digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Ron Paul on Meet The Press 12-23-07 watch!

youtube.com — Finally Ron Paul on Meet The Press!!!

Who dugg this? Made popular Dec 24, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

862 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Pebcak, on 12/24/2007, -17/+375I loved the part of this interview where Russert asks why Paul why he wants to amend the constitution if he is so much for the constitution. In response Paul says that amending the constitution is constitutional. Russert never had a good response to that.
  • inactive, on 12/24/2007, -30/+308Ron Paul simply shines on Meet The Press. I am glad that Russert pushed him because I think it brought out the best in Ron and he even mentioned one of the most important films of our time, America Freedom To Fascism. Every American should see this film.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-165688030 ...

    Spread it around.
  • boredaghast, on 12/24/2007, -19/+189I don't have a lot of money - especially this time of the year and I just donated another $100 because of the Tim's final message to "be safe on the campaign trail" right after Ron giving his soft fascism / corporatism answers. Anyone who doesn't believe that this country is moving towards corporatism is really not paying attention. Paul defines in this interview as: big business in bed with government, the military industrial complex, the medical industrial complex, loss of liberties, etc. There's no denying that we're moving in this direction and we need a change of direction.

    I think Ron Paul did great in this interview. The things were brought up that are supposed to be his "skeletons" are all non issues. People can see that he's a man of principle more than anyone else running with the possibility of Kucinich or Gravel, but they're dismissed just like Ron Paul was before he brought in $10 MILLION in 2 days. People want change and they'll be ready for it come November whether he gets the nomination or not. I think people who believe in his message won't let him not run as an independent.

    I want my $100 to go towards bodyguards for Dr. Paul. Or maybe a Pope Mobile. My only big concern in 2008 is an attempt on his life or some other major event will happen that will render elections unnecessary.
  • inactive, on 12/24/2007, -20/+171The earmarks part was *****, he didn't even give Paul a chance to finish his answers. And it's painfully obvious that if the money is already taken it's pointless to NOT try and get it back for your constituents.
  • ccheath, on 12/24/2007, -9/+142http://youtube.com/watch?v=saDw03JXigA
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=rgTqSu-ZVFM
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=d-iJP4BAAQ4
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=LCSY438wpCk
  • ReturnToFreedom, on 12/24/2007, -11/+143My main complaint is not that Ron Paul was asked tough questions. It's that Ron Paul was being cut off when answering really tough questions. It was very infuriating to see Tim Russert chime in again a few seconds after Paul starts answering extremely hard questions.
  • Stryder81, on 12/24/2007, -32/+143
    Part 1 of 4:
    youtube.com/watch?v=saDw03JXigA

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

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

    Part 4 of 4:
    youtube.com/watch?v=LCSY438wpCk
  • etherreal, on 12/24/2007, -17/+128Russert was tough as always, though I dont think this was RP's best showing. A little more time to really explain some of the positions would have been beneficial. Some interesting things came up, I thought the earmarks looked bad for him.
  • ccheath, on 12/24/2007, -9/+115i don't have a problem with asking tough questions... that's actually his job
    i do have a problem with TR not listening to answers to his tough questions
    also the bit where he tried to say that RP called Regan a traitor was a bit unprofessional, we'll see if Obama gets asked about his supposed drug use next week
  • CrackIsWack, on 12/24/2007, -25/+120How eerily Orwellian: Meet the Press is supposed to be of the "press," yet a well-supported presidential candidate would have gone unmentioned had we not forced them to through a barrage of letters DEMANDING he be given airtime.

    Great job by us Ron Paul supporters for petitioning ABC to get him on the show! This is a big step forward.
  • valaw, on 12/24/2007, -11/+105while lincoln was freeing the slaves in the south, he was not freeing them in the north. i am surprised at russerts lack of understanding about the earmarks. if you listen and research the reason for them, ron paul should have added more, giving the money back to the people is a lot better than giving the money to the president.
  • groverblue, on 12/24/2007, -7/+96If that's the worst of Ron Paul, then he is in good ***** shape.
  • subigo, on 12/24/2007, -31/+114I'm a fan of Ron Paul, hell, I'm voting for him... but seriously. I think he could have walked into that interview, pulled down his pants, and took a giant ***** on Russert's desk and people would still say it was a wonderful display of Paul's leadership abilities.
  • Jarnis, on 12/24/2007, -10/+88Lies. He stated that the civil war was not the way to get rid of slavery. Every other western country got rid of slavery without a war.
  • cmezak, on 12/24/2007, -3/+78I was stunned that the notion of "pro-constitution" is so misunderstood by Russert. It's not the constitution in a concrete sense that Paul supports, but the more abstract and important notion of the rule of law. I was sad that Paul did not (get the chance to) explain this point.
  • rarson, on 12/24/2007, -1/+76I just got a phone call for a "60-second political survey" and decided to participate. It sounded as if a pre-recorded message was playing and recording my answers as it went. They asked me if I would be participating in the Michigan Republican primary (yes), and asked, individually, if I would vote for each candidate. Except they left out Ron Paul. Then it started going on about Mike Huckabee, talking about how he did great things in Arkansas and whether or not I wanted to know more about him (no). Finally, they asked "If your candidate of choice dropped out, would you vote for Mike Huckabee?" To which I responded "Definitely not!"

    I really can't stand the fact that Paul gets ignored by the media, and the media touts these polls that are obviously biased against him (and how some people actually think these polls AREN'T biased... I guess they haven't gotten these calls before). It's painfully obvious that Huckabee is being pushed up with bogus polls to push Paul down, and that this push was orchestrated by the same people trying to ignore Paul. It's no theory, it's happening. If you don't see it, you aren't paying attention.

    I think I'm going to go donate some more to him, too.
  • billib, on 12/24/2007, -5/+80Yes, Russert is notable for his tough questions and pushing individuals he interviews.
  • michelsonmorley, on 12/24/2007, -11/+83It's nice to see the worst points of Ron Paul brought out now. I wish they would do this with every other candidate. Why? Because if it isn't discussed in the primaries, it will be used against them in the final election. It's not good coverage of him, but it's coverage. To the few, it will ring true.
    The beauty of the interview is that this is pretty much all the dirt they have on him, and the flip flopping he's done was from decades ago.
  • lordwow, on 12/24/2007, -1/+72I watched this when it aired this morning. I got a good laugh when after Paul's long discussion about the military complex, a 60-second Boeing ad came on.
  • inactive, on 12/24/2007, -57/+125Seems Russert was really tryin to stick it to him. Wonder if he's that tough on all the other candidates?
  • Plasmatica, on 12/24/2007, -12/+75It's also painfully obvious Russert knew what his position on earmarks were, but chose to ignore it and tried to make him trip on it...when he noticed it didn't work he tried to shut him up and move on to the next question. ***** Tim Russert.
  • tolbs, on 12/24/2007, -3/+65Am I the only one getting sick of the question "Will you run as an independent"? How many times does he have to be asked that question? The only long interview i've seen where he hasn't been asked that question was with Glenn Beck.
  • wastedlife, on 12/24/2007, -2/+63He was tough on him and he asked tough questions.

    Well, good! There's no point him going on a show like that and them pandering to him. They brought up stuff that the average voter will probably be thinking and he's given a chance to defend what he believes through hard questions.
  • radarplane, on 12/24/2007, -10/+71I'm biased because I support Ron Paul. I think Ron Paul looked unprepared and that bothered me. Tim Russert's M.O. is always the same and he didn't change with Dr. Paul. It seems he could've expected the earmarks question as that just came out in the Chronicle. Oh well.
  • hiphoc, on 12/24/2007, -1/+60That whole "Be safe out there" comment kind of weirded me out.
  • ShrimpCrackers, on 12/24/2007, -11/+66Yeah even the McLaughlin Group today named Ron Paul their Person of the Year. Its pretty impressive. Happened not long after this. Unlike Russert they talked about the merits and demerits of Ron Paul. They were straight talking while Russerts only goal is just to smear Ron Paul.
  • buildbyflying, on 12/24/2007, -5/+56This was a verbal gunfight compared to the guiliani interview. Russert is on the attack (which is fine) for the whole interview, but when facing Guiliani, he asks "How long will we be at war?" and when guiliani dancees around the question Russert doesn't even follow up.
    I call *****.
  • Borgcube636, on 12/24/2007, -4/+54I didn't think he was all that bad in this interview. It was a tough grilling interview, but there were a few moments where he really pwned Timmy and made lots of sense...

    ... like his snake pit analogy with the middle east (if you step into a pit of snakes and get bit, who caused the trouble, you stepping into the pit, or the snakes because they bite you?)
  • IsmailOo, on 12/24/2007, -6/+56he also said, it would be easier if the government just bought all the slaves and let them go instead of killing 600 thousand men in a bloody civil war. please man, stop trying to mis represent what he said, you are sounding like FOX news. pfft.
  • adrenaline33, on 12/24/2007, -4/+54They looked bad because of how he was interrupted. The problem with some of Paul's answers is that the concepts might not make sense to the average idiot joe whereas someone who was intelligent would grasp it in full. Obviously, Paul's voting record proves that he is against that sort of government spending and would be as president. His job as a district representative is to represent the people in his district. He isn't going to give them the shaft because he disagrees with the system in theory. A retired person wouldn't be labeled a hypocrite if they were against the system of social security in general just because they accepted their check that they earned.
  • stealthc, on 12/24/2007, -4/+51Privately owned businesses on private property do NOT have to follow the Constitution. The Constitution is a document restraining the federal government. America is a nation of sovereign citizens. You're king in your own castle, so long as you do not harm others.

    As for the private property thing, it is a violation of your rights for someone in government to force you to accept guests you do not want. If you get to discriminate who comes into your house, you get to discriminate who comes into your business. The Civil Rights movement was a good thing, and what MLK was doing was fantastic, with all the non-violent resistance of stupid race-based rules. That's the kind of thing that can change the culture, which is what you really have to do first. By forcing business owners to hire people based on race quotas, and forcing them to accept business from certain people based on race, only increases racial tension and reinforces the lines between racial groups. Government should be treating all individuals as individuals, instead of granting privileges, penalties or welfare based on race.
  • seldon452, on 12/24/2007, -7/+47I think russert hit ron paul hard in this interview but I am glad he did.
  • fractalman, on 12/24/2007, -3/+42Get real Troll. Sounds like your projecting your own failings on Ron Paul. That's just pitiful. Crawl back under your bridge Troll.
  • rarson, on 12/24/2007, -5/+43You've spouted so much ***** on digg that I don't even bother to read your comments anymore; I already know it's just *****.
  • cmezak, on 12/24/2007, -5/+43Agreed. He seemed to be jabbering at points, overcome by the intensity (and ignorance) of Russert's questions. Russert seemed to be trying to paddle Paul with as many controversial questions as he could without really letting him explain himself. The questions of Paul's strong constitutionalist stance as well as his actions to bring money to his district were really poorly aired out in this interview (if that's the word for it). I think Russert really failed to do much more than caricature the knee jerk reactions many Americans have to Paul's platform without allowing Paul to address them.

    I'm still pulling for Paul, but it's becoming clearer to me how tilted the press is against him.
  • Sogui, on 12/24/2007, -14/+51Sorry, but if you aren't already a RP supporter... his appearance on Meet the Press made him look bad.

    If this was someone's first time to witness Ron Paul, I don't think they'd call him "shining" at all.
  • Humptydank, on 12/24/2007, -52/+88If you actually followed politics and current affairs instead of just hopping on the first available reactionary bandwagon, you'd know.
  • radarplane, on 12/24/2007, -6/+42I'm in Oklahoma and I'm a Ron Paul nut. I got my bowl of cereal to watch the 10 AM viewing...and my power went out at 9:58 and came back on at 10:51. They had to do some work on the power lines. I think I saw Rudy Guliani up on one of the transformers and he was laughing and beating his chest like King Kong.
  • DeviantDragon, on 12/24/2007, -30/+65Wow, Russert was an aggressive prick in this interview.
  • MindTrigger, on 12/24/2007, -2/+36Are you serious? It was a hit question because Russert has the misguided notion that Paul believes the Constitution should be set in stone as it stands today, and never changed. Clearly you did not understand the nature of the question, even thought it was quite direct. In essence Russert was asking "If you are such a big fan of the Constitution, then why do you want to change it?". Paul supports rule of law as granted by the Constitution, no matter what changes have been made to it, or will be made to it in the future. Russert's little "gotcha" backfired on his ass.
  • prowlerjm, on 12/24/2007, -5/+39I'm sure he meant NBC. Calm down, big fellow.
  • dracostimpy, on 12/24/2007, -4/+37I'm all for the tough questions, since those set RP up for his common-sense answers. What bothers me are the questions that are setup intentionally to make him look bad by wholly misinterpreting his intent behind certain actions.

    For example, the question about him earmarking for his district despite his opposition to earmarks; Russert tries to use that to portray him as a hypocrite, when RP has already rebutted that ridiculous question innumerable times in the past. Ron Paul did a fine job as always explaining what it means to represent your constituents by serving merely as a conduit for taxpayers' requests despite his philosophical opposition, and Russert of course spins it against him. Screw you if you can't understand the difference, Timmay!

    Same deal with his non-interventionist foreign policy: Timmay just can't get his brain around the difference between that and isolationism. It amazes me how these presumably gifted thinkers we call journalists have such incredible mind blockages whenever they speak with guys like Paul or Kucinich. Please, tell me Timmay, are you REALLY that stupid or do you just play an idiot on TV?
  • seanhive, on 12/24/2007, -2/+34I saw this live this morning. It was really impressive. I try to find reasons not to vote for Ron Paul because honestly I think it's just popular to like Ron Paul right now and that's not good enough.

    But the more and more I see him performing with authenticity and honesty like this the more I can't help but respect him and consider him. He has an answer for every question, and doesn't try to dance around them.
  • AceTracer, on 12/24/2007, -30/+62You guys wanted Ron Paul in the mainstream media, and now you're complaining that he's getting the vetting process that comes with mainstream media attention? Tim Russert is that tough with everybody, and if you want Ron Paul to be a viable candidate he's going to have to continue to answer tough questions on his past and his ideas for this country.
  • RossDuprey, on 12/24/2007, -5/+37"You guys". Dude, one person is speaking in that post, he does not speak for "all Ron Paul supporters". Do you even read your posts to yourself or do you type with your eyes closed?
  • THEROC, on 12/24/2007, -1/+32Ron Paul made a beautiful comment about the terrorism and it's incentives.
    If you step in a snakepit, and you get bit, then who did the mistake? You, who stepped in the snake pit, or the snake who bit?
  • Corrosionx, on 12/24/2007, -9/+39Was it necessary for hundred of thousands of Americans to die for slavery to be abolished? No it wasn't. It really was a war of federal aggression.
  • Godlike, on 12/24/2007, -3/+32You are just another neocon ***** finding anything you can to put down people who speak out for freedom. You represent the sick and exacting modern ideology of intrusive government without representation and the works of faith without any actual substance.

    I feel sad that America and something as decent as Christianity have been sundered and corrupted by people like you who ***** on them while waving their banner around.

    You and your ilk are the problem in this country, not this man. He is a public servant running for president - what the hell are you doing for this country?
  • Zera, on 12/24/2007, -1/+31Humpty, that is an unfair cheap shot.

    Not knowing every pundit's interviewing tendencies does NOT equal complete ignorance of politics or current affairs.
  • inactive, on 12/24/2007, -4/+34I loved it when Tim asked RP if he 'truly' wanted to abolish the IRS. The Congress wastes so much of our dollars that I believe the income tax be cut by 50% provided they reduce their expenditures significantly. Thomas Jefferson would go postal if he were alive today.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 866 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.