PDA

View Full Version : Tim Russert is Destroying Ron Paul


banyon
12-23-2007, 07:20 AM
on now.

Calcountry
12-23-2007, 07:46 AM
This should surprise no one, the man is an utter joke of a candidate.

Upon further review, so is Mike Huckleberry. Complete charlatan that is pimpin Christianity shamelessly as his only asset as a "conservative" Republican. We will not be fooled. All my conservative thinkers are adamantly opposed to his candidacy. Draw a line through em, they will never survive the process.

Bob Dole
12-23-2007, 07:56 AM
That was painful to watch.

jAZ
12-23-2007, 08:00 AM
Hasn't come on yet, but Tim Russert should be more agressive with the powerful, not just the east targets.

banyon
12-23-2007, 08:03 AM
Hasn't come on yet, but Tim Russert should be more agressive with the powerful, not just the east targets.

You guys get it late in AZ? Stick with it. He hits him with the hard stuff late.

jAZ
12-23-2007, 08:14 AM
15 minutes in and Paul is doing fine. They aren't easy positions that he takes, but he's defending his views well, IMO.

banyon
12-23-2007, 08:15 AM
I think it starts going downhill when he hits him with the earmarks.

jAZ
12-23-2007, 08:18 AM
His frm'r employee's quote about 9/11 caught him of guard. And that quote is a bit out of context, but he turned it around nicely.

jAZ
12-23-2007, 08:32 AM
I think it starts going downhill when he hits him with the earmarks.
Russert's questions on earmarks and term limits is bogus.

He's asking him, if you don't want big't gov't and unlimited terms, why don't you refuse earmarks and self-term limit?

That's like asking Dems, if you don't like Bush's tax cuts... why don't you give your share back?

banyon
12-23-2007, 08:34 AM
Russert's questions on earmarks and term limits is bogus.

He's asking him, if you don't want big't gov't and unlimited terms, why don't you refuse earmarks and self-term limit?

That's like asking Dems, if you don't like Bush's tax cuts... why don't you give your share back?

That's not analogous. That's like asking me, if I don't like tax credits, why don't I stop writing new ones into the budget? Ordinary taxpayers don't get to write earmarks into the budget. Fact is, if Paul hadn't written in the earmarks, then the money could've been used for something besides his pet projects. It was his explanation that was bogus.

(*edit* actually your analogy does probably work a bit better with the term limits question, but it's still not an exact fit, IMO)

Calcountry
12-23-2007, 08:45 AM
Hasn't come on yet, but Tim Russert should be more agressive with the powerful, not just the east targets.I agree, he treats candidates from the west with kid gloves.

jAZ
12-23-2007, 08:52 AM
That's not analogous. That's like asking me, if I don't like tax credits, why don't I stop writing new ones into the budget? Ordinary taxpayers don't get to write earmarks into the budget. Fact is, if Paul hadn't written in the earmarks, then the money could've been used for something besides his pet projects. It was his explanation that was bogus.
He does represent tax payers who paid that money into the tax coffers. I don't blame him one bit for taking his share back. I think the question just a bogus question. It's a "gotcha" in that the explanation is more subtle than the MTP format of Q and move on... allows for effective response.

banyon
12-23-2007, 09:00 AM
He does represent tax payers who paid that money into the tax coffers. I don't blame him one bit for taking his share back. I think the question just a bogus question. It's a "gotcha" in that the explanation is more subtle than the MTP format of Q and move on... allows for effective response.

That'd be swell if he wasn't the candidate trumpeting "I always follow the Constitution and I don't take tax $ for unconstitutional purposes", but he is.

That's $ that can be used to pay down the deficit/debt. Do you really think it's each representative's job to just take as much $ home to their district as they can like it's a bank robbery?

How ridiculous is it (and Russert pointed this out) to vote against the budget bills that you know will pass to make your symbolic stand, all the while making sure to write in pet projects for your district? It's an empty gesture to vote against the bill in such circumstances. Not every congressman writes in so many earmarks that their district ranks as one of the top tax $ recipients, so it's also a matter of degree too. Basically the argument boils down to "well everyone else is doing it, so I'm going to get as much as i can" which is ridiculous for someone with his campaign platform.

banyon
12-23-2007, 09:46 AM
links to videos on lower right (NBC doesn't let you youtube)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3898804/

Cochise
12-23-2007, 10:10 AM
How ridiculous is it (and Russert pointed this out) to vote against the budget bills that you know will pass to make your symbolic stand, all the while making sure to write in pet projects for your district? It's an empty gesture to vote against the bill in such circumstances.

Yeah, I have to agree with that. It doesn't seem very principled.

jAZ
12-23-2007, 10:28 AM
Yeah, I have to agree with that. It doesn't seem very principled.
Leaving his constituents tax dollars to be spent by the Bush administration isn't any more principled.

jAZ
12-23-2007, 10:31 AM
That's $ that can be used to pay down the deficit/debt.
That's not how things work.

banyon
12-23-2007, 10:32 AM
That's not how things work.

Why not? Why not make that his earmark instead of the pet projects? Why couldn't he do that?

chagrin
12-23-2007, 11:30 AM
You know, I didn't realize this until now - Ron Paul really is insane, and quite possibly homosexual as well - I can see why he has such a strong following by the 6 people here that he does. And those lunatic fans of his on you tube, holw cow - total cult material, much like TJ and his followers here.
jAZ give up the spin, he's a lunatic, seriously.

SNR
12-23-2007, 11:34 AM
Careful, banyon. Your Paul hate is showing. Might want to zip up.

This was a good interview. Anybody who watches MTP knows that these interviews are more just plots to get candidates to say stupid stuff and make them look foolish. It happened to Rudy and McCain.

Paul looked great in front of some tough questions that he normally doesn't get because the information is so hard to find. No, it's not an interview he wants to put in a commercial anytime soon, but he had some great moments that would impress any future supporter, and faced the earmark questions well. I actually thought he studdered more on the 3rd party question than anything else.

But whatever. He's ingenuine and a phony.

HolmeZz
12-23-2007, 11:54 AM
You know, I didn't realize this until now - Ron Paul really is insane, and quite possibly homosexual as well

:spock:

Chocolate Hog
12-23-2007, 12:11 PM
I didn't think Russert destroyed him as bad as everyone in this thread has been saying? The earmark thing was interesting but Ron Paul came back with a good answer. I agree with him about the civil war.

banyon
12-23-2007, 12:53 PM
Careful, banyon. Your Paul hate is showing. Might want to zip up.

This was a good interview. Anybody who watches MTP knows that these interviews are more just plots to get candidates to say stupid stuff and make them look foolish. It happened to Rudy and McCain.

Paul looked great in front of some tough questions that he normally doesn't get because the information is so hard to find. No, it's not an interview he wants to put in a commercial anytime soon, but he had some great moments that would impress any future supporter, and faced the earmark questions well. I actually thought he studdered more on the 3rd party question than anything else.

But whatever. He's ingenuine and a phony.

This thread is a little TIC, but i do think this is the worst I've seen Paul look in a public setting. I guess that's a good thing. He did still look WAY better than Rudy did.

Not nearly as well as Obama, though, for example.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/21741552#21741589

Taco John
12-23-2007, 01:21 PM
Ron Paul just won a ton of southern voters...

SNR
12-23-2007, 02:42 PM
You know, I didn't realize this until now - Ron Paul really is insane, and quite possibly homosexual as well - I can see why he has such a strong following by the 6 people here that he does. And those lunatic fans of his on you tube, holw cow - total cult material, much like TJ and his followers here.
jAZ give up the spin, he's a lunatic, seriously.Well, shit. This calls for a retard like Huckabee to save us! :rolleyes:

|Zach|
12-23-2007, 02:48 PM
Chagrin, coming strong as always.

Mr. Flopnuts
12-23-2007, 03:37 PM
You know, I didn't realize this until now - Ron Paul really is insane, and quite possibly homosexual as well - I can see why he has such a strong following by the 6 people here that he does. And those lunatic fans of his on you tube, holw cow - total cult material, much like TJ and his followers here.
jAZ give up the spin, he's a lunatic, seriously.



That's a douchebag move, coming from a guy who has sworn on this board over and over again that he's not a douchebag. Homosexual? Seriously? Come on dude. WTF does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Taco John
12-23-2007, 03:44 PM
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.


There was a spike of new donors since the show went on:

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

Chocolate Hog
12-23-2007, 03:46 PM
Atleast RP came on. Huckleberry is avoiding Russert.

HolmeZz
12-23-2007, 03:58 PM
I actually thought Ron Paul did pretty good in this interview.

REALLY?!?

|Zach|
12-23-2007, 04:05 PM
That's a douchebag move, coming from a guy who has sworn on this board over and over again that he's not a douchebag. Homosexual? Seriously? Come on dude. WTF does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Chagrin has shown himself to pretty much be batshit crazy.

banyon
12-23-2007, 04:05 PM
Atleast RP came on. Huckleberry is avoiding Russert.

He's on next week.

SNR
12-23-2007, 04:52 PM
I expect Huckabee to come apart at the seems. There's no live audience to whom to pass off his folksy charm. He's actually got to answer the questions for real this time. And Russert hasn't been letting up on any of the candidates; I think we can expect him to keep the trend going with someone as hypocritical as Huckabee

Flustrated
12-23-2007, 06:25 PM
The ONLY topics in which Russert "destroyed" Paul were quotes he brought up from the freaking 1980's. At that time, if Paul's philosophy was followed we wouldn't be in the huge mess we are in now. Maybe in 10 or 20 more years after we elect more scrubs paid for by corporations we will recognize how important our Constitution really is(was).

Taco John
12-23-2007, 08:10 PM
REALLY?!?



Yeah, I did. The earmark thing, I personally thought, was petty petty and meaningless overall. I think his defense there was adequate. I think he's right to try and bring money back to his district like any congressman would. But when it comes to getting rid of earmarks by streamlining the role of the federal government to a constitutional level, I believe he's best equipped morally than anyone else running. I have no reason not to believe him when he says he wants to cut government spending. I think overall, people who investigate his positions and voting history would agree.

As far as the rest, I didn't see anything that made me thing, "oh wow, that's going to kill us."

I think the inerview is a net gain for us.

HolmeZz
12-23-2007, 08:18 PM
What would your biggest criticism of Paul be? Is it that he's too great?

Taco John
12-23-2007, 08:44 PM
What would your biggest criticism of Paul be? Is it that he's too great?


I don't have many criticisms for his message. It's more or less the stuff that I believe. As far as Dr. Paul personally, I think that he sometimes needs to show more fire, and get a little more assertive in drawing contrasts between his positions and those of his opponents. But I understand his argument against that, which is that if he were to attack his opponents by naming names and being combatative, the end result will be that he will serve as a rally point for his opponents bases, and entrench his opponents support.

What's your biggest criticism of Dr. Paul?

KILLER_CLOWN
12-24-2007, 12:42 AM
Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Ron Paul Shines on Meet the Press

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russert comes out swinging but gets knocked out before the final bell.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Big Louie
(Libertarian)
It was the absolutely most aggressive interview I have ever seen by Russert on "Meet the Press" He dredged up every slimy thing he could find to attack Dr. Paul. Yet, Dr. Paul was able to rebut EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!.

My belief that DR. Paul is the man for our times has just been confirmed. He was able to answer every single, stupid attack that has been launched against him the past few weeks. For this, we should thank Tim Russert, even though I do not believe he did it for the betterment of the Revolution.

Be careful of the seeds you sow, Neo-Cons, for someday you will have to reap the Harvest. This interview was like a much needed summer rain. It will allow our Revolution to flourish. Dr. Paul is the the sunshine that gives us our energy to grow.

It was better than any boxing match I have ever seen. Neither competitor flinched, neither dodged nor ducked. For 30 minutes, they stood toe-to toe. Russert was knocked down in every round, but seemed to get up stronger. DR. Paul was stunned by a few jabs, but never staggered nor fell and always responded with a firm uppercut or roundhouse. 3 minutes per round, 10 rounds, RON PAUL WINS BY TKO!!!!

And now without the flowery analogies

I was terrified at every single questions Russert asked. I couldn't see how Dr. Paul could possibly give a satisfactory answer. but Dr. Paul KICKED HIS ARSE!!!!! Not only did he answer the questions, but, I think, put to rest a lot of crazy claims that have been leveled against him.

You should also read my previous article "FAIR WEATHER PATRIOTS"

http://www.nolanchart.com/article659.html

Taco John
12-24-2007, 12:50 AM
My absolute favorite was when Russert asked Dr. Paul what it Iran invades Isreal... Dr. Paul returns with, "What if Iran invades Mars!"

Hahahahaha!

Chocolate Hog
12-24-2007, 01:08 AM
Russerts son supports Ron Paul

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017971.html

patteeu
12-24-2007, 06:32 AM
What would your biggest criticism of Paul be? Is it that he's too great?

LMAO

KILLER_CLOWN
12-24-2007, 07:46 AM
LMAO


10/10 Patteeus agree, Ron Paul is THE MAN!!!!!

:)

patteeu
12-24-2007, 07:57 AM
10/10 Patteeus agree, Ron Paul is THE MAN!!!!!

:)

Ron Paul would be a great President (or Prime Minister) for a country like Canada where the population could rest easy in the knowledge that even if their own government isn't looking out for their national defense, they at least continue to be protected by the US defense umbrella.

SNR
12-24-2007, 09:43 AM
...they at least continue to be protected by the US defense umbrella.Not if Ron Paul were president of the US :)

banyon
12-24-2007, 10:04 AM
Yeah, I did. The earmark thing, I personally thought, was petty petty and meaningless overall. I think his defense there was adequate. I think he's right to try and bring money back to his district like any congressman would. But when it comes to getting rid of earmarks by streamlining the role of the federal government to a constitutional level, I believe he's best equipped morally than anyone else running. I have no reason not to believe him when he says he wants to cut government spending. I think overall, people who investigate his positions and voting history would agree.

based on what principle?
This one? : (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4474724&postcount=13)

Garcia Bronco
12-24-2007, 10:40 AM
Ron Paul is the only one out there talking about following the contract that makes up our governemnt. None on the other candidates are talking that way. This is why Ron Paul should get your vote. I don't agree with all of his platform, but I agree with most of it.

Taco John
12-24-2007, 01:06 PM
I love the fact that Fox is bashing Ron Paul on his statements about Lincoln and the idea that the civil war was unecessary. This is going to seriously help us out in the south - especially in South Carolina.

banyon
12-24-2007, 01:17 PM
I love the fact that Fox is bashing Ron Paul on his statements about Lincoln and the idea that the civil war was unnecessary. This is going to seriously help us out in the south - especially in South Carolina.

It would make sense that you don't see that those statements allow the media to successfully portray him as a lunatic on the fringe. Your blinders have reached almost the same thickness as Recx's.

It's exactly why I thought this interview was so damaging, it cements in the mind of ordinary voters that he is not a serious candidate.

If those statements look bad to Fox News, just think of how they'd be used in a general election.

Of course I've been saying this "let's roll back everything to the 1920s" stuff is absurd all along. Now it's finally catching up with him somewhere besides an internet forum.

ClevelandBronco
12-24-2007, 01:33 PM
Ron Paul is the only one out there talking about following the contract that makes up our governemnt. None on the other candidates are talking that way. This is why Ron Paul should get your vote. I don't agree with all of his platform, but I agree with most of it.

That pretty much sums it up for me as well, Garcia.

ClevelandBronco
12-24-2007, 01:36 PM
Of course I've been saying this "let's roll back everything to the 1920s" stuff is absurd all along...

I prefer 1789.

We'll let the subsequent amendments stand as well, though.

Except for the 16th, of course.

Taco John
12-24-2007, 01:42 PM
It would make sense that you don't see that those statements allow the media to successfully portray him as a lunatic on the fringe. Your blinders have reached almost the same thickness as Recx's.

I understand that is the intent. I also understand that in the south there are a lot of conseravtives who believe as Paul does on this issue... Which was the point of my statement.

But I'm curious - what is so crazy about saying that the civil war was unecessary and the differences could have been worked out peacefully?

Taco John
12-24-2007, 01:44 PM
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0rduigENzHo&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0rduigENzHo&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

banyon
12-24-2007, 01:53 PM
I understand that is the intent. I also understand that in the south there are a lot of conseravtives who believe as Paul does on this issue... Which was the point of my statement.

But I'm curious - what is so crazy about saying that the civil war was unecessary and the differences could have been worked out peacefully?

i pretty much agree with this:

And your arguments that the South would have peaceably abolished slavery in some reaonably small period of time and reunited with the North is frankly the silly dreaming of people who can't get around the fact that the South's entire economic and social fabric was built on slavery, and that the war was caused in part by their aggressive desire to expand it into Mexico and the Caribbean.

recxjake
12-26-2007, 05:04 AM
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/23/532376.aspx

gblowfish
12-26-2007, 07:20 AM
You know what's funny? On the same day I got e-mails saying "Russert shoots down Ron Paul" and "Ron Paul Makes Russert Look Stupid."

Just goes to show, some fights have a split ballot.