Ron Paul on Meet the Press
It’s a little bit much of Ron Paul today, for which I apologize but… Earlier today, Congressman Ron Paul appeared on Meet the Press with Tim Russert. It became quite an interesting show – for one time, Russert actually asked the guest about policy issues – and I’ve got to say; Paul said some good things, but Russert also showed that Paul is quite inconsistent (despite the glorifying words of his supporters to the contrary) with regards to earmarks.
At a certain point Russert confronted Paul with his earmarking behavior. In short: Paul knows how to earmark. Well. Very well. This even though he’s always talking about how the government should spend less, etc. If you truly believe that and if you truly oppose the practice of earmarks, wasteful spending, etc. you shouldn’t use earmarks. That’s simple alright. If you believe that the federal government “steals” too much money from American citizens you should try to get everyone to stop earmarking bills. If the federal government, then, saves money, you can advocate lowering taxes, for instance.
Paul answered that it doesn’t work like that, that the system not he is to blame. That’s nonsense. He earmarks. He’s to blame. He also said that it’s actually good to earmark because it gives money back to the voters. Yeah yeah. That’s not an argument of fiscal conservatives, that’s an argument of progressives. You don’t give them the money back: you give them their money back minus a bureaucracy fee. In other words: they always end up with less than they had. What’s more, most projects could be carried out at a local, or state level.
You don’t give people their money back by earmarking, you give them their money back – well, better, you save them money – by cutting taxes.
With regards to Israel and Iran I find Paul to be either naive or indifferent about Israel’s fate. He says, for instance, that there’s no doubt that Israel wants the US to bomb Iran. Really? Says who, Russert asked. Well, no one specifically of course, in general, Paul answered. “Everybody knows that,” he said. No, everybody doesn’t know. In fact, quite some would disagree with that.
What’s more, Paul told Russert that he would stop aide to Israel immediately. If Israel’s attacked by Iran? Ah, not going to happen according to him. Pardon me? Not going to happen? When Iran is able to attack Israel, the Mullahs will give the order immediately. As with Hitler, listen to what these people say about it themselves. “Wiping Israel off the map” is one of Ahmadinejad’s goals, or at least dreams.
He even went so far as to say that saying “Iran will invade Israel” is comparable to saying “Iran will invade Mars.” That’s a completely ludicrous comparison.
Having said that, you’ve got to agree with Paul that Western meddling in the Middle East has contributed to the radicalization of the region. That’s true beyond a doubt. However, at this moment the West is in the defense and many of us feel we’ve got some kind of obligation to help out the people in the Middle East. What’s more – and this is the school I belong to – quite some believe that it’s in the West’s interest to fight extremists diplomatically, economically and – yes – militarily. 9/11 was possible because Al Qaeda had a safe haven in Afghanistan. If that were not the case, 9/11 would most likely not have happened because it would’ve been much more difficult for the terrorist organization to carry its vile plans out.
But: we must learn from the past. We must recognize that Western meddling has increased the radicalization in the Mideast. Radicalization was, to a large degree, a reaction to European powers’ occupation and exploitation of Muslim lands. The lessen, then, we have to learn isn’t that we (= the West) should completely withdraw from the Middle East but that we must deal with Muslim countries as if they’re partners.
Would that erase extremism completely? No. But it would decrease it significantly.
With regards to saving money, Paul argued that he emphasizes changing US foreign policy because it’s so incredibly expensive. He’s right about that, the question is how much you can cut in this regard without endangering America’s – and the West’s – security. Of course, if you want to abolish the income tax, just cutting in US foreign policy won’t be enough. You’ll have to cut more. So, what spending – exactly – does he want to cut?
Also: he indicated that he doesn’t truly know how much getting the troops home from all the countries they’re in would save the United States (perhaps some hundreds of billions of dollars who said, but he doesn’t know, no calculations, nothing). He didn’t even know how many troops are serving abroad. If this issue matters so much to you, you should know those ‘details.’
.jpg)
Yes, I’ve got a lot of criticism, but that’s fair. When you want to become the most powerful man on earth you should be able to deal with criticism.
Income tax: this is a subject I can find myself in agreement with Paul. In fact, I favor abolishing the income tax in the Netherlands. Flat tax, then, as an alternative? No, says Paul. Cut spending, you don’t need an income nor a flat tax. Right about that, question is: is it possible. I’d say no. So you’ll have to come up with a viable alternative.
Would he abolish the CIA and the FBI? In the past he said yes. He now says that he doesn’t run on a platform to abolish these agencies. He wants them to continue carrying out certain tasks, but other tasks not. How? What tasks exactly?
Constitution: when Russert asked Paul’s view that the Constitution has to be amended Paul carefully explained that it’s ‘constitutional’ to amend the Constitution. If you want to change something – in this regard whether or not children born in the US should automatically receive the American nationality – you’ve got to change the Constitution he said. That’s ‘constitutional.’ Russert acted as if Paul’s view is in breach with a strict interpretation, but Paul is completely right. He explained it quite well.
Progressives often make the mistake to think that those who argue that the Constitution should be literally – and strictly – interpreted oppose all change. They don’t, not per definition at least. They only say “change the constitution first, don’t just change the other laws.”
If you believe that abortion should be a ‘right,’ a federal right, great, change the Constitution.
He also explained to Russert why he’s running as a Republican. He explained it well. To a large degree, Paul runs on a platform that can be considered Republican. Or it was a Republican platform once. This platform was, if not supported by all or most Republicans then at least by a powerful and influential group. Years. Decades even.
So, how did he perform? All in all not bad. I don’t quite see how his appearance can hurt his chances. In fact, he reached a very big audience and he may have convinced quite some to vote for him. The show didn’t hurt him, that’s for sure.
You can watch the entire show by clicking here.
Good assessment! I lean towards Paul’s opinion on Israel. His point that he’s for cutting ALL foreign aid, including that to Arab nations (about 3 times what America gives to Israel from its taxes) is especially clarifying.
After seeing Ron Paul on Meet the Press…I am for him now. He seems like a true Republican. I will vote for Ron Paul.
You did see that Ron Paul laugh when those questions about earmarks were asked. Because that is preposterous to suggests Paul is for earmarks. He voted against each one. All he was doing is making sure that some of the people got back some of the money before it was spent on other things. To suggest that Ron Paul is somehow progressive as a result is nonsense.You wrote: "He even went so far as to say that saying “Iran will invade Israel” is comparable to saying “Iran will invade Mars.” That’s a completely ludicrous comparison." Actually it is not. He also said that Iran has no airforce, no army, no navy etc. Do you actually think they would invade Israel when they would be nuked immediately by Israel? So yes, it is a ridiculous assumption that IRan would attack Israel, and if it wasn’t why haven’t they attacked them thus far? Not because of the U since that did not stop anyone in the middle east form attacking other countries.
I am voting for Ron Paul because I have been researching him for the past week. After seeing him on Meet the Press, I am now won over to his side, I will try to get more people to see what a great person he is.
Edited by MvdG: either comment on the article or don’t comment at all.
The meet the press appearance sold him for me.
Honestly . . . I was leaning toward Romney and I read dirt on him and couldn’t find anything on Paul. But now it definitely looks like Paul is the one with his head on most straight, eeeeeeeven though you have to read over his reasoning to understand him.
Dr Paul was great in this interview. I don’t see any inconsistencies. He has always been against taxes. But if the people are going to be taxed, let the people he is representing – his district – get their money back. Agree with him on Israel too. Best thing for Israel to live in peace is not to be backed by the US. Besides that the Arab countries would lose 3x as much American dollars. He stopped every bomb by Russert. Clear, concise, consistent. Dr Paul was also very congenial. Grade: A.
Ha Ha
That is the best they can hit him with……
…he represented his district.
Go Ron
Talcott – that’s what I was thinking too. You push for reform but, while the system is in place, you look out for your constituents. That is why they elect you, that is your job.
Paul believes it is his job to introduce requests from his constituents even though he disagrees with them. Once introduced, he votes against them. You left this little fact out of your story.
Well, you kind of have to expect that type of hatchet job. I did my OWN little fact checking expedition and found the advertisers for this little shindig.
GE lists 824 items regarding defense contracts on their website for 2007. http://www.ge.com/search/index.jsp
Boeing lists 72,200 items regarding defense.
http://tinyurl.com/2nm5y8
Fidelity Investments – tax and 401k services, need I say more?
Hummer – child company of AM General the company that makes all the HMMWV’s for the Army
UBS – Another banking company, certainly they have nothing to fear from Dr. Paul, right?
Toyota – makes cars which are CURRENTLY cheaper to make in Japan (and then assemble here).
Aleve – you think Bayer Pharmaceuticals has a reason to fear Ron Paul – who wants to allow yound adults to opt out of SS and Medicare and is vehemently opposed to socialized medicine?
ABE – (shill for coal companies) do they have nothing to fear from Ron Paul’s desire to deregulate nuclear power so we have safe, clean unlimited power?
CVS – A Pharmacy whose bread and butter is insurance and Medicare. Dr. Paul wants to remove the incentives for hospitals to overbill us.
Xerox – another defense contractor. Here’s a link to their defense contracts of 2006.
http://tinyurl.com/2wjzbb
MasterCard – Huge banking coop.
Why didn’t Mr. Russert let us know that he had a HUGE conflict of interest BEFORE THIS SEGMENT AIRED? When half of your advertisers are in defense, the other half split between banking and Big Pharma doesn’t that constitute NEWS? I mean, Mr. Russert dug back 20 years or more on Dr. Paul to try to find "dirt". Why not look in your own mirror? I find the FACT the Mr. Russert did NOT disclose this relationship highly disturbing.
That was a hilarious assessment by the poligazette. Even without nuclear force, Israel would beat the crap out of Iran on sheer conventional military force alone. As for the earmarks assessment, I don’t understand what Mr. Russert or the poligazette was referring to. If you take money away from people due to a corrupt system, it is logical to try and give as much of it back, especially if it would otherwise be diverted to not only other programs not represented by Ron Paul’s Constituents, but programs that are inept in their understanding of the US Constitution.
Wait, wait, so if you don’t earmark, spending will cease!? I don’t believe so! The spending would end up in the Department of X, Y, and Z and they’d determine, unelected bureaucrats will determine, how to waste the money.
its funny.
on all the other meet the presses, tim smeared them with corruption.
with ron paul, the only fuel they could get for a smear was attacking his ideology.
way to go MSM! the more you smear ron paul the better he looks.
Wow, what a great interview!
Romney was almost in tears after Russert got through with him last week. I loved the part when Paul was laughing at Russert because of earmarks. That is the job of a Representitive! There isn’t one single congressman who doesn’t ask for money for their district. However, Paul votes against all of them while the other pigs at the troff push them though. We need more Pauls, not pigs.
I guess Micheal here can be forgiven because he does live in the Netherlands and is obviously ignorant of how American federal government spending and allocation work. Other than that, glad to see him agree on all the other stuff he does understand.
Really? You do know that in the Yom Kippur War Israel would’ve lost if the US wouldn’t have supported it logistically / materially, right? At least according to Golda Meir who reportedly let the US know back then that they were going to lose?
I was not for sure if I was for Ron Paul. But after watching him put Tim Russett in his proper place and reading this article, I know now that Ron Paul is the man I am going to vote for on election day.
If that is all they got, Ron Paul will be our next President. Russert stayed away from the Constitution. How can they (neocons) say they don’t want the Constitution. They can’t publicly. That is what this all boils down to. We may not agree on all of Paul’s positions, however, if we lose the Constitution, we will all lose. Vote Ron Paul, Vote for your freedom.
I thought Paul did the best he could today, but it really seems as if digging up old quotes and making him clarify his position from 20 years ago was only used to distract viewers away from Paul’s platform. Criticism is great and is one of the most important facets of democracy, but I don’t think an interview completely based on trying to discredit his consistency was appropriate for his first very major media appearance. I’m not talking in terms of a conspiracy, with guys behind the scenes planning on taking Ron Paul out – but I’m really left with the impression that Russert was trying to undermine this so-called revolution before it has the chance to really catch steam.
I haven’t seen his interviews with the other candidates, but was every segment in those interviews based on pulling up 20 year old quotes and asking them to force them into their current platform?
I don’t think Ron Paul is inconsistent about earmarks. The people in his district pay federal income taxes, which he disagrees with. But just because he disagrees on the over-tax-and-over-spend system we are in, doesn’t mean he has to refuse his district getting some of their tax money back in the form of aid. If they are going to pay the government all that money and have less economic freedom (thus becoming dependent on the government), how could Paul fight against them getting their money back? That was almost along the lines of a hit job.
I am disappointed with the direction of this interview, and I feel like his message wasn’t spread. People have to understand what he would be able to do as a president. He wouldn’t be a dictator and he couldn’t just DO half of these things he believes in, yet those are the things that are used the most as scare tactics. If in the unlikely case Iran invaded Israel, and the congress voted to decide it was a threat to our national security, then Paul would command the troops to execute the order.
I don’t think it’s appropriate to argue against a strict interpretation of the constitution. Firstly because a strict interpretation of the constitution allows it to be changed. But more importantly, the constitution is the document that gives the government legitimacy. Anyone that does not take the constitution literally allows for wishy-washy policies that have a basis in nothing. To me that is a threat to the people and it is an affront to the idea that ‘we the people’ create the government to protect us from tyranny.
This interview was one of the toughest thrown at Dr. Paul recently and its hysterical to see so many people smugly pronounce it as a "defeat" for him. The tax monies question would have been a "KO" if it mattered to his position, (still waiting for Russert to ask that question to all the other candidates promising the moon and more in SPENDING it) him not knowing the exact amount in 2.2 seconds is hardly damning. Russert veered into an insolent little kid with questions of Ron Paul actually giving his district federal monies (to balance out the monies they PAY in) and just plain stupid for someone with an attorney background not knowing that amending the constitution is constitutional. The tortured logic and interruptions were so bad at one point I was waiting for him to "slam" Paul on the hard-hitting questions of "how many fingers are behind my back right now?", "if you love the constitution so much, why don’t you marry it?", and "fastest land mammal?". Russert you need to find a new job if you think what just happened was "success", heck maybe you and Stephanapolous can room together while he pays off his bet to President Paul!
Overall not a bad assessment of the interview. I would take issue with a few of your observations, though. On the subject of earmarks: you do know how they work, don’t you? It is not in any way a tax increase, it just allocates the money for specific purposes. Paul has always been against the basic assumption that the Federal government should be claiming that money from the people in the first place, and has always tried to convince his colleges on the Hill, but to no avail. I suppose you think that is also his fault, not theirs.
"Well, no one specifically of course, in general, Paul answered. “Everybody knows that,” he said. No, everybody doesn’t know. In fact, quite some would disagree with that." Ironic, isn’t it? You fault Paul for not citing sources off the cuff, yet you turn around and do exactly the same thing. Quite some would disagree? Care to cite? You’ve had more time to prepare than Paul did when he was trying to answer Russert’s rapid-fire questions with 5 second answers.
"9/11 was possible because Al Qaeda had a safe haven in Afghanistan. If that were not the case, 9/11 would most likely not have happened because it would’ve been much more difficult for the terrorist organization to carry its vile plans out." And that’s why they had to come to the US to be trained to fly those planes right under our intelligence communities noses? What, exactly, was so essential to the planning of that attack that it could only be done in Afghanistan? Was it the special Afghani box cutters?
On the subject of Iran you are not very up to speed. The tough talk from Ahmadinejad is a bluff. They don’t have a credible military, and are quite rightly very afraid of being attacked. Likewise, they are playing to the political extremists at home. Kind of like the chickenhawks here in the US, don’t you think? Bush’s saber rattling only undermines the moderate movement trying to get traction on the streets of Iran. Americans are actually rather popular with the Iranian people, who would prefer peace, as opposed to their loudmouthed bellicose leaders. Hey! They’re just like us!
Your grasp of the situation in the Middle East is flawed because you focus far too much on the leaders and give no importance to the People, another failing our leaders have here at home. We get this Paul train rolling into the station and you may get to see some big changes in the world.
A closing observation that has nothing to do with FTN today, but I would have liked to hear Russert bring it up. Have you noticed how Paul’s candidacy is being followed by people around the world? Why do you think that is? Is it because they hope we may abandon our quest for Empire, and return to the ideals that once made us the beacon of the world? We have not yet fulfilled our destiny as a nation truly dedicated to Liberty, Peace and Freedom. This may be our chance.
The Yom Kippur War?
You mean the Arab Israeli War of 1973?
Michael, that was over a decade before you were born.
Care to come up with an example in your lifetime?
I also think that Israel wants very strongly for the US to be anti-Iran. It is in their own self interest. They wouldn’t ask publicly for the US to all out attack Iran, but I’m sure behind the scenes there are at least some lobbyists and diplomats urging stronger action. Israel publicly resisted the findings of the NIE. They don’t like it when America doesn’t escalate tensions with their enemy. I think it is perfectly reasonable to say what Ron Paul said today. Unfortunately there will be those that say this is antisemitic, but I thought being against antisemitism is about not hating the Jews. It’s not about aggressively fighting FOR them.
Not a bad article, but I completely disagree on the earmark issue. There’s nothing inconsistent about Paul taking stolen money from the evil Sheriff of Nottingham and returning it to the people. What else was he supposed to do?
"Would he abolish the CIA and the FBI? In the past he said yes. He now says that he doesn’t run on a platform to abolish these agencies. He wants them to continue carrying out certain tasks, but other tasks not. How? What tasks exactly?"
Actually, if you read the official transcript of the interview, Paul said that he favors intelligence gathering, but not secret wars and overthrowing governments. I agree that how these agencies would be reformed was not explained, but don’t try to make it sound as though Paul didn’t attempt to address the issue.
Can someone please, PLEASE tell me why we give a crap about Israel? What does the USA get out of the one-sided relationship with Israel?
Please, I am not kidding, I need to know why everyone thinks we have to care about them.
Ron Paul for President!
Did anyone notice that one of the biggest advertisers for Meet the Press is Boeing. Does that not tell you something! Right in front of our face.
"Please, I am not kidding, I need to know why everyone thinks we have to care about them."
For many Christians, it stems from a misguided application of a promise made to Abraham. The Bible clearly states, in both the Old and New Testaments, that God has not forgotten the Jews and will eventually redeem them as a nation. Also, there’s a promise of blessing for those who bless the Jews, but a warning of a curse for those who curse them. Many, however, mistakenly think that means we should use our tax dollars to fund Israel as though it were the 51’st state of the union.
There are also those in our government who are trying to use Israel as a bulwark against the Arab nations in an effort to control their resources. I think their support is disingenuous at best and the view Israel as a vassal state.
I’m a registered Republican who supports a smaller Federal governement.
While I don’t agree 100 % with Ron Paul on everything, he is the only Rebublican I would currently vote for.
He is the only one I have ever donated money to and the only one I have encouraged other people to look at.
We NEED real change in Washington, we are ready, and I know of no one who is really walking their talk.
In this interview, the worst ‘dirt’ they came up with was quotes form a guy Ron Paul fired from his campaign 20 years ago (who then went to work for his opponent!), and out-of-context quotes from columnists, who themselves took quotes out-of-context from Dr. Paul in order to try and smear him!This is journalism? Looks more like yellow journalism, or propaganda in the Geobbels/Stalin/Mao vein! I loved it when Dr. Paul asked him if he had asked the same stupid ‘will you run as a third party candidate’ question of all the other candidates! Russert got that deer-in-the-headlights look for a moment, then weasled his way out of answering by changing the question. I expected less of a ‘hit piece’ from Meet The Press and Tim Russert. The only question he didn’t ask Dr. Paul was ‘Do you still beat your wife’. All the rest of the questions were framed in the same logic-trap propagandistic mode. Interesting how there were NO questions asked about the economy or the war in Iraq- the top two concerns of the majority of the American electorate! Perhaps Dr. Paul’s message and position would prove too popular with the viewers. Instead, Russert concentrated on 20-year-old out of context quotes from one unreliable source, and quotes from COLUMNISTS about one-or two-word quotes by Dr. Paul which were ALSO taken out of context!Seems like they were trying too hard for a ‘Gotcha’ moment to actually do a service to the voters and ask Ron Paul about the REAL issues that MATTER. Instead they concentrated on peripheral and non-issues. How sad for Tim Russert, NBC and thier owner, defense contractor GE. Hmmm… see a pattern there? xtrabiggg +++++++++++++++++
US government collects over $1,000,000,000,000 in taxes a year and we have old, children and sick people out on the street! This should be the biggest crime of the century!
"We NEED real change in Washington, we are ready, and I know of no one who is really walking their talk."
I agree, Matthew.
And I don’t even care that Ron Paul seems eccentric at times. After all, look where "normal" has gotten us. Paul’s message is about freedom and prosperity, and the formula he proposes is the same one that made America a prosperous giant in the first place. If that’s "kooky," count me in.
There are a lot of misconceptions about earmarks. Earmarks do NOT increase the overall cost of a bill. They specify how some of the money must be spent, instead of leaving it to bureaucrats to parcel out.
Paul forwards legitimate earmark requests from his district to the appropriate committee. That’s part of his job – representing his district. However, he votes against the bills containing the earmarks — because the spending levels are too high and the money is being spent on things that aren’t authorized by the Constitution.
Whether you agree with Paul’s approach or not, it is consistant with his stated beliefs and has been his stated policy throughout his terms in Congress.
I’m happy to see this thread hasn’t yet degenerated into a bitter hate-fest. But, the night is young!
I pretty much agree with the article, though one part of the interview I was sort of surprised about was when they used that 1992 newsletter that Paul didn’t actually write where he called Bush a ‘bum’, I thought Russert was going to bring up that batch of crap again. Surprised he didn’t.
The United States is hurt by its relationship with Israel. It is one of the prime motivating factors for suicide terrorism, and while our protection and friendship may seem like a boon its Citizens, in reality Israel has become dependent on American tax payer dollars, granted to them in the form of foreign aid. Foreign nations, particularly muslim one’s find America’s biased foreign policy unjust, unfair, and it is a prime reason why they harbor so much animosity towards us. The U.S. needs to rethink its foreign policy, we ought not get involved in foreign affairs, as Paul says. We ought not favor certain group or nation over others, our government ought not give foreign aid to anyone, and we ought not pass sanctions against nations with whom we disagree. If it is a matter of personal security we should get involved, but if is purely a conflict between two nations half way around the world, we have no place getting involved, and it is more likely that we are going to affect evil than good.
When I watched the video of Ron Paul on Meet the Press at MSNBC.com, the commercial before the video was for Boeing. This is exactly what I thought of when I saw it.
Of course, GE owns NBC, so letting someone like Ron Paul win would be really bad for business.
Good interview but don’t agree with the earmarks question. I had my doubt on what Paul was about and thought that at one point he’d just give in and start singing a traditional politics theme, but he didn’t. This interview made me decide to vote for Paul.
I don’t quite follow your logic. We have screwed up the middle east by meddling, but we have to "help out" the people in the middle east, but we need to stop meddling there.What do you think "helping them out" is? Seems like "meddling" to me.There are some situations where further meddling just won’t help. Even though you caused the problems in the first place, sometimes you just have to get out so the people you screwed up can start to heal. We are way past that point in the middle east.
Truth is an interesting concept…no one can deny it in any real way. Truth recognizes itself. Words negating Truth fall away like water on a stone wall…transparent. The beauty of Dr. Paul…what we all observe in his presentation…is his ability to simply stand in that which he so beautifully represents…Truth. Well done Dr. Paul. Nice try Mr. Russert.
Russert "grilled" Dr. Paul on getting earmarks for his own district? That was a stupid engagement on Russert’s part – Paul knocked it out of the park with the "I’m getting their money back for them statement" – here you have a man who is against government waste, but adds the earmarks to ensure his district gets some of the fleecing money back…this made him look like Robin Hood, NOT Caesar!!! I love this guy! Ron Paul has my vote for the POTUS! Jude
Israel would be better served if the us didn’t always hold them back. And support their enemies. The reason Israel has to trust the us to take care of Iran is because they are prevented from doing it them selfs. Currently the us gets a lot of Arab money and help because they know we are the ones preventing Israel from owning them. If we got out of the way i think the Arab states would be forced to deal directly with Israel. And on a side note if the us stopped taking 25% of my income in personal tax alone i would give 5% of my income to the IDF. If just the Jews in this country did the same it would total around 15Billion a year…. thats not counting Evangelicals and other bible believers. There are many religious people in the united states that care for Israel.
Paul is exactly right about Israel and Iran. Israel is the occupying power here, supported by generations of administrations. It is an artificial political entity, and a theocracy, imposed on Palestine by the Brits and the French and we have no business supporting the continued theft of Palestinian land. Palestinians have every right to resist that occupation. I’m far more afraid of Israel’s nuclear program than Iran’s. The Israelis are far more committed to violence in the name of religion than the Persians simply because that’s how and why the Israeli state exists. But, why bother worrying about it. We will never live in a civilized world until people give up the myths, supersititions and intrinsic evils of institutional sectarian religion.
To Michael van der Galien’
Ron Paul’s platform points out that this kind of interference invites blowback resulting in attacks against the West. The history lesson Ron Paul should Not have to give Russert is the obvious one; the US has interfered in the region since the 1950’s. Why is there so much surprise in the blowback? The rationalization for the US to create a defensive position militarily based on the “ "effect” and eliminate the other side of the equation; the “ cause", is reversed reasoning of self substantiation and mirrors the image of the accused.
The interview, for me, was an in-depth exercise into reevaluating my viewpoint on whether Ron Paul can become the next President of the United States. It forced me to think at a deeper level than is normally comfortable and ultimately I generally agree with Ron Paul’s arguably unconventional responses.
All too often I shake my head at the perceived tone and spirit of our media’s "gotchia" agenda. I believe that the candidates should be challenged and exercised to explain valid questions and concerns but why not towards the goal of honest inquiry and a more united consensus?
Let’s not be afraid to honestly evaluate the subject matter responses while we also recognize each subject’s relative importance. At present, I support Ron Paul.
It makes moral sense for Paul to earmark money for his constituents, since that money was taken from them in the first place via taxation. Paul, unlike the majority of his colleagues, votes against these earmark bills in the end. But if Paul and other congressman didn’t put those earmarks in there, the tax dollars would have simply ended up in the executive branch, paying for a war or feeding the endless appetite of the Departments.
The real problem, which Paul alone among the candidates seems to understand, is that the system itself is corrupt. If you are against wasteful spending, then Paul is your candidate, hands-down. Stack his record up against any other candidate and see what I mean.
Edited by MvdG: I’ve had enough Chris.
Tim Russert, please explain to me how Iran is supposed to attack Israel. Iranian forces would have to decide which of four routes they would have to take in order to invade Israel:
1. Through Turkey AND Syria or
2. Through Iraq AND Syria or
3. Through Iraq AND Jordan or
4. Through Iraq AND Saudia Arabia AND Jordan.
The United States stands a greater chance of being invaded by Costa Rica. Look at a map before you pose such absurd questions, Tim.
I have yet to see a candidate that meets any sort of ideological perfection. Ron Paul comes close though.
I wonder why defense minister Ehud Barak said: "“It is our responsibility to ensure that the right steps are taken against the Iranian regime. As is well known, words don’t stop missiles. [...] It is apparently true that in 2003 Iran stopped pursuing its military nuclear program for a certain period of time. But in our estimation, since then it is apparently continuing with its program."
Sounds like someone still itching for a fight.
So what? If they are attacked shouldn’t we… you know… help them with our military, rather than continually buying theirs for them (which incidentally pisses off tons of would-be terrorists)?
I wonder who the next Hitler will be after Ahmadinejad? First Saddam, then him… maybe al-Assad next?
I’ve dealt with this agitprop on a more substantial level in your other posts, and I think it remains clear that you’re exaggerating both the stance of the Ayatollah and the quote from Ahmadinejad.
Funny then that terrorist attacks were up 25% in 2006…
What progressives? I’m open to some examples… really… It’s not that I don’t believe you, I just want to know what jerks think that way.
Where in the world are you coming from? Do you know what earmarks he submitted for his state? Let’s see, first, a nursing program (wow is that a pork earmark?), second (addition to a cancer research facility (let’s just hang him for caring), third, an intercoastal waterway (we don’t want products coming into this country) and last but not lease, help to promote shrimp fishermen in Texas (ouch, let’s not keep jobs in American and buy the shrimp from China which I refuse to do) Tim Russert tried to discredit the most moral and pro-American candidate in this country and you help spread his pathetic propaganda. Shame on you and the word Traitor to the American people is too simplified to describe the mainstream media like you. "Evil can only prevail if good men remain silent" Good journalism is dead and you represent it.
As with Hitler, listen to what these people say about it themselves. “Wiping Israel off the map” is one of Ahmadinejad’s goals, or at least dreams.
This is an mistranslation by the evil FED sponsored mass media. Actually Ahmadinejad said: "vanished the [Jerusalem] occupying force from the page of time". Sounds a little bit different? I wonder why the MIC-Media can still sell us these lies! As Tim Russert. This guy is clearly one of the media presstitutes who sold their souls long time ago.
Mitt cries, Huck insults religion by using it as a campaign slogan, Rudy remains sick, Tancredo quits, Fred sleeps and Ron Paul raises $6 million dollars in one day (and triumphs on MTP). Except for Dr. Paul, "[t]here’s not a dime’s worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas, banning books like "America Deceived’ from Amazon, warrant-less wiretapping and the PATRIOT ACT. They are both guilty of treason.
Time to take sides, fellow patriots, you’re either for liberty and Support Dr. Ron Paul or you’re against liberty and damn us all.
Final link (before Google Books bends to pressure and drops the book):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0
You wrote: "Paul answered that it doesn?t work like that, that the system not he is to blame. That?s nonsense. He earmarks. He?s to blame. He also said that it?s actually good to earmark because it gives money back to the voters. Yeah yeah. That?s not an argument of fiscal conservatives, that?s an argument of progressives." Ron Paul is the type of person who changes systems from within. Part of doing that effectively includes using the current system "as is", for better or worse, while simultaneously working to change it. So as Congressman he needs to represent the interests of his constituents within the current system, which is to earmark bills to support local projects that currently can’t be funded without federal money because of all the federal taxes everyone local currently pays. The main point you seemed to miss is that he votes AGAINST all the bills that he earmarks. This makes sense. He’s basically saying, "I’m against ALL of this bill, including ALL of the earmarking, but, IF the bill passes, then my district needs to be covered too – it’s their money too." To conclude that this position is inconsistent, or reflects the thinking or behavior of someone who is not a fiscal conservative is ridiculous, and totally missing the point. Happy Holidays!
Point One: Ronald Reagan’s Grace Commission determined in 1985 that none of the Federal Personal Income Tax is spent on government programs and current expenditures. It is all spent on paying the national debt before one cent reaches the current budget. Therefore, eliminate foreign aid spending and bureaucracy and you can both pay down the national debt and prevent its expansion while funding a Constitutional government.
Point Two: Earmarks are merely redistribution of already allocated Federal funds. Dr. Paul is doing his job by asking for his constituents’ tax money back. Otherwise the money might go to a bridge to nowhere or Halliburton subsidies. He votes against the government taking it in the first place! He votes against the final spending bills because much like with the internet, to vote for the spending itself is to endorse an Unconstitutional system of regulation. It’s not inconsistent, it just takes some deeper contemplation than a knee-jerk response.
Point Three: Ron Paul is a bulwark against corporatism and globalism. His election is one of the only things that can set America back in the right direction instead of that of the EU, which is about to become one nation with no elected leaders of any signifigance. Look up "Lisbon Treaty." It’s the EU Constitution repackaged which was soundly rejected when put to a voter referendum in 2005. This time, they did’t ask permission of the people. They just let the fascist leaders decide. Welcome to the EUSSR. This is where America is heading. Please consider Ron Paul for President if you stand for our republic and our Constitution.
if you don’t understand the political chessgame, understand this…..there is a collusion of interested parties (i.e, corporate media, mega corporations, big government, banking, 2 party system, military industrial complex) who have already undermined democracy for the last hundred years or so. if there is a candidate who has a level of intergrity and honesty to threaten their power base, their tactics are:
1. ignore them. this is done by lack of media coverage. this would explain the level of collusion because it is the reason that these interested parties have already vetted on their candidates as the most likely winners. this is seen time and time again with every election. i hope there is a book of the underdog candidates for this. it would definitely be a best sellar. can you imagine if only the right candidates become elected? that would be a different world than what we would live in.
2. marginalize them. if the underdog is gaining traction in lieu of being ignored by the media, then they resort to asking softball questions that would make them look homogenous to the other candidates or give them little face time compared to the other "top tier" candidates. the media would also say that the candidate is a long shot or a dark horse or a spoiler. this tactic is used to conditioned the apathetic and gulliable masses if there was a rigged election by hypnotizing the reinforcing thought that there was no chances for a candidate to win to begin with, i.e. self fulling prophesy.
3. slur them. make them out to look like kooks.
4. discredit them openly over their platforms. more often than not, if the candidate has a solid platform, it makes the commentator look bad.
in reference to #3 and 4, in the political chess game, there is a manuever called the sacrificial lamb and the other is called character assassination. the sacrificial lamb is a situation where a follower bites the bullet in slurring the other candidate while keeping their own candidate looking clean. ex….hilary’s henchman mentioned about cocaine use about obama’s history. the henchmen resigned while hilary apologize’s to obama and in so doing, making her looking clean and innocent. the character assassination is the classical shaking one’s hand with one while stabbing the person in the back with the other hand. ex…beck’s interview on Ron Paul. beck mentioned about 9/11 questions and about the extremists actions on some of RP supporters against beck. these 2 actions are used to sow seeds of doubt on potential voters about a viable candidates alleged garbage.
5. skeletons in closet opening up. opposition hires an army of professional investigators to dig up dirt and broadcast it through a bought out media. remember gary hart’s extra marital affair when he was gaining traction?
6. voter fraud. as mentioned before about brainwashing and conditioning the masses and hoping that noone would care to question its outcome.
7. candidate assassination. if the person becomes an unstoppable force, the usual suspects would attempt an assassination to maintain their power base.
the old rules don’t apply to this new age completely. the internet is a great equalizer and i hope people become critical thinkers and become proactive instead of being sheep of the nation.
thank god for the likes of Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich….if you see this game, then you know the only viable candidate is Ron Paul and i hope he makes it out alive and as a president.
our hope for america lies with Ron Paul.
marcus
Ron Paul’s comments on slaves and the Civil Rights Act bother me!
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-paul-on-meet-press-all-you-ever.html#links
Critical, yet fair. I appreciated your insights and clarity. I have read hundreds of articles and blogs in recent months and found yours to be one of the best at simplifying the complex. And yes, though I love all the praise and appreciation Dr. Paul receives from many writers, I agree that one who aspires to be leader of the ‘free world’ needs close and fair examination. How would the other candidates hold up under such close scrutiny? I would enjoy….greatly benefit from…reading you more. Thank You. And Go Ron Paul.