Questioning the Meet the Press gig

[HarryBrowneLives]

I'm an over the top RP supporter. However, I did question the idea from his campaign team of going on that show from the start.

We have acomplished plenty without a chop job show like Meet The Press. My question for Paul's staff is this:

What did you intend to achieve by putting your candidate in front of a guy that is surely to pull as much crap out of the closet, twist every campaign idea, and look to otherwise trash our guy in any way possible for a show that is largely only viewed by other MSM and media types who merely want to do the same thing?

Granted, one has to get media attention, but we have gotten far enough to avoid bad attention in some cases ... let the others go on there and get beat up. Let them flip flop and sling mud in every direction ... that's our best option. We have achived far more without playing by their rules. We have the money and the resources to get our message out to the public slant and spin free without all this crap.

I was the Press Secretary for a, quite successful, state LP chapter for seven years. My opinion is that for the conservative/libertarian message to be more successful we can't afford to get bogged down in sideline arguments that appeal to people's emotions (race, etc.) and have absolutely NOTHING to do with our cental theme and why we are different than all the other Bush Third Termers. That's what detrators (like Russet) want.

(I will admit that I did like Tim pointing out the Bush "bums".)

With all that money, RP really needs to hire a PR pro like yesterday as opposed to what he has (or doesn't have) now. Kent Snyder has done fantastic work for libertarian causes over the years, but a media consultant for a libertarian style candidate he is not. Sorry Kent.

Sorry for my rant guys, but I had to state what I felt was the obvious for the vain hope that someone would read it inside the camp to help RP.

[AlexMerced]

this inteview showed that RP has balls, similar to when Bush SR. was interview by Dan Rather so long ago

[Risiko]

I thought he did pretty well on MTP. Russert is always tough with the candidates.

If nothing else, it'll teach more people about what Paul stands for. That is badly needed -- even now, because of the (relative) mainstream media blackout, a lot of people are unaware of what Paul stands for.

[knappz]

...RP stood his ground like a champ if someone can't see that then they must have "Hillary for president" bumper sticker on your car already.

[HarryBrowneLives]

But, from a strategic point of view, what will happen is that the MSM and Neocon talk radio robots will talk about this ... the Civil War and the 1964 race related stuff ... that's it ... and what else have you achieved? Who was you're intended audience? Some guy getting ready to go to church and the other 50% of viewers who watch the show who are already in the media that detest the campaign to start with.

[rasheedwallace]

you would be even more furious if he didn't go on, so just chill. we had to do it, everyone else did and i support(ed) it.

[Risiko]

But, from a strategic point of view, what will happen is that the MSM and Neocon talk radio robots will talk about this ... the Civil War and the 1964 race related stuff ... that's it ... and what else have you achieved? Who was you're intended audience? Some guy getting ready to go to church and the other 50% of viewers who watch the show who are already in the media that detest the campaign to start with.

Most of the other candidates have serious skeletons in their closet. Guiliani and his estranged children and his three wives? Mitt Romney as the Plastic candidate, corporatist, and (white) lies? Huckabee and all of the problems he has?

All of the other Republican front-runners are neocons with a myriad of problems behind the surface. Ron Paul is the only authentic candidate, with views that are coherent, consistent, and sensible. We know this, and most people will see this, as long as they get to listen to his words that are more than sound bites. The more in-depth interviewws the better, even if they try to smear him in the process. They can't come up with much. People see him for who he is. He needs EXPOSURE more than anything else, beyond the soundbites of the Republican 'debates'.

I get what you're saying, where the media will take out-of-context 'sound bites' and spread it round the MSM world so that people don't get to see the real him. They will do such things. But the campaign will never be able to gain new converts in the numbers we want unless he gets the mainstream media coverage he deserves (and the millions upon millions upon millions that they reach).

[HarryBrowneLives]

I'll will do everything to do my part to help RP succeed in this, however, I'm not always going to be a blind cheerleader either. An honest question about such things is rather healthy. i've seen many go up against media pros and get smacked down because they didn't think ahead and have a strategy to begin with.

I think RP did a decent job in a hostile environment. My question was what was the cost/ benifit? We could have reached 2.9 million real people in a more positive format or show instead of creating ammunition for the MSM and talk radio goons who will surely talk about everthing else besides the fact that he is the only Republican candidate running who wants to have less government and more freedom.

[jdrochon]

Ron Paul rocked! He did an outstanding job. He got to answer all those questions floating around this last week and did it great!

[jmdrake]

Some of the stuff (civil rights act, questions about earmarks) have been in the public arena for some time now, should have been expected and are going to come up again anyway. I loved the way he handled the question about birthright citizenship. "How is amending the constitution unconstitutional"? While I don't agree with his position on the 1964 civil rights act, I think he's handled the question better than he did on MTP. He shouldn't have let Russert get away with defining the agenda. The CRA did NOT give blacks the right to vote. That was the fifteenth amendment. Also there was the voting rights act of 1965. Since section 2 of the fifteenth amendment gives congress the power to enforce voting rights the VRA is constitutional. But the CRA went far beyond voting rights.

Anyway, the interview was an obvious hatchet job. Russert was pulling quotes out of thin air without any context. For example the "You said you would abolish pubic schools" quote. I'm willing to bet my next donation that this was based on someone misquoting Ron Paul seeking to abolish the department of education. Pubic schools are a local issue so it's really not in the power of the president or the congress to abolish them. I also think the "Reagan was a traitor" quote was probably a bad misquote. Perhaps Paul said something like "Reagan betrayed his promise to shrink the government by running up bigger deficits than Jimmy Carter". Russert should have had date and context of these quotes available if he was going to use them.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[stevedasbach]

If Ron is going to successfully compete for the nomination and the Presidency, he has to be able to handle tough interviews like MTP.

[akalucas]

When many of you that say it went bad today see how its going to go for Huckabee next week you're going to realize how well Paul did. I predict the number Russert did on Romney and Rudy is going to look like Disneyland compared to the what Huckabee is going to receive. I thought he wasnt going to be on the show but it seems he is now.

[HarryBrowneLives]

True,

I guess I was a bit spoiled. Harry was masterful most of the time with such things.
That's exactly why he needs someone in the camp to help advise him a little better with such attack show like MTP. He did OK, some of the questions were off the wall (they always tend to get off the wall with libertarian presidential candidates because the hosts always want to steer away from the positives). Harry got asked things like "would you allow and individual to have a nuclear weapon?" Goofy stuff like that. Harry would usually answer such things as quickly as possible ... sometimes even with a joke and then move on to the message. The MSM knows that most of us peasants like the idea of less government ... eveything else with bread and circuses is a distraction.

[HarryBrowneLives]

Yep,

I'll give credit where credit is due ... Russert is an equal opportunity SOB. Huckabee will have a long 30 minutes.

[Bruehound]

This interview was absolutely essential because as rough as Russert was( and he does this to all) it was a much better forum to address these things rather than have your opponent drop them into a direct mail piece that hits-- unanswered the weekend before the Hawkeye Cauci.

Ron offers a complete change of direction in policy in many different areas. It frustrates me so many people on these boards view some of these issues as too radical. We should be more confident the public is ready to embrace a restoration of liberty. It is our heritage we are trying to reclaim.

[Dave Pedersen]

Tough interviews like this can only make a strong candidate stronger down the stretch. The stronger Ron Paul gets, the better prepared he is to rebut even the most lame insinuations and the weaker his opponent's ammunition becomes. Better to be strengthened by their best now than later against the DEM nod.

Weightlifting destroys muscle tissue but the muscle gets stronger as a result of a good workout. Ron Paul cannot be hurt badly by anything. MTP helped our candidate in many ways.

[Akus]

I'm an over the top RP supporter. However, I did question the idea from his campaign team of going on that show from the start.

We have acomplished plenty without a chop job show like Meet The Press. My question for Paul's staff is this:

What did you intend to achieve by putting your candidate in front of a guy that is surely to pull as much crap out of the closet, twist every campaign idea, and look to otherwise trash our guy in any way possible for a show that is largely only viewed by other MSM and media types who merely want to do the same thing?

Granted, one has to get media attention, but we have gotten far enough to avoid bad attention in some cases ... let the others go on there and get beat up. Let them flip flop and sling mud in every direction ... that's our best option. We have achived far more without playing by their rules. We have the money and the resources to get our message out to the public slant and spin free without all this crap.

I was the Press Secretary for a, quite successful, state LP chapter for seven years. My opinion is that for the conservative/libertarian message to be more successful we can't afford to get bogged down in sideline arguments that appeal to people's emotions (race, etc.) and have absolutely NOTHING to do with our cental theme and why we are different than all the other Bush Third Termers. That's what detrators (like Russet) want.

(I will admit that I did like Tim pointing out the Bush "bums".)

With all that money, RP really needs to hire a PR pro like yesterday as opposed to what he has (or doesn't have) now. Kent Snyder has done fantastic work for libertarian causes over the years, but a media consultant for a libertarian style candidate he is not. Sorry Kent.

Sorry for my rant guys, but I had to state what I felt was the obvious for the vain hope that someone would read it inside the camp to help RP.
I will have to disagree with you. Yes Meet the Press and others don't ask questions to learn about candidates' platform. They ask questions to tear down a person. But, like I've stated before, they don't do this to RP because he is RP, but because he is a conspicuous figure.

Weren't there programs digging up Huckabee's dirty laundry?
Wasn't every single question asked to Bill Clinton in 1998 about Lewinksi?
Do you remember how CNN was trying to tear down Dick Cheney when it was discovered that his daughter was a lesbian? He, too, complained that the interviewer was out of line.

But unlike all these folks, RP doesn't have to lie. He somewhat did dance around the very last question (not the one about a third party), but overall, given an opportunity to speak, he is beautiful. No lying, no finger pointing, no evasion. No typical political depends on your definition of "is" garbage.

Any time RP is given a one hour slot, and let's face it, those are few and far in between, he should take advantage of it. Katie Couric wants him on, go. Oprah, go, Vince McMahon wants him to guest referee in New Year's Resolution, go. Grab a steel chair though....

So no, Ron Paul is just fine as he is...

[asheville4paul]

I am shocked to read that people believe Ron Paul should turn down opportunities to go on shows like mtp and Glenn Beck. I think he did well.

[Taco John]

I actually thought Ron Paul did pretty good in this interview. Russert makes them hard, and inevitably comes off looking worse than any candidate that he's interviewing, but Paul did a fair job keeping his head above water.

[Jobarra]

When many of you that say it went bad today see how its going to go for Huckabee next week you're going to realize how well Paul did. I predict the number Russert did on Romney and Rudy is going to look like Disneyland compared to the what Huckabee is going to receive. I thought he wasnt going to be on the show but it seems he is now.
If huckabee is going on this sunday BEFORE Iowa, he will probably lose there if Iowa watches MTP. I guess he figures that if he does it right before the caucas he will be ignored and have enough time to win Iowa. Hope he gets full hour ;)

[TooConservative]

We have acomplished plenty without a chop job show like Meet The Press. My question for Paul's staff is this: What did you intend to achieve by putting your candidate in front of a guy that is surely to pull as much crap out of the closet, twist every campaign idea, and look to otherwise trash our guy in any way possible for a show that is largely only viewed by other MSM and media types who merely want to do the same thing?


We did fine. RP scored as many hits on Russert's questions as Russert got in, bested Tim a number of times. And you can't go on Alex Jones and then refuse Glenn Beck and Tim Russert.


With all that money, RP really needs to hire a PR pro like yesterday as opposed to what he has (or doesn't have) now. Kent Snyder has done fantastic work for libertarian causes over the years, but a media consultant for a libertarian style candidate he is not. Sorry Kent.

Something to consider. Kent's done well but I'm sure he's discussed with RP whether they need regular campaign pros. But the really good ones are pricey and already working for other campaigns. When they were still available to hire, we didn't have the money yet. And even without the "pros", we've had some pretty professional results. Hard to argue with $18.5M and a blimp and all the user signs and ads and the international RP movement.

RP has done well with his own little campaign style many times. Somehow, I think that if this is our time to win and RP is the man, we'll win it with his campaign style.

Putting Ron Paul into a glitzy frontrunner campaign mode might actually work badly. His current style is kind of common, something middle-class people can connect with. It's authentic and has some populist appeal.

If the campaign goes "pro" on something, it should be the ads. I mean really nice ones, emphasizing our message of peace and trade with the world, our multi-ethnic and multi-racial diversity, our desire to trim big-government so liberty can thrive and pointing out that the two parties offer voters nothing like that. If you saw the Sarkozy ads in France, those were very interesting. But you have to have something consistent with the candidate, something authentic in the way that he is authentic.

[Created4]

My question was what was the cost/ benifit? We could have reached 2.9 million real people in a more positive format ...

And just how do you propose to reach 2.9 million "in a more positive format"? There aren't many venues around with an audience that big. Not accepting an invitation when the other condidates did would have been one of the most counter-productive moves he could have made. Because he is largely ignored in the media because of low polling numbers, too few people know about him or his message. He needs to take every opportunity he gets until he does well in actual votes. If he moves into the "top tier" after New Hampshire, you won't be able to keep the media away. I think a lot of people want to support Paul, but they are too afraid that he is not electable.

[TooConservative]

Ron offers a complete change of direction in policy in many different areas. It frustrates me so many people on these boards view some of these issues as too radical. We should be more confident the public is ready to embrace a restoration of liberty. It is our heritage we are trying to reclaim.

The Dim Congress just polled as low as 11%. And GOP members don't smell any better than their Dim colleagues. Bush holds at 30% it seems. Cheney has fallen into the black hole of polling and has been voted off the island. Maybe the planet.

The dollar at 30 year lows, prices rising at Walmart, a war in Iraq that, even if we do pacify it, we end up asking why we're supposed to care much, and the Boomer retirement ahead and both parties offering the same stale versions of their nannystate policies with a lot more to come, massive debt, a banking crisis and possible bailout, we're regarded as a conquering empire and as torturers worldwide.

If the people are ready for change and to reject what they've been given, Ron is their candidate. Elections in which a candidate like Ron Paul can win on an agenda of abrupt change in direction are a time when the man and the times and the people come together. Kind of like an alignment of the planets. If this is the time, we have the man. All we can do is try. So far, the results have astonished everyone, including Ron Paul. He thought it would be another 5-25 years before a candidate like him could run any kind of campaign.

He is positioned and has the resources. Now we have to see if the people are ready for change.

[InRonWeTrust]

Russert was nicer to Ron than any other recent guest.

Chill out.

[raystone]

not sure of the value in this thread after the fact. In general, though, to support that MTP was a good move, check the donation spike in the hours following the interview airings.

[joelfarm]

If Russert smells fear, he will rip a guest to pieces. He did not do that today, I am willing to bet he is frustrated that he did not corner Dr. Paul.
As far as Ron Paul not being 'polished', granted, but that is not what people want or crave. He was honest and stumbled when confronted with issues fro the past that differ in some way from what he is espousing now. How many other candidates are standing by EVERYTHING they said twenty years ago?? Yes, on some issues, his position has changed and he has had to refine and learn more about them. That only makes him human! It would be stupid to take a stand, refuse to listen and think if shown evidence to the contrary. Never close your mind to open discusion. To do that is a large part of why we are in the mess we are now.

[wgadget]

Hey, Ron Paul took Huckabee's place today. The Huckster was scheduled to be interviewed today, but he chickened out. Do you actually think RP would look good backing out of a "Meet the Candidates" interview?

It's no wonder people don't think of RP as a "viable" candidate...It would be true if he would've dodged the interview.

He did great, in my opinion. Romney and Giuliani did horribly and had the radio talk show hosts concerned for weeks over their performances. I can't wait to see what they have to say about Dr. Paul's comparatively great performance.

[wgadget]

But, from a strategic point of view, what will happen is that the MSM and Neocon talk radio robots will talk about this ... the Civil War and the 1964 race related stuff ... that's it ... and what else have you achieved? Who was you're intended audience? Some guy getting ready to go to church and the other 50% of viewers who watch the show who are already in the media that detest the campaign to start with.

I say, Let 'em talk. Then we can just call in and talk right back. This is the opportunity we've been waiting for: Ron Paul will become a household name.

[me3]

HBLives, I've heard you call in to Ron Paul Revolution Radio. You're a great caller.

Just wanted to add, I thought this was great. There is no ammunition left to attack Dr. Paul on. Russert's people were really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

[Georgia Agrarian]

I say, Let 'em talk. Then we can just call in and talk right back. This is the opportunity we've been waiting for: Ron Paul will become a household name.

You might call in, but you won't be allowed on the air most likely. Neal Boortz will let you on in order to hang up on you and trash you afterward when you can't defend yourself. He always uses this stradegy as a prop for his show. FWIW, I think Boortz will probably vote for Dr. Paul; it's just that he can't defy the edicts of his masters in the Clear Channel boardroom.

Limbaugh's show screeners won't even let an opposing view on anymore because he doesn't have the intellect to defend himself.

[Leslie Webb]

Can't wait until MTP begs Ron to come back after he does well in some of the early primaries. :D

[micheshi]

If the MTP team's digging could only pull up Eric Dondero's lies and other misquoted pieces, then Ron Paul is doing great. In blog world people have been trying to stir the racist line of BS. It was good to get it out in the open. With the exception of the host's interruptions during Dr. Paul's answers, it was a good interview. No softballs but hard questions about things people are using against him everyday on the net.

[Paulitician]

I think the interview could have been better (both on the questions/quotations and Ron's answers) but I'm not complaining one bit. Ron Paul got another chance to get his message out to the mainstream viewers, like he did on Glenn Beck, which like another member said is what we really need right now. More mainstream coverage can only help--don't discourage it.

[RP-Republican]

I just watched the interview, compared to the other candidates I thought Paul did great. Giuliani and Romney had very tough questions also and I think they will take a lot bigger hit than what Ron Paul will take.

[mudburn]

I thought that Dr. Paul was more assertive in the MTP interview than in others. He pushed to finish his thought/answer, telling Russert to hold on. I didn't see MTP with any of the other candidates to be able to compare. I guess if Russert is usually that way with guests, then I won't complain about him.

It did seem like RP might have or be getting a bit of a cold, but I imagine his schedule has been a bit hectic since last weekend.

dp

[atthegates]

you know what, after watching it a second time his performance was pretty good.

[Hurricane Bruiser]

I just got done watching the interview and found it to be very good. Ron Paul came across as honest, humorous, sympathetic, not rash, and was able to get his message out about freedom. I have no idea what people see that think it went badly. If this was my first introduction to Ron Paul, I would be interested.

[pickfair]

I'm actually glad he did this interview. Yes, Tim Russert was keen on a smear job, but RP didn't doge, handled all the questions with remarkable knowledge, and the ending was just fabulous. In short, Russert failed to make him look like a dope.