where RP has appeared to flip-flop and MTP may try to use those against him.

I don't think anybody who is that optimistic has ever watched Tim Russert in action. :eek:

I'm trying to be optimistic, but I understand reality. This ain't no cakewalk. Why else would Fuckabee turn it down?

[user]

I don't think anybody who is that optimistic has ever watched Tim Russert in action. :eek:

I'm trying to be optimistic, but I understand reality. This ain't no cakewalk. Why else would Fuckabee turn it down?
Yes, the Huckster turned it down because he's leading in the polls and Russert would destroy him.

I expect RP will face different kinds of questions than the other candidates. Again I hope the campaign is up to the task.

[ThePieSwindler]

How did he answer the "replete with refences to God" question. That's the one that concerns me. How can an "expert" on the Constitution make those comments?

I'm talking about questions asked to him by the media. The "replete with references to God" stuff was brought up strictly here on the forum, and you seem to be making a personal crusade over it, so im going to take you up to task. The Declaration of Independance CLEARLY refers to nature's God and a Creator endowing inalienable rights. The Constitution was made with the ideals of the declaration in mind, to set up a government that would preserve those inalienable rights. He referenced the two together, though it is clearly the declaration that spells this out. He then uses the word replete - probably not the best word choice, but oh well. The point was the rights are endowed by our creator, whether you believe this or not is irrelevant, as the nature of those rights still remains. Now while he was wrong you match these together, his point still stands in that writing piece you are referencing, that they do indeed reference God - the Constitution references the inalientable rights with the assumptions laid out in the Declaration tied in. So while yes, it was a slightly inaccurate statement with some hyperbole, you are making it out as if there is no reference to God and Ron is completely fabricating everything he says.

You are turning this into your own personal crusade, as if it is an issue that will actually be brought up. It won't. Its really not all that controversial. We had a ridiculously long thread, started by Kade, over this, and atheists will cringe, but you know what? Nowhere in that piece does Ron Paul say anything about secular people being "bad". He says the secular LEFT, which as we all know, the left is indeed a lover of big government. The secular LEFT is different from "secular America", and is different from the religious left. His point was simply that seperation of state was not intended to be a rigid doctrine where public officials were not allowed to express their religion. Some founding fathers wrote on the doctrine, but in terms of actual codified law, the second amendment is the only basis for seperation of church and state. It simply means that laws shall not pertain to religion. It doesnt even say "laws shall not be written by people with religious biases", it simply says, congress shall write no law prohibiting or establishing religion. Thats it. It doesnt mean seperation ought to or ought not to exist, it simply means it doesn exist in the way some leftists argue. As for the constitution/Declaration bit, so he uses the wrong word. He uses "replete" instead of "contains". So what. You are arguing semantics. This is not really a big deal.

As for the interview, like i said, Ron Paul will be hit with some very tough questions, but I dont think its anything he's never heard before. It will simply be everything all at once, rather than in different interviews. Anything that appears to be "dirt" has been asnwered, and while the answers might not satisfy everyone, they are genuine. The real difficulty will be selling some of his policies, and not everyone that watches will agree, but it will also be an excellent chance to really expose the message in full force, with a chance to dispel some of the misinformation.

[dawnbt]

To be honest, I think we should fear Tim Russert; remember what he did to Hillary (quoting Bill); he spoke with Kucinich about UFOs and he let McCain contradict himself (that was a really painful moment) etc. etc. Russert could damage Paul BIG TIME.

And now he's enthusiastic.... Dr. Paul is in trouble...

Yeah, now he's got all this racism BS to sling! Funny who the big bag of crap drops right before the big interview. I hope Ron let's then have it!

[dawnbt]

[QUOTE=Ethek;676966]The areas that I have seen Paul falter on is how to pay for Government if there is no income tax. I know his positions but Ive never seen them line itemed about wheres the money coming from, at least in an interview.
QUOTE]

I agree! That's the part that most people ask me about. I try to explain it to them, but if they heard it from him, it would be much more credible.

[Malakai0]

Russert is great at exposing politicians lies and bullshit.

Ron has none of either, don't be so worried!

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Russert is great at exposing politicians lies and bullshit.

Ron has none of either, don't be so worried!

+1

[LFOD]

mark my words

MTP focused on corruptiveness with Rudy
MTP focused on flip flopping with Romney

MTP is going to focus on "practicality" with RP - they'll question how realistic it is to say you can get rid of the IRS, CIA, homeland security, etc. those are all nice things to say, but if you can't deliver, why should anyone vote for you?

that'll be how he digs RP

Yep I think so too. Given that Russet said he "read his platform" and then I imagine gave that sharky grin of his (I didn't see the clip) I think this the likely scenario. He's going to question the legitimacy or practicality of RP's platform. I watched Russet "build the case" on Romney's flip flopping. He'll probably go after what is peceived to be the candidate's biggest weakness. He won't dare try to build the racist case. Look what RP did to Cavuto on that. Russert won't be doing anything that might damage *his* reputation, and reckless accusations of racism would do that.

He may go for the "numbers don't add up" strategy. RP would do well to do a little preparation for this, so he has his facts ready.

[richk]

I'm talking about questions asked to him by the media. The "replete with references to God" stuff was brought up strictly here on the forum, and you seem to be making a personal crusade over it, so im going to take you up to task. The Declaration of Independance CLEARLY refers to nature's God and a Creator endowing inalienable rights. The Constitution was made with the ideals of the declaration in mind, to set up a government that would preserve those inalienable rights. He referenced the two together, though it is clearly the declaration that spells this out. He then uses the word replete - probably not the best word choice, but oh well. The point was the rights are endowed by our creator, whether you believe this or not is irrelevant, as the nature of those rights still remains. Now while he was wrong you match these together, his point still stands in that writing piece you are referencing, that they do indeed reference God - the Constitution references the inalientable rights with the assumptions laid out in the Declaration tied in. So while yes, it was a slightly inaccurate statement with some hyperbole, you are making it out as if there is no reference to God and Ron is completely fabricating everything he says.

You are turning this into your own personal crusade, as if it is an issue that will actually be brought up. It won't. Its really not all that controversial. We had a ridiculously long thread, started by Kade, over this, and atheists will cringe, but you know what? Nowhere in that piece does Ron Paul say anything about secular people being "bad". He says the secular LEFT, which as we all know, the left is indeed a lover of big government. The secular LEFT is different from "secular America", and is different from the religious left. His point was simply that seperation of state was not intended to be a rigid doctrine where public officials were not allowed to express their religion. Some founding fathers wrote on the doctrine, but in terms of actual codified law, the second amendment is the only basis for seperation of church and state. It simply means that laws shall not pertain to religion. It doesnt even say "laws shall not be written by people with religious biases", it simply says, congress shall write no law prohibiting or establishing religion. Thats it. It doesnt mean seperation ought to or ought not to exist, it simply means it doesn exist in the way some leftists argue. As for the constitution/Declaration bit, so he uses the wrong word. He uses "replete" instead of "contains". So what. You are arguing semantics. This is not really a big deal.

As for the interview, like i said, Ron Paul will be hit with some very tough questions, but I dont think its anything he's never heard before. It will simply be everything all at once, rather than in different interviews. Anything that appears to be "dirt" has been asnwered, and while the answers might not satisfy everyone, they are genuine. The real difficulty will be selling some of his policies, and not everyone that watches will agree, but it will also be an excellent chance to really expose the message in full force, with a chance to dispel some of the misinformation.

Sorry I have upset you, I was just curious how he (Paul) answered that question, since you inferred that he (Paul) had. I wasn't asking anybody's personal opinion on it; just Ron's. But I do appreciate the time you took to write that lengthy reply. :) It's not a crusade; merely an area I was concerned with. I am going to assume he's never had to answer it.

I wasn't in the least bit worried about the religious aspect of the Constitution or his article, simply the validity of what he said. It just seems like a big misstatemnt for a person well versed in those 2 documents. I only worried about an argument such as "you are such a believer in the DOI and the Constitution, how can you misstate something so badly?" or something to that effect. But you are probably right, I am probably just worried about nothing. :)

I had no idea that this subject had been previously discussed in the forum. It must have been before I had started reading here.

Just to be clear, I have been waiting for a real chance at getting a "libertarian" in office for a long time. This is it; I guess I'm just oveerreacting to all the BS lately. :(

[Godbag]

" I e-mailed the campaign asking them to spend money on a CPA or a tax pro or something to do an analysis to see if Ron Paul's claim is correct, but of course I got no reply."

Maybe thats something the grassroots could do... Start a chip-in...

[doronster195]

youtube bump

[Paul4Prez]

If anyone can hang in with Russert for an hour and come out looking good, it's Ron Paul.

I suspect he will go after every unusual item in Ron Paul's platform or past writings, rather than pointing out that Ron Paul is the most mainstream candidate running, the only one who is with the majority of voters on all of the top issues:

He will bring the troops home from Iraq (issue #1)

He's against illegal immigration (issue #2)

He's a doctor who won't make US health care worse by turning it over to the government (issue #3)

He's for less spending, a balanced budget, and lower taxes (issue #4)

He's for civil liberties (issue #5)


Seriously. I am tired of people calling him kooky, and not pointing out that Ron Paul is the most mainstream candidate running.

On top of that, he has the strongest record of any presidential candidate in the past 200 years when it comes to personal integrity and principled consistency -- both things that will lead voters to support him, even if they disagree on some issues.

Our biggest challenge right now is getting people to believe that Ron Paul has a chance to win.

[driller80545]

With all the years that Dr. Paul has been studying economics, I am sure that he can handle the tax question or any question about the economy on any level that Tim Russert wants to take it. He is much more educated on these issues and his ideas are the result of years of reflection. There is no way that TR has comparable knowledge about money. I hope he does challenge him to be more specific, and I am sure that Dr. Paul can be as specific as he needs to be!

[kaberUSA]

Yea, Paul made Cavuto look rather stupid. I'm sure he was expecting Dr. Paul to fall in step with the other politicians by stating they will refund the donation.

[Shellshock1918]

I hope he is in the studio for this one. I didn't like the satellite linked beck interview.

[user]

With all the years that Dr. Paul has been studying economics, I am sure that he can handle the tax question or any question about the economy on any level that Tim Russert wants to take it. He is much more educated on these issues and his ideas are the result of years of reflection. There is no way that TR has comparable knowledge about money. I hope he does challenge him to be more specific, and I am sure that Dr. Paul can be as specific as he needs to be!
This is not true when it comes to specific numbers. Russert will have those in front of him. It looks like the "revenues of seven years ago" thing may already have been debunked.

[ThePieSwindler]

Sorry I have upset you, I was just curious how he (Paul) answered that question, since you inferred that he (Paul) had. I wasn't asking anybody's personal opinion on it; just Ron's. But I do appreciate the time you took to write that lengthy reply. :) It's not a crusade; merely an area I was concerned with. I am going to assume he's never had to answer it.

I wasn't in the least bit worried about the religious aspect of the Constitution or his article, simply the validity of what he said. It just seems like a big misstatemnt for a person well versed in those 2 documents. I only worried about an argument such as "you are such a believer in the DOI and the Constitution, how can you misstate something so badly?" or something to that effect. But you are probably right, I am probably just worried about nothing. :)

I had no idea that this subject had been previously discussed in the forum. It must have been before I had started reading here.

Just to be clear, I have been waiting for a real chance at getting a "libertarian" in office for a long time. This is it; I guess I'm just oveerreacting to all the BS lately. :(

Upset me? Hardly. I'm not an evangelical christian by any means. But that doesn't mean i won't defend them when facts are in their favor - im not selective by any means. There are 3 references to God in the DOI, none in the constitution. Although he was wrong about saying it was in the constitution, the entire idea of the delcaration very, very strongly states Divide Providence, Nature's God, and a Creator. While i personally dont believe this HAS to be the source of inalienable rights, Ron is not off base when saying this, althought replete was probably too strong a word. Thats all im argueing. It definately wont be brought up, since its very obscure, and the only place ive ever seen it brought up was here on the forums in one long drawn out thread, and its really not something russert would waste time on even if he did know about it.

[austin356]

Seriously. I am tired of people calling him kooky, and not pointing out that Ron Paul is the most mainstream candidate running.

Paul the "most mainstream candidate"?
LOL


Relative to the current political establishment (which in this context is what mainstream is referring to) Ron Paul is the most radical candidate and the most radical elected national lawmaker in God only knows long.

[wfd40]

Yeah, I hope someone in the campaign is scribbling notes from that.

LOL.. there's a better chance of the cows coming home than that actually happening

=/

[wfd40]

I would say 100% believe it's real...the debate is whether it's man-made or not. We may never know that one.

But we do know for certain that most 'green technology' is more cost efficient in the long term...

But with govn't propping up big oil... how the heck can it compete?? It can't, and so, it wont...

A Paul Presidency will hopefully change all of that.

[frasu]

youtube? just wanted to see the ninja face of Russert...

[gjdavis60]

You consider one reference replete??
I am not going to debate this with you for obvious reasons, but there is 1 reference to God in both those documents. Replete means an abundance of...
For someone who is an expert on the Constitution, to make a statement that these 2 documents are replete with references to God, is quite a misstatement. And yes, it concerns me if this is brought up. It damages his credibility. Enough said??
The spirit of Ron's "replete" statement is much more correct than people might realize. There is an excellent thread here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=59547)on the Fourteenth Amendment (1848) which has been used inconsistently, and some argue improperly, to force the Bill of Rights onto state governments, which prior to the Fourteenth Amendment the Constitution expressly forbade. In fact, at the time the First Amendment was drafted there were at least three state churches! The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment were designed to prohibit the newly formed federal government from interfering with the states' handling of religion, not to remove religion from all government within the Republic. That only began with the controversial interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment known as the incorporation doctrine.

Using the SCOTUS and the First Amendment to interfere with the display of the Ten Commandments in a local courthouse was, as far as I can tell, the furthest thing from the minds of the founders when they drafted the First Amendment.

I'm sure Ron knows all this, and if pressed will give TR and the rest of the country a much-needed history lesson. I know I have learned more about US history from RP and the rEVOLution than I ever did in school.

[richk]

Upset me? Hardly. I'm not an evangelical christian by any means. But that doesn't mean i won't defend them when facts are in their favor - im not selective by any means. There are 3 references to God in the DOI, none in the constitution. Although he was wrong about saying it was in the constitution, the entire idea of the delcaration very, very strongly states Divide Providence, Nature's God, and a Creator. While i personally dont believe this HAS to be the source of inalienable rights, Ron is not off base when saying this, althought replete was probably too strong a word. Thats all im argueing. It definately wont be brought up, since its very obscure, and the only place ive ever seen it brought up was here on the forums in one long drawn out thread, and its really not something russert would waste time on even if he did know about it.

OK, sounds good to me. Thanks :)

[richk]

:)
The spirit of Ron's "replete" statement is much more correct than people might realize. There is an excellent thread here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=59547)on the Fourteenth Amendment (1848) which has been used inconsistently, and some argue improperly, to force the Bill of Rights onto state governments, which prior to the Fourteenth Amendment the Constitution expressly forbade. In fact, at the time the First Amendment was drafted there were at least three state churches! The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment were designed to prohibit the newly formed federal government from interfering with the states' handling of religion, not to remove religion from all government within the Republic. That only began with the controversial interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment known as the incorporation doctrine.

Using the SCOTUS and the First Amendment to interfere with the display of the Ten Commandments in a local courthouse was, as far as I can tell, the furthest thing from the minds of the founders when they drafted the First Amendment.

I'm sure Ron knows all this, and if pressed will give TR and the rest of the country a much-needed history lesson. I know I have learned more about US history from RP and the rEVOLution than I ever did in school.

Cool. Between you and what Pie said, sounds like nothing to worry about. Now to get thru the BS racist crap. :(

Thanks for the reply. :)