Poll: How well did Ron do on Meet The Press

[Vendico]

Please don't vote until you've watched the whole thing.

Part 1 of 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saDw03JXigA

Part 2 of 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgTqSu-ZVFM

Part 3 of 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-iJP4BAAQ4

Part 4 of 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCSY438wpCk

[Forefall]

Not a home run but a triple and two runs knocked in, I think.

[Ron Paul Fan]

10/10. It was a home run. It was a grand slam. Paul knocked all 4 runs in. His next time at bat, he hits another grand slam! That's what this interview was. Those who say differently must have been watching the Giuliani interview by mistake.

[homah]

10/10. It was a home run. It was a grand slam. Paul knocked all 4 runs in. His next time at bat, he hits another grand slam! That's what this interview was. Those who say differently must have been watching the Giuliani interview by mistake.

He got destroyed on the earmarks business.

[0zzy]

I think he needed to explain the Civil Rights Act a bit better (public institutions are fine but private property is private property).

hrm, earmarks wasn't too harmful. Should of asked, "So, if I didn't earmark it, the money would be sent to the Department of X, Y, and Z and they would determine how the spend the money rather than elected officials? That doesn't make sense."

I like the snake pit thing. "Is it not constitutional to amend the constitution?"

etc.etc.

[Ron Paul Fan]

He got destroyed on the earmarks business.

He did not get destroyed. He explained it good enough and the people who criticize him on it like you and liberal hack Tim Russert probably don't understand the system. I would encourage you to look into that a little bit more as the system is bad, and Paul is doing what he can to alleviate that as a representative for his district. He opposes the federal income tax, but submits bills to give tax credits. He's doing his best under the system. The earmarks don't increase the budget. Don't give the money to the beauacrats to spend. RESEARCH!

[Forefall]

I think Russert got destroyed on the earmarks business. :P

[cortiz]

The money was taken from his constituents, it is his responsibility to see to it that some of the money is brought back home...Now would let your people down and not try and improve your community...Would you rather the federal government spend it as they see fit, ala War, Wellfare, etc...etc....I think his argument was great it might of gone over some peoples head but masterfull none the less:o

[homah]

He did not get destroyed. He explained it good enough and the people who criticize him on it like you and liberal hack Tim Russert probably don't understand the system. I would encourage you to look into that a little bit more as the system is bad, and Paul is doing what he can to alleviate that as a representative for his district. He opposes the federal income tax, but submits bills to give tax credits. He's doing his best under the system. The earmarks don't increase the budget. Don't give the money to the beauacrats to spend. RESEARCH!

I plan on researching. However, not everyone is like me. That segment did not come off well. He could have explained his position a hell of a lot better. God forbid I suggest that he didn't answer a SINGLE QUESTION in the interview perfectly.

[cortiz]

I did not read your threat correctly...Sorry at least we are two soldiers on the same side....:p

[JacobLyles]

Reviewing the youtubes....

[ShowMeLiberty]

Dr. Paul was brilliant!

I agree with this post from the LRC Blog (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/):


A+++
Posted by James Ostrowski at 08:34 AM
Since I'm a college professor now (con law), I can give Ron Paul a big A+++ for his masterful performance on Meet the Press.

He made Tim look silly more than once.

Tim, it's constitutional to amend the constitution. You're an attorney and you should know that.


PS: Lew Rockwell also thinks Dr. Paul did a great job.

[Ron Paul Fan]

I plan on researching. However, not everyone is like me. That segment did not come off well. He could have explained his position a hell of a lot better. God forbid I suggest that he didn't answer a SINGLE QUESTION in the interview perfectly.

Well that's your opinion. The opinion of myself and most people who saw this interview is that he did a phenomnenal job. He answered EVERY QUESTION in the interview perfectly.

[N13]

Russert was throwing hardballs and bean balls.

Dr. Paul hung in there and made the best of a tough situation. He even hit a few back at the pitcher.

[homah]

Well that's your opinion. The opinion of myself and most people who saw this interview is that he did a phenomnenal job. He answered EVERY QUESTION in the interview perfectly.

Of course it's my opinion. That's the point of this thread! For whatever it's worth, I gave him an 8. I thought he did quite well overall. Just because I suggest that he was weak on one question doesn't mean I don't believe it was a solid interview for the most part.

[literatim]

People just gotta remember, that it is not the object to convince or impress the interviewer, but the public. :)

[JMann]

He got destroyed on the earmarks business.

I thought he ultimately did a good job. Tim, if I didn't participate in the system I wouldn't be elected to represent people. I want to change the system.

[thoughtbombing]

He got destroyed on the earmarks business.

I hate to say it, but I agree... hell, even I was talking about burning the witch during that part... this shit couldn't have been good at all... at a certain point people should be honest with themselves and say that RP did terrible compared to how he normally does... he may not have LOST any votes, but he didn't gain any and that was the point!

[synthetic]

He did very well in this interview. The earmark response was one of his best. The question was long, drawn out and meant to put him on the defensive. He turned it around effectively.

[mwkaufman]

I thought his earmark response was a little weak, but overall good interview, I gave him an 8. But what I feel about it doesn't really matter.

My sister is a Physician Assistant in Michigan that was going to vote for Obama until the Democrats did their nonsense. All the references to 87-88 made her remember that back in 5th Grade she had voted for Ron Paul during a student election of sorts and her teacher made her explain herself and everyone thought she was crazy. :p So at my Christmas household, we're 4 of 4 in going to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, unfortunately 3 of us live in Massachusetts. :( She also mentioned that their is a lot of support amongst PAs and Doctors in her Detroit-area hospital.

[homah]

I thought he ultimately did a good job. Tim, if I didn't participate in the system I wouldn't be elected to represent people. I want to change the system.

Admittedly, it is likely that part of the reason I didn't like the answer is because I am wet around the ears. It may have been a good answer for people who have an intimate understanding of earmarks, but I'm pretty sure it didn't come off well for casual observers, whose votes we are trying to gain.

[literatim]

I hate to say it, but I agree... hell, even I was talking about burning the witch during that part... this shit couldn't have been good at all... at a certain point people should be honest with themselves and say that RP did terrible compared to how he normally does... he may not have LOST any votes, but he didn't gain any and that was the point!

You do know that most people don't know what an earmark is at all?

[cero]

exactly guys GUYS... I don't know wth an earmark is, and I DARN BET more than half of the American people don't know what it is either so, I didn''t really matter how well he did, if people don't even know wth hes talking about!

[AlexMerced]

The earmarks portion wasn't bad, but he's done a lot better on addressing the issue, but the interview was a lot better than I expected

And no mention of Don Black or Truthers, it was all based on his record making it the fairest interview he's had yet.

[LibertyEagle]

He needs to clarify the Reagan thing. It will hurt us with Republicans.

[emilysdad]

I think Russert got destroyed on the earmarks business. :P

+10

[Commander Yo]

Wow Russert was visibly seething with contempt for Dr. Ron Paul! I can't remember an interview where there was such blatant contempt for the person being interviewed as shown by Russert towards Dr. Paul.

Overall alas it must be a C minus for Dr. Paul. He was blindsided by the vicious nature of Russert. I hardly think that Obama and Huckabee will be treated in such a way.

Truly unbelievable. This is what we are up against. Tim Russert and the establishment know something is up with Dr. Paul and our campaign to restore America! They are scared and are attacking like a cornered Rat.

[MadViking10]

I thought he did excellent. The only time he had some trouble was in the middle when Russert was trying to get him to fold. He was quickly jumping from question to question on different topics. This is an interrigation technique however Russert failed badly in trying to get Ron Paul to step on his tounge.

[wfd40]

Well that's your opinion. The opinion of myself and most people who saw this interview is that he did a phenomnenal job. He answered EVERY QUESTION in the interview perfectly.

Come on man, lets be a little objective here... It took Paul a good 5 minutes to get his sea-legs... but after that he was money

[LibertyEagle]

Wow Russert was visibly seething with contempt for Dr. Ron Paul! I can't remember an interview where there was such blatant contempt for the person being interviewed as shown by Russert towards Dr. Paul.



He eviscerated Giuliani and Romney. Russert is just a tough interviewer.

[Doriath]

Paul did fine. I thought it was funny how every time the camera cut to Russert all you saw was the top of his head.

[tonyTheBest]

RP responded superbly. He even got Tim cornered on the earmark question. He said to Tim "you are totally confused". Just like saying I'm against Social Security but not taking its benefit.

In the end, please remember this: Ron Paul is not a saint (St Peter did make mistakes too and any other Saint). He does make mistakes but what matter is he made a lot less mistakes than any others.

[N13]

I think Ron Paul gained a lot of new supporters today. What people hear and remember is not the same as the objective event. Many disgruntled voters, people who are looking for a candidate, or those whoremain undecided may latch on to just a few sentences that resonate with them. It could be the Israel talk, the notion of fascism, the foreign policy, the crack about Iran attacking mars...Regualr Meet the Press Viewers might be impressed with the way RP stood up to the attack and see it as a sign of strength.

Ron Paul certainly did not lose any supporters. I'd guess that we have some new support flowing our way.

[Dorfsmith]

I tought it was great. I gave the interview a 9. The Earmarks answer was not that bad. The weakest answer was on term limits. Other than that, I thought it was amazing. Very stong ending :cool:

[Commander Yo]

Yeah this might be russerts style, but he clearly had a deep contempt For Dr. Paul. Highlights were certainly the Social Security question and the republican question.

Dr. Paul is what the republican party should be like, and conservatives realize that.

[GhostofPerditionRP'08]

I gave him an 8, he could have done a little better job explaining things, but for the most part, I thought he did well and handled Russert's tough interviewing tactics, he did not flip-flop and squirm like some other people would have *cough Romney cough*:D

[JacobLyles]

Part 1 is great!

[Matthew Zak]

He got destroyed on the earmarks business.

But anyone watching would know that Ron Paul wasn't given a chance to explain himself though he was eager and willing to do so.

[Kombaiyashii]

No ones mentioned his foreign policy, he ties it so well with the tax system, this is what I think is his most attractive position.

Russert should know that the earmark thing is a non issue, if Ron wasn't to accept them then the money would go through the machine once more, instread he spent it wisely. It's annoying that most Americans will probably just take it at face value and side with Russert.

The fascism question was the best and so was Lincoln...And I loved the plug for America Freedom to Fascism at the end.

[ggibson1]

At my job I am a "software engineer" or "software consultant" or "software architect" ... I like it when the IT people or the CEO of a company gives me very hard questions.. because it allows me to see the heart of their concerns so I can answer them with clear truth... this gives them confidence in me about their worst fears of what might go wrong.. and I know that makes them feel better about me being on THEIR side...

This is exactly what happened in this interview... Russert was not mean... he put together a list of questions that was at the heart of what some people out there might fear is laying in the dark about Ron Paul... and Ron Paul answered them all with geniuine truth and common sense... it didnt sound like flowery politician speak at all... it was great!

[Myerz]

He's coming around.....putting MSM where they belong!

They pull it out of context........it puts in context

[parke]

He ended it perfectly.

[Mandrik]

I gave it an 8 before reading any other opinions on the speech. Guess I'm in the same boat as most. I thought everything up until the earmark part was great. I think he could have done a better job explaining the earmark bit, because a lot of people don't get it and won't understand that what he's talking about makes sense.

The fact that he mentioned Freedom to Fascism was GREAT, but I think it's going to make a lot of people uncomfortable hearing him talk about "soft fascism." I don't necessarily think this is a bad idea, but some folks may find it a bit insulting to think that our awesome never-do-anything-wrong country would be headed in such a bad direction. On the other end of the spectrum, I think some folks were introduced to Ron Paul for the first time and are about to wake up when they spend some time researching the things he was talking about. There are still a lot of intellectuals who haven't really heard about Ron Paul, and I think this interview is going to give them the push in the right direction.

[hcbrand]

I thought Dr. Paul held his own, but why only a half hour? Did you watch the 'roundtable' sit around talking '5 dimensional chess' polling strategies? I hope people did because it came off as EXACTLY what is wrong with politics and press in this country.

Zero substance.

"Tim, it is constitutional to ammend the...oh, nevermind. You're an idiot."

[JAALIUS]

10/10

Whoever gave Ron Paul less than that are those who try to be politically correct and try to spin the facts

the man is not a liar...

Because he speaks the truth...

and the truth HURTS!!!

ouch!!!

thats why he did better than all the other candidates

cause he spoke the truth & admitted his mistakes and didnt flip flop

again

ouch !!!

[RevolutionSD]

I thought it was decent, 8/10.
I REALLY don't care for Russert's style of just firing one question after another. I prefer conversational interviews where the interviewer acknowledges when he understands the interviewee. Russert is like an attack dog.

Also, why did the Paul interview go 30 minutes straight while everyone elese has several segments with commercials? I think they should have had at least one break in there.

[LibertyForAll]

I thought it was a fair interview considering Russert's style and approach with the other candidates. Good media exposure for Ron Paul.

[B of R guy]

Every Republican and many Democrats get a rough time on Meet the Press. I thought the worst part was the alleged remarks on Reagan as a "traitor" and "failure".
RP disavowed the one but that (even though relative to government spending Reagan was a major failure) hurts with old Republicans.

[Eponym_mi]

Ron Paul didn't cry.:)

[JacobLyles]

GREAT first impression, waffles through the rest. I give him an 8.

[Paulitician]

I think Ron handled it splendidly. The only thing he has to work on is his speech. I don't think Ron got destroyed on the earmarks question. It was Tim Russert who doesn't understand that even if you never include earmarks, that doesn't mean you cut spending. Of course, it depends on how it is perceived. People who don't understand the aforementioned fact, will then see it negatively. Otherwise, I'd say Ron showed himself to be Russert's intellectual superior. Even still, I don't think Russert was that bad. He did ask some stupid questions but I'm glad Ron got to actually explain his positions and talk about policy on MSM.

[undergroundrr]

9/10. OUTSTANDING work by Dr. Paul. I liked his answers on everything, and some were 12 out of 10. Although I liked the earmarks answers, I thought his laughing, dismissive tone looked like he was covering frustration.

There were so many high points. He was very assertive, passionate and focused. Everything foreign policy was TOTALLY out of the park. His repeated appeal for "constitution-sized" government is very effective.

I think Russert really looked like he had to dig to find anything, deep in the bowels of speeches from 1987. The Reagan "traitor" thing was unethical journalism, presented as a quote when it wasn't. Paul benefitted from getting to shoot it down.

The roundtable was a farce. The sense of "don't talk about paul so we can minimize the damage from that interview" was palpable.

Flying colors.

[chiplitfam]

I agree with Commander Yo. It is is so blatantly obvious that these people are squirming. They are simply not used to someone who is revealing their corruption. Immediately afterwards, they showed the new manipulated polls and Ron was not even listed, right after Tim had just interviewed him! That is OK. It just helps reveal to the American public their extreme bias. What they are fearing the most is that they are beginning to realize that they are losing their power over people. Again, my greatest fears center around the corrupt election voting machines. That is the issue we need to be discussing.

[paulitics]

I gave him a 6, only by taking off my Ron Paul, libertarian bias off first. From the perspective of an uneducated viewer, I think he came off weak on the earmarks, cutting budget programs like Dept of Ed, fanciful notion of eliminating all income tax. The Reagan quotes were kind of misleading, and he handled himself OK, but repubs think he is a mesiah, and is beyond reproach, so this will hurt some with them.

I think he scored well on points of us becoming a fascist empire. I think that will resonate with most libertarian leaning democrats and repubs. For the party loyalists, I don't think Dr. Paul changed their minds much. For those not much attuned with politics, they will likely find him eccentic and interesting, or some will be turned off. I think he nailed it at the very end though at may allow some to research him further.

Russert is tough as nails, and most go away with a haircut in their poll standings. Look at Giuiani's poll numbers since he soiled his pants with his grilling. Huckster will run the same guantlet and will face just as tough a grilling. I'm actually surprised any Repub would subject themself to it since Russert shows no mercy.

[JacobLyles]

I gave him a 6, only by taking off my Ron Paul, libertarian bias off first. From the perspective of an uneducated viewer, I think he came off weak on the earmarks, cutting budget programs like Dept of Ed, fanciful notion of eliminating all income tax. The Reagan quotes were kind of misleading, and he handled himself OK, but repubs think he is a mesiah, and is beyond reproach, so this will hurt some with them.

I think he scored well on points of us becoming a fascist empire. I think that will resonate with most libertarian leaning democrats and repubs. For the party loyalists, I don't think Dr. Paul changed their minds much. For those not much attuned with politics, they will likely find him eccentic and interesting, or some will be turned off. I think he nailed it at the very end though at may allow some to research him further.

Russert is tough as nails, and most go away with a haircut in their poll standings. Look at Giuiani's poll numbers since he soiled his pants with his grilling. Huckster will run the same guantlet and will face just as tough a grilling. I'm actually surprised any Repub would subject themself to it since Russert shows no mercy.

When is the Huckster going on?

[Mandrik]

By the way, for those complaining about time and Russert's style, that's just how the show is. I used to DVR it all the time, but don't really care much about the show any more. He usually fires question after question trying to find a weakness in an answer. If he gets it, he jumps on it. If the answer is good, he moves on. The style of the RP interview is pretty much the same style of all his interviews. He loves to quote what someone said 28385739857983 years ago and try to use it against his guest.

That's how Russert rolls, folks.

[Mark Rushmore]

The earmarks thing (although the 30 second wall of quotes Russert put up to force his point before any discussion took place should discredit it) would only be harmful if someone turned off the interview at that point - otherwise it's just a drip.

The Reagan quote was a smear, no policy question even near that one, just a pure "Look what I found to put up on the screen, ha!" bit.

The Civil Rights thing he didn't do a horrible job, he didn't make some egregious error, but I feel he could have explained the property issue better.

All-in-all at some points he was trying so hard to squeeze a full and proper answer in that he got tongue-twisted and hopped around sentence to sentence. Somehow, in his case that just made him seem more enthusiastic and gave the impression that he could go on to answer these things fully - but it's the sort of thing that some people might react to low-level.

Anyways - compared to Giuliani who just crumbled in the same format - we had a very strong showing.

Most people are only going to remember the end anyway - and the fascism part stood out - not least of all just for being under discussion.

[manuel]

I felt like Dr. Paul was too much on the defensive. I understand that he came in with the mentality that Tim Rusert was going to be on the attack, but I like it better when he responds in a "teaching" manner. I don't like it when we have to "defend" our philosophy. I don't think that we get the message out properly. We have to explain and "teach" our philosophy so that it comes out clearly.

[paulitics]

When is the Huckster going on?

I think next week.

[atilla]

he really needs to do some, (meditation-practice-deep breathing-visualization) or something to slow down when answering questions. i think he may have got into that mode with the debates and oreilly trying to squeeze in his point in the time alloted, but it is not that effective. if they try to cut him off and ask another question just keep answering the original question till he finishes, and if they object, i think that wins him points with the audience.

when he talks that fast he gets crossed up and doesn't give complete sentences. we mentally fill in the blanks because we know were he's going (go through and transcribe todays interview if you don't believe me), i think the uninformed stand to get confused on some of those answers when he does that. also, just the fact of talking fast makes it difficult for someone to process and understand if the material is new to them.

go on the youtubes, take a random 30 second of ron paul speaking and count the number of words. then next week when huckabee is on do the same with him. i guarantee huckabees rate will be much lower. huckabee is well trained having been preacher. if ron paul had gone to seminary like his brother and gotten ten years of preaching experience before he entered politics, he would probably be leading every poll right now.

[Ksuperneau]

10/10
Dr. Paul commands respect from his works not through bravado or force.

[deehrler]

I think that RP did marvelous under the circumstances.

On the IRS, I felt that he did not come across as convincing as I would have liked.

On earmarks, though convincing if you could follow his words...he seemed a little flippant.

I wish he had said that as President of the US he would fight to stay out of a World Government. But if that were the case, he would get any damned earmark that our nation is entitled to while working against that destructive system.

The answer would have been much simpler and less apologetic.

He also had his awesome messages.

[j.b.]

In retrospect I think that he fared much better on the Glenn Beck show, then on Meet the Press”. Tim Russert was putting on a full court press with some of the quotes being obscure quotes out of the 1980’s. Unfortunately it was not more of a discussion on his positions as they apply to today’s world. I felt I was being charitable giving it a “7”. I have to admit it had been years since I last watched Meet the Press.

[Jobarra]

I gave him a 6, only by taking off my Ron Paul, libertarian bias off first. From the perspective of an uneducated viewer, I think he came off weak on the earmarks, cutting budget programs like Dept of Ed, fanciful notion of eliminating all income tax. The Reagan quotes were kind of misleading, and he handled himself OK, but repubs think he is a mesiah, and is beyond reproach, so this will hurt some with them.

I think he scored well on points of us becoming a fascist empire. I think that will resonate with most libertarian leaning democrats and repubs. For the party loyalists, I don't think Dr. Paul changed their minds much. For those not much attuned with politics, they will likely find him eccentic and interesting, or some will be turned off. I think he nailed it at the very end though at may allow some to research him further.

Russert is tough as nails, and most go away with a haircut in their poll standings. Look at Giuiani's poll numbers since he soiled his pants with his grilling. Huckster will run the same guantlet and will face just as tough a grilling. I'm actually surprised any Repub would subject themself to it since Russert shows no mercy.
Last I heard, they only interviewed Dr. Paul because Huckabee CANCELLED his appearance on the show. They had Dr. Paul take Huck's spot. I doubt he'll go on the show now. He's a bit smarter than the other attention seekers. He thinks he's at the top and he just needs to hold out for another week or so and win a state.

For the interview, I think Tim is right to ask tough questions, HOWEVER, some of the questions were too manipulative to be considered honest criticism. Cutting what Dr. Paul said after the Sinclair quote was one. Reading "George Bush is a bum..." but not showing the statement after the ellipsis. Forming the statement about Reagan as if Paul said traitor(at least they put the article up where it showed that traitor was outside the quote marks).

This is just a tiny fragment of what will happen when Dr. Paul gets the nomination for the general election. Expect attacks like this. Thankfully, there isn't much to attack with so hopefully it will get repititive to the general public. Anyone else think that they will STILL ask him if he is going to run third party when he gets the nomination for the general election? :D

[allyinoh]

I have to let people know that my family who is not all that political savvy, watched the interview and after said, "He has my vote."

If people who don't really know much about politics can say afterwards that they will vote for him, it couldn't have been that bad.

[Kombaiyashii]

This was just on CNBC Europe and my mum watched the second half of it and said that he seemed nice and would do more research (if she was american). She watched part of last weeks Giuliani interview and absolutely hated the guy.

My mum would probably fit into your liberal progressive type so it seems like the interview was pretty good.

[filmmaker58]

I graded it a 5. If the hope for this interview was to influence new people to the cause (which should be the focus of every interview now), rather than just defend his positions. I think it was a 5. Overall, the thing new people will take from this is that eliminating the income tax is not really possible, and that his other ideas probably fall into that same category.

[UCFGavin]

i went with a 7. there were some questions i wished he answered differently, but he held his own quite well.

[Enzo]

I thought Paul did well to explain and defend his past and current positions.

Tim Russert is just brutal. I think he did deliberately try to dig up past statements to try to make Paul look bad... but it's nothing new. That's what he does.

For example, this nice piece of ownage with John McCain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajm5JTf7jZs

[Corydoras]

I don't see that Russert was at all hostile. This was like a martial arts match, not a grudge match.

[Leslie Webb]

I gave him a 7. Very good on many points, such as foreign policy. Was disappointed there was no discussion of monetary policy. Probably because Russert would have been out of his league.

- I think the campaign needs to write up a 30 second-1 minute sound bite for him on the earmarks question.

- In future debates it would be better to have a few more hard numbers about the IRS abolition. Paul mentioned a study that backed him up. Next time give a little more information about the study, such as what think tank did it, when it was done, and what the main conclusions were.

- Many people remember not what a candidate says but how he says it. I think in future debates or tough interviews Ron should speak more slowly and smile more while speaking. He is very winning when he is relaxed and answering questions, like in the John Stossel interview or the Jim Cramer interview. In future debates or high pressure interviews, if he could get into more of a comfort zone, like he was in the Stossel and Cramer interviews, I think he would be more persuasive.

- This interview is a good warm-up for future debates and the general election. We know what the grenades we'll be tossed are.

[bgoldwater]

5/10. The earmarks killed him. However, that is not that bad since it is impossible to do good on MTP. Russert grills everyone.

[Minnesotastan]

Russert's questions were tough, but I don't think there was any answer (earmarks, Reagan, civil rights included) that will dissuade any current Ron Paul supporter. When most candidates are one MTP they gain some supporters but lose others; Ron Paul is likely to have a net gain, perhaps in the tens of thousands. More importantly the simple face and name exposure will prompt the unwashed public to pay more attention to him in the future, and when he does well in IA/NH they will know who he is. That's the best one can ask for in these early stages of the process.

Of note, the paulcash graph shows a bump upward during and after the Meet The Press interview. This may continue for a while since the program airs at different times in the western time zones.

[bootstrap]

I've never seen anyone attacked so unfairly, viciously and incessantly by Russert or any other supposedly serious interview - especially of a presidential candidate!

Clearly somebody read Russert the riot act and told him in no uncertain terms that he better "trash that guy and trash him good". Russert didn't give Ron enough time to explain himself clearly on any topic - he just kept his finger down on the trigger of his automatic weapon of "loaded questions", all of which were carefully prepared to make Ron look crazy or corrupt.

Ron gave reasonable answers to the earmark question, though Russert made sure it wasn't clear to the average listener (and some of you in this forum). To make the point more exactly and clearly for those you didn't "get it", I'll give my interpretation here. The government has stolen the money from the taxpayers already. Ron Paul doesn't want the money spent - he'd rather the money pay off the debt (and eventually not even be needed for that, and therefore returned). So Ron votes AGAINST the bills - does his best to make sure the money for those "earmarks" do not get spent. However, if he FAILS to stop the money from being spent, he can at least have some of the spending benefit his district. After all, they paid their taxes - so if they can't pay down the debt with it, they should at least get something for them. That's NOT what he wants, that's his way to limit the damages.

[Jobarra]

I thought Paul did well to explain and defend his past and current positions.

Tim Russert is just brutal. I think he did deliberately try to dig up past statements to try to make Paul look bad... but it's nothing new. That's what he does.

For example, this nice piece of ownage with John McCain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajm5JTf7jZs
Went to that youtube and then found this.
Conan: Meet the Press - For Idiots (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBE2h8Gdmvc)

I couldn't help laughing out loud. A nice comic bit after watching the interview.

[itsnobody]

I think he horrible on the Reagan thing and ok on the Earmarks thing...so I have to give him a 7/10

He's running as a Republican candidate, Republicans won't like him saying Reagan was a failure

[DrNoZone]

I gave him a 6...pretty disappointed by this one actually. I was hoping he'd done his homework and had prepared for Tim's hard style of questioning, but he looked totally unprepared.

[itsnobody]

If Tim grilled Ron Paul this badly, just wait next week and see what happens to Huckabee

[thoughtbombing]

Well that's your opinion. The opinion of myself and most people who saw this interview is that he did a phenomnenal job. He answered EVERY QUESTION in the interview perfectly.


you must have been watching the "RON PAUL RISING" video for too long and just ignored how bad he just did... by bad I don't mean terrible, I mean he did OK... and OK doesn't win votes, it keeps the votes you have. He gained no votes from this interview.

[krott5333]

Russert was throwing hardballs and bean balls.

Dr. Paul hung in there and made the best of a tough situation. He even hit a few back at the pitcher.

It's too bad he didn't charge the mound!

[LibertyEagle]

He's running as a Republican candidate, Republicans won't like him saying Reagan was a failure

Yes, I am VERY concerned about the Reagan thing. That wasn't one of the high points of the interview.

[krott5333]

Wow Russert was visibly seething with contempt for Dr. Ron Paul! I can't remember an interview where there was such blatant contempt for the person being interviewed as shown by Russert towards Dr. Paul.

Overall alas it must be a C minus for Dr. Paul. He was blindsided by the vicious nature of Russert. I hardly think that Obama and Huckabee will be treated in such a way.

Truly unbelievable. This is what we are up against. Tim Russert and the establishment know something is up with Dr. Paul and our campaign to restore America! They are scared and are attacking like a cornered Rat.


And here we have yet another person who has probably never seen MTP before, and immediately assumes it was a "hit piece" and "russert was out to knock him down" and "blah blah blah blah blah".

[itsnobody]

Yes, I am VERY concerned about the Reagan thing. That wasn't one of the high points of the interview.

Yeah, well at least he endorses Reagan's ideas, Ron Paul should explain that he means to say that Reagan didn't succeed in getting rid of big government

[JacobLyles]

you must have been watching the "RON PAUL RISING" video for too long and just ignored how bad he just did... by bad I don't mean terrible, I mean he did OK... and OK doesn't win votes, it keeps the votes you have. He gained no votes from this interview.

The first 10 minutes were excellent and will really resonate with voters who are concerned with peace and the budget. The rest was characterized by weird questions and waffling. Overall, I think it is a net positive.

Also, remember that Paul has little soft support. It is hard for him to lose voters over anything, so in general media exposure is a net positive. Gain 30,000 new voters, lose 2,000 old ones.

[Paulitician]

And here we have yet another person who has probably never seen MTP before, and immediately assumes it was a "hit piece" and "russert was out to knock him down" and "blah blah blah blah blah".
Indeed.

I can't wait for the Huckabee one. It should be great with all the dirt they're able to dig up.

[wfd40]

the youtube video (part 4 of 4) is utterly AMAZING.

[Melissa]

I actually think it was great we can't always expect all questions to be easy but unlike others he answered all questions with no advisors I think it was a perfect interview to show he can handle himself and be smiling while doing it, Don't sweat guys that was good

[RevolutionSD]

Yeah, well at least he endorses Reagan's ideas, Ron Paul should explain that he means to say that Reagan didn't succeed in getting rid of big government

Reagan STARTED the idea of huge deficits.
Ron Paul liked a LOT of what reagan campaigned on: being a non-cfr outsider for small gov't and a humble foreign policy.
Reagan IN OFFICE was nothing of what he campaigned on.
GHW Bush ran his adminstration, and it was big government neoconism. I'm VERY GLAD Ron Paul distanced himself from Reagan while other politicians blindly followed the flawed policies that lead to what we have now.

[cero]

I'm from Central America, and the Reagan policies ruined (and killed) millions of lives back in my home country, (this issue alone will keep many in the latino poplation away from RP) But I'm glad he clarified that point. Also notice that Ron didn't say he was a failure, it was Tim who was putting words in his mouth.
I'm Glad he distanced him self a little from him.

[jdmetz]

I think Ron Paul did great. I only gave him a 7 because I compared to how well he could have answered if he had time to think about each question beforehand and prepare answers to explain himself more clearly.

All of his answers were reasonable and made sense, but for most of them, I could also see someone who doesn't understand the issue being confused at the end.

Anyway, I gave Ron Paul a 7. I've watched Giuliani's and Romney's interviews, and I would give them a 2 and a 5 respectively, so I think he did better than they did.

[jt_54321]

I watched all the 4 parts. Thanks to those who posted them on YouTube and as well as on this site.

I am biased, so I give 9/10, 9 because I have always felt, he can/should communicate a little more slowly and a bit more effectively... I also know it is the Message that should count, not the Messenger, but in reality, all voters are not Dr Paul supporters, YET...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now trying to remove all my bias,

Overall it was a very good interview.

1) I wish Tim hadn't asked about Reagan and his comments/opinions in 1987. But Tim is doing his job, and Dr. Paul didn't answer it to my satisfaction. But it is a good start for a long battle...

2) The earmark question, Dr Paul answered okay, but could have better IMO.

So I give 7.5/10...

just my honest feedback/opinion...

[einjun]

WHAT THE HELL is wrong with some of you guys?!?!?!?! What the f*ck were you expecting? Sensible talk on issues or drama? Drama with Dr. Paul blasting away everything?

He did FANTASTIC on the interview. It as fabulous. Some are complaining that as far as "un-informed" users, he may not have convinced them. If something like this interview can't, nothing can. Nothing sensible, that is. Maybe just start pandering and start appealing to their baser emotions. Looks like that's what some people here want Dr.Paul to do.

[dircha]

He's unfortunately now in the same boat as Romney of having an old quote bashing Reagan.

Fortunately we're at a point now, almost 20 years after Reagan left office, that there is a whole generation that doesn't know much or care much about him.

[Liberty4life]

I listened to it on the radio, I think russert was very hostile toward RP and his questions were designed to give ammo to his adversaries, I would not be surprised to see his responses in their ads, albeit taken out of context, he did not allow RP to clarify some of his points but RP was brilliant in doing it anyway, some issues were still a bit murky, I do however think it was a great interview for RP,
overall I give an 8

[SlapItHigh]

I voted 8. I thought he did really well but I agree with someone else who said he sounded on the defense through most of it. Seriously though I have no idea how he has managed to not bitch slap everyone who attacks him at this point. It has to be getting so old. He deals with this constantly. I think he is an incredible human being for being able to remain so calm throughout this. I just have to mention that because while I think it brought him down from a 10 today, I can't blame him and I actually praise him for not doing worse. I mean he had to be on the defense because Tim was on the offense and there wasn't time for much else. He did turn it around on Tim a few times which was nice. I thought he gave good answers to all of the questions including the ear marks question.

[RockEnds]

Compared to Romney and Giuliani, Paul did fantastic. I thought he showed alot of spunk. It was 1/2 hour of uninterrupted airtime, and Russert did not chop him up into tiny pieces and feed him to scavengers. Comparitively speaking, it was a win. There were times Paul even looked as if he was enjoying the challenge.

Between Meet the Press and the infomercial, Iowa airwaves were packed with Ron Paul this morning. McLaughlin group aired here this morning as well naming Ron Paul person of the year. It was a good Sunday to saturate Iowa. We had a bad storm last night. I'm sure many people who may have usually been out, stayed home this morning instead. The gods smiled on us!

[Paul4Prez]

10 out of 10.

He looked Presidential. He looked sharp. Russert threw everything at him, and nothing stuck.

Awesome.

[homah]

Maybe just start pandering and start appealing to their baser emotions. Looks like that's what some people here want Dr.Paul to do.

Yes, that is exactly what people are saying.

[Abobo]

I voted 9. He did really well -- a few parts he could have explained or phrased things better. But over all he did great.

[itsnobody]

Reagan STARTED the idea of huge deficits.
Ron Paul liked a LOT of what reagan campaigned on: being a non-cfr outsider for small gov't and a humble foreign policy.
Reagan IN OFFICE was nothing of what he campaigned on.
GHW Bush ran his adminstration, and it was big government neoconism. I'm VERY GLAD Ron Paul distanced himself from Reagan while other politicians blindly followed the flawed policies that lead to what we have now.

Reagan didn't succeed in getting rid of the Department of Education, or getting rid of big government, but Ron Paul endorsed a lot of his small government ideas

[theodorelogan]

http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/yesterday_vs_today_line.png

Thread over.

[quantized]

The weakest part was his answer to the question why Ron puts Reagen picture in his ads when he criticize Reagen administration as a total failure

[Goldwater Conservative]

An 8. I wish Dr. Paul had answered a few questions more succinctly and gave less credit to the intelligence of the audience (the "abolish the Education Department" problem). Then again, Russert cut him off way too much.

Also, while Russert was mostly as tough as he usually is, I found the earmark discussion to be grossly unfair, considering Dr. Paul wasn't allowed enough time to explain what should be an obvious issue and Russert should understand that getting already-appropriated tax dollars back for your constituents isn't the same as voting for big government. You can work for change within a system that you philosophically oppose (likewise for term limits).

[hellah10]

Thread over.

RWNED!

[Daveforliberty]

Wow Russert was visibly seething with contempt for Dr. Ron Paul! I can't remember an interview where there was such blatant contempt for the person being interviewed as shown by Russert towards Dr. Paul...

...I hardly think that Obama and Huckabee will be treated in such a way.

I disagree. This IS Russert, and Dr. Paul handled it well, maybe better than anyone. He really got McCain last week. Hillary Clinton's people think Russert's the devil.

Ron Paul took Huckabee's slot this week, who bowed out from fear of Russert. Then the press reported he bowed out, and now he's back in for next week. Russert will filet him and roast him over an open fire.

Nothing Ron said (such as McCain last week) will make the news during the week. Huckabee won't be so lucky.

[AtomiC]

I think the overall performance was very good.

He made Russert look like an idiot many times and I believe most people can see through the attacks.

There were some questions where he stumbled a bit though. On the earmark question he didn't explain it well enough to the average person I believe, and he was also cut off a couple times. The same with the question about Reagan and about abolishing some of the federal programs.

Overall it was a very good interview in my opinion though.

9/10

[Dave Pedersen]

I gave Doctor Paul a solid 8. Against the hailstorm of Russert an 8 is like a 12 anywhere else. I think he did great.

Ron has a way of clipping his sentences and fusing several thoughts together which will lose the casual observer however he was able to get many many very clear statements out there which are revolutionary and will convert many casual observers into engaged voters looking for additional information.

The only thing Ron needs to do differently is control the pace. He as the person expected to answer the questions can simply keep a steady pace of delivery and if another question gets shot at him prematurely he can continue answering the question or he can simply stop mid sentence and begin answering the new question.. at the same calm pace.

This makes the interviewer look foolish and will slow down the questioning to the pace Ron has chosen for himself. In an interview the pace is the same as territory which either side can gain if they keep it a determined objective overriding all else. This command of the pace sends a very strong example of presidential power which will far outweigh the benefits of any particular answer.

If Ron Paul masters this command of the pace aspect he will become completely unstoppable as a candidate.

[Birdlady]

Great interview. Actually fantastic interview. No specific group of RP supporters were called dangerous or a liability to the campaign. That makes me happy.

That means these boards are actually talking about the questions asked in the interview rather than yelling and screaming at each other for believing something.

Ron Paul even got a plug in for Freedom to Fascism! :D

[Paulitician]

I was laughing my ass off when Ron said "that's like saying Iran is going to invade Mars." It was also pretty hilarious when he said "amending the constitution is constitutional." Made Russert look like a dumbass.

[jwerner]

I think Ron needs to put those numbers in his memory. When Russert had the exact number of troops and real numbers on income tax and ove seas expendatures it made RP look like a dreamer who was not based in fact.
With the changes he is proposing he should expect to be asked exat figures and have good solid responces that include more that the freedom mantra.

[Shatterhand]

I gave Doctor Paul a solid 8. Against the hailstorm of Russert an 8 is like a 12 anywhere else. I think he did great.

Ron has a way of clipping his sentences and fusing several thoughts together which will lose the casual observer however he was able to get many many very clear statements out there which are revolutionary and will convert many casual observers into engaged voters looking for additional information.

The only thing Ron needs to do differently is control the pace. He as the person expected to answer the questions can simply keep a steady pace of delivery and if another question gets shot at him prematurely he can continue answering the question or he can simply stop mid sentence and begin answering the new question.. at the same calm pace.

This makes the interviewer look foolish and will slow down the questioning to the pace Ron has chosen for himself. In an interview the pace is the same as territory which either side can gain if they keep it a determined objective overriding all else. This command of the pace sends a very strong example of presidential power which will far outweigh the benefits of any particular answer.

If Ron Paul masters this command of the pace aspect he will become completely unstoppable as a candidate.

+1
:D

[Soccrmastr]

He did good came out strong at the end, I liked how he really retaliated to the question for third party. He did awesome! 9/10

[Birdlady]

I was laughing my ass off when Ron said "that's like saying Iran is going to invade Mars." It was also pretty hilarious when he said "amending the constitution is constitutional." Made Russert look like a dumbass.

haha yeah I was laughing hard when he said that about Mars. :)

[barcop]

You should have made this poll public... so we could see the trolls who voted it a 1, 2 or 3.

He didn't answer everything perfect... but he did better than average. I gave it an 8... for making Russert look stupid on a few occasions. That rarely if ever happens on MTP.

[ThePieSwindler]

Wow, he did alot better than i had expected from some of the negative comments, even though they were mostly positive. Considering the interview, he dominated. He held the line with his weakest points, and actually did spectacular on some of his stronger points.

[cjhowe]

I thought it was good exposure. Would have hoped it to have been for the full hour, but que sera sera. A lot of us are spoiled in that we've heard RP answer the same question 20-30 times now and his best answer among those 20-30 is what we compare to the MTP answers. Russert is not a small guy
http://services.bostonglobe.com/mas_assets/full/254295.jpg
and when he thinks there's a gotcha moment, there's a lot of stuff moving and it throws people off their rhythm.

[InRonWeTrust]

He knocked it out of the park.

[beobeli]

He got destroyed on the earmarks business.

Absolutely NOT. He slam dunked it all. 10/10

[mconder]

He got destroyed on the earmarks business.

I puts the earmarks in because he knows the money will be spent regardless of how he votes. He ends up voting against the appropriations bill with the ear marks. Like he said, the federal government is going to spend the money no matter what, why not bring some of the tax payer dollars spent by his district back home?

[Natalie]

Ron owned on MTP. Some of his answers were really funny. He answered the Civil War one perfectly.

[Mike S.]

Personally, he could have done better. But, I think, he made it VERY clear that he stands alone as the one candidate with a shot at winning that would actually get us out of Iraq - in that sense he hits a home run.

The last congressional election, despite the denial of the republican leadership, was about getting us out of Iraq. The American people now realize that those democrats they elected will not get us out of Iraq either.

[mconder]

I plan on researching. However, not everyone is like me. That segment did not come off well. He could have explained his position a hell of a lot better. God forbid I suggest that he didn't answer a SINGLE QUESTION in the interview perfectly.

Personally, I have been living in a Constitutional paradigm for quit some time now, so I know exactly why Paul answered the questions the way he did. I can see why this interview would be a problem for the newly initiated. I sure the civil rights and civil war part of the interview probably infuriated a few people. Paul did not have enough time to answer those questions. He'd have to have 30 minutes just to talk about the nuances of the civil war. If he had the time, he could make a believer out of almost anyone.

[mconder]

but I'm pretty sure it didn't come off well for casual observers, whose votes we are trying to gain.

This is the real problem with this interview. For someone who has been a freedom activist for the last 20 years, it's not to difficult to fill in the blanks. I agree, for the casual observer, this did nothing but alienate them. For the large majority of people, it takes an idea being repeated over and over again before they are convinced. Ron Paul does not get near the air time to completely change the paradigm of the average voter.

[DZE]

As a supporter I think he did as well as he could in such a thoroughly prepared attack.
I don’t think we won any undecided voters though.

[deltabourne]

The earmark part wasn't the best, but Russert never let Paul answer! He kept interrupting him! He would have crushed that part if it weren't for that.

[StateofTrance]

Listen folks, y'all need to watch the videos of previous shows : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21654394/

BEFORE even voting on Dr. Paul's performance.

[ConstitutionReinstitution]

I'm no fan of Russert, but he is very, very good at what he does.
If you want to see how good, watch these. He only cracks up once, but has his head down so you can barely see it, and he catches himself in a split second.
The whole thing is hilarious. I apologize if starting to get off thread subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIs2z2JNvNE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JbBFNCRp1A&feature=related

[Troyhand]

He did great as always. Russert cut him off constantly from answering fully, so Dr. Paul wasn't allowed to fully shine. Paul definitely won this though.

Dr. Paul = Truth
Tim Russert = Mop
Meet The Press = The Floor

[chowdy]

Damn, he really corned Dr. Paul at every chance. I checked out some other Meet The Press interviews, and it looks like that's just how they work.

I think he did OK. Not exactly a home run or anything. I'm just happy his name is getting out there.

[hawks4ronpaul]

The average American might be alienated by some answers but the average MTP viewer is different and surely knows that no one escapes an interview unscathed.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

[iloveronpaul]

9/10. Paul got a bit flustered but aside from that it was perfect. :)

[Antonius Stone]

I quote Alex Merced to Refute the accusations of "earmark hypocrisy" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPN9YUAkKAY)

[conner_condor]

Very good interview. No other candidate can come close to him. Pure honesty that can be seen here in RP.

[Aldanga]

I said 9/10. He was insistent and very strong on his positions. I was half-expecting a waltz through the daisies, but I should have known better.

Knowing Russert as an interviewer, Dr. Paul did fantastic. He was insightful (the snake pit comment) as well as funny (with Iran attacking Mars). I think this was a plus.

I can't wait till next week. Huckabee's gonna get owned.

[EricH]

Funny how Russert had to look down so many times. The script must have felt a little dirty in those moments.

[WilliamC]

I gave him a 7. He was consistent as always and given the apparent attention deficit disorder that Tim Russert displayed in jumping from one question to another without allowing him enough time to answer Ron Paul gave good answers. But he wasn't as clear in some of his explanations as I would have liked and he seemed to not have been as well prepped as he could have been. That said the entire interview was about issues and positions, nothing about scandal or problems in Ron Paul's personal life since he is as well behaved there as he is in public :)

[daviddee]

..

[all J's in IL for RP]

Stepping back for a second from my Paul support, there were several flubs, awkward moments and missed opportunities. Russert came on hard like expected, a little more than usual (he often throws in one softball or joking question to lighten the mood), but par for the course.

But he got in a lot of good points, some excellent one liner comebacks and avoided most of the pitfalls that were set for him. Some were commenting that this could make or break the campaign. This format weights towards the later, as Gulianni can attest. It's not broke.

7

[rpfreedom08]

He did great! I don't think for one moment he got screwed by the earmark comments. I've heard that issue before and wasn't sure howe he woudl handle it and he did just fine. I look at things from other people's points of view very well and can see how ron paul really made tim look like an ass.

[Laja]

I, for one, was happy to hear that Ron Paul was unhappy with Reagan's presidency. Reagan campaigned on a certain stance and when he was elected and didn't follow through with that stance. In fact, he did some real damage to the country. And I loved that he called Poppy Bush a bum. Hahahaha! I didn't think I could love Ron Paul any more, but after hearing his opinions on those two guys, I just tripled my respect for RP.

Yes, RP got excited in answering some of the questions and he does have some challenges answering them in a split second, but once he gets his thoughts together, he does quite well. I can't imagine how anyone with as much experience as he has in government and with the Constitution could ever answer questions in a nice sound bite. There are much to many aspects to take into consideration to give an educated answer.

Sure I'd love RP to stay calm and relaxed during his interviews, but show me just how calm and relaxed most of us would be when the stakes are that high and millions of people are depending on you and watching you. Hah! There'd be very few. Perhaps just the actors could do it. And that's what most of those robot candidates are anyway....actors.

Bravo, dear Ron Paul. You are loved!

[rpfreedom08]

I, for one, was happy to hear that Ron Paul was unhappy with Reagan's presidency. Reagan campaigned on a certain stance and when he was elected and didn't follow through with that stance. In fact, he did some real damage to the country. And I loved that he called Poppy Bush a bum. Hahahaha! I didn't think I could love Ron Paul any more, but after hearing his opinions on those two guys, I just tripled my respect for RP.

Yes, RP got excited in answering some of the questions and he does have some challenges answering them in a split second, but once he gets his thoughts together, he does quite well. I can't imagine how anyone with as much experience as he has in government and with the Constitution could ever answer questions in a nice sound bite. There are much to many aspects to take into consideration to give an educated answer.

Sure I'd love RP to stay calm and relaxed during his interviews, but show me just how calm and relaxed most of us would be when the stakes are that high and millions of people are depending on you and watching you. Hah! There'd be very few. Perhaps just the actors could do it. And that's what most of those robot candidates are anyway....actors.

Bravo, dear Ron Paul. You are loved!

You're not the only one that likes the idea of him saying he was a failure. The more I talk to people the more I hear how Ronald Regan was a failure and only talked a good game.

[Antonius Stone]

I, for one, was happy to hear that Ron Paul was unhappy with Reagan's presidency. Reagan campaigned on a certain stance and when he was elected and didn't follow through with that stance. In fact, he did some real damage to the country. And I loved that he called Poppy Bush a bum. Hahahaha! I didn't think I could love Ron Paul any more, but after hearing his opinions on those two guys, I just tripled my respect for RP.

the thing I've noticed about Reagan- he campaigned on a platform and won. Then he got shot, and then he went in the complete opposite direction of the platform that won him the presidency.
Runaway military-industrial spending WHILE borrowing money to cut taxes? That is absolutely asinine, and a lot of the troubles we have today as well as the ups and downs of the nineties can be directly correlated to Reagaonomics' Deficit spending

[hellah10]

good or bad... this interview will be forgotten after Huckabee gets raped next week

[MooCowzRock]

I thought it was a very good interview overall. There were a couple points where Ron was making a very good point, but just didnt get it accross very well, but Tim didnt have a single really solid thing against hm. Ron's record is pretty solid, and I know Tim knows he really had to "reach" for some of those points he tried to make.

Some of the points Ron didnt make very well, but had a good point, was like the earmarks. His people are taxed a lot, and he has an obligation to return some of that tax money to them. Its not fair for him to deny the taxes in an attempt to practice what he preaches, because its not his money. He does what he can by voting against raising taxes and spending, and thats the only thing he really has a right to do.

Also, with the "fascism" issue, he didnt really clarify how "tactical" Huckabees ad was because of how he wears his religion on his sleeves, and suggesting he using the same "fascist" tactic of claiming "if you dont vote for the Patriot Act you're not patriotic," "if you dont support Huckabee, you arent a real Christian."

Those are points he just kinda tripped over a bit, but its understandable. Its harder than it looks to think on your feet when you're getting grilled by an interviewer. However, overall he did brilliantly, and anyone who has watched the other episodes knows that the "dirt" Tim dug up on Paul is pathetic compared to the piles and piles of dirt he has on most of the other Republican candidates. Huckabee next week is going to be an absolute slaughter...

Overall, I definitely gotta give it a 9/10.

[mtmedlin]

The biggest problem with Dr. Paul is he is too intelligent. Typically people with high IQ and education think of multiple things at the same time and have difficulty staying on one topic long enough to allow the average person to catch the full meaning. He needs to take the time to allow one thought to run its full course before he moves on to the next point.

[Liberty Star]

Ron Paul was excellent.

Tim is a tough host, you should see his interviews with other candidates to appreciate how well Ron Paul did to get his message out. I thought it was a great interview and Ron Paul made sure his views on key policy issues were known. Tim always digs up old and obscure stuff to put candidates on a hot seat, Ron Paul was clear and strong on key points of his current campaign and that is what matters. Ron Paul will pick up some good support as a result.

[JoBurke]

What a disrespectful person...after that interview - he should resign his post and flogg himself - this is what we are dealing with....it seems very clear that the more desperate "they" are getting...the harder the words are coming and the laughs....

but guess what I am laughing too! at these Neocons....they try to act stupid, second guess, and twist words all funny like....but they are literally looking like SCARED foold it seems....

The best part about it is that WE THE PEOPLE are finding our revolutionary roots again....and we are ready to stand up to the "MAN" and fight and die for our rights back.....

if we can fight oversees in unjust wars and conflicts....we can take our country back.

><

P.S. Tim - be ashamed of yourself and should your family pity you for your show of disrespect for someone who is trying to save you and your familys life as well - be very ashamed.

[MooCowzRock]

What a disrespectful person...after that interview - he should resign his post and flogg himself - this is what we are dealing with....it seems very clear that the more desperate "they" are getting...the harder the words are coming and the laughs....

but guess what I am laughing too! at these Neocons....they try to act stupid, second guess, and twist words all funny like....but they are literally looking like SCARED foold it seems....

The best part about it is that WE THE PEOPLE are finding our revolutionary roots again....and we are ready to stand up to the "MAN" and fight and die for our rights back.....

if we can fight oversees in unjust wars and conflicts....we can take our country back.

><

P.S. Tim - be ashamed of yourself and should your family pity you for your show of disrespect for someone who is trying to save you and your familys life as well - be very ashamed.

You're right...because Tim should have spent the whole time talking about what a great and amazing candidate Paul is, and how everyone should vote for him...:rolleyes:

I am glad Tim was tough. The best way to discover if a point and belief is strong and pure is to test it under extreme pressure. Tim provided that pressure very well, and Ron Pulled through, and people will see that, especially once they see how Huckabee will get destroyed next week, and after seeing Guli get destroyed the other week.

[TooConservative]

I think the poll sample here might be a little biased.

It was a good appearance though. Still, nobody gets a 10 with Russert in the other chair.

At least, not until the general election when Russert will perform cunnilingus on Hitlery on national TV in a "below the belt" interview.

[JoBurke]

You're right...because Tim should have spent the whole time talking about what a great and amazing candidate Paul is, and how everyone should vote for him...:rolleyes:

I am glad Tim was tough. The best way to discover if a point and belief is strong and pure is to test it under extreme pressure. Tim provided that pressure very well, and Ron Pulled through, and people will see that, especially once they see how Huckabee will get destroyed next week, and after seeing Guli get destroyed the other week.

"YouTR have to remember that Russert was a very unfriendly interviewer (Tim’s pic is indicative of what Ron Paul got during the interview - lighten up Timmy), did not give any positive feedback to Dr. Paul, asked questions in staccato like fashion with little time for Dr. Paul to answer, and at times talked over Dr. Paul’s responses."

Source: http://www.redpills.org/?p=665

[icon124]

he completely owned the whole interview at the end when the host said sinclair didnt say fascism in a flag...blah blah blah....RP was ready for that and came back and shut his ass up....very good interview he really did sound intelligent and had very good responses for everything....how could u not vote for him

[blamx8]

You can look back and see that on every issue people think Ron Paul was beaten on he was still trying to explain the simple common sense nature of his stance when Tim cut him off to move somewhere else. It is absolutely amazing how uneducated the american people are about their own constitution.

President Paul in '08

[Nihilist23]

Way too much emphasis on abolishing the Department of Education, as usual.

[electronicmaji]

I just watched it with my dad who im trying to convert. He says he'll have to pray to god about it ...whatever that means...


I give him a 9. He pretty much owned on the earmarks question...

[WilliamC]

The biggest problem with Dr. Paul is he is too intelligent. Typically people with high IQ and education think of multiple things at the same time and have difficulty staying on one topic long enough to allow the average person to catch the full meaning. He needs to take the time to allow one thought to run its full course before he moves on to the next point.

Yes, I too often have this problem ;)

Well, at least I have gotten myself trained to speak at a more measured pace when trying to explain something, just so I don't run my thoughts together and babble.

[wildflower]

I gave it an 8, before looking at the thread or results.

Overall, Paul held his own, considering all the stuff Russert was throwing at him. But as far as the interview itself... I was disappointed because unlike the Beck interview, where I think Paul shined as a true conservative... this interview seemed to try to make him look radical, which will appeal to libertarians but I don't think it's going to bring in more mainstream people or conservative Republicans who are undecided.

Things that won't help him:

Dondero quote about 9/11 - trying to show Paul as coldhearted... He could've handled that better.

Reagan quote - That wasn't a good moment, especially how Russert asked why he was using Reagan in light of what he has said about Reagan.

The part about the Civil war and Civil rights act - I hope this doesn't get misunderstood. The first time I watched it, I didn't think it was very clear. The second time I watched it, I heard what he was saying and it was better... but for someone who only watched it on tv once, they might not understand his position on this.

The earmarks thing... could've gone better.



Stuff I liked...


I'm glad he brought up that Israel has 300 nukes and can defend herself.

Saying that we give more to the Arabs than Israel, which puts cutting off aid to Israel (because BOTH will be cut off) in perspective.

I loved the quote about the snake pit.

His statement that he represents what Republicanism used to be was perfect. And that he continually said he wants a constitutional, limited government.

I liked that the quote about Bush was brought up and that he didn't vote for Bush. :D The only people who won't like that are Bushbot neocons who wouldn't vote for him anyway.


I'm probably missing some things right now, but there are my thoughts.