It's 10 till 9am and I'm waiting for Meet The Press to come on with guest Ron Paul today. I'm wondering how he will be treated by Tim Russert. Will Ron Paul be allowed to talk and explain himself or will this be a Media Hit job on a Maverick candidate. To be fair Tim Russert can be tough on anyone he interviews, but I'm looking for the overall tone. Will he be trying to invalidate Ron Paul for the Establishment or will he be presenting Ron Paul as a legitimate candidate. Tim Russert has already said on the Today Show preview that he is going to "flesh out" Ron Paul on the "issues". I will soon know what he meant by that and will continue then. I'm not going to defend Ron Paul, I'm just wanting to see how he's treated on this high profile Media show.
It was mostly fair. but frankly did avoid the Ron Paul stance on abolishing the Federal Reserve. He talked about his smaller Constitutional Government, bringing home all American troops, stopping aid to Israel, but Ron Paul was quick to point out he would stop all aid to the Arab States in the region too. However, I believe we are bound by a treaty brokered by Jimmy Carter to aid Egypt as part of a Peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. he also spoke about abolishing the CIA, IRS, FBI, DOE, Ron Paul was allowed to qualify all these positions but not really say exactly how he would do it. I do think Tim Russert somewhat framed the questions to Ron Paul as to get a visceral negative reaction from listeners, especially talking about the Civil Rights Act.
I think Ron Paul defended himself well, I don't think he changed many minds, but I'm sure he may have created a little more curiosity about himself to voters not so in tune with the Internet. But as I type this Tim Russert is presenting the Poll numbers and Ron Paul is practically missing from all those. There are those who might think that this part of the Meet The Press hour is the Media promoting the usual Establishment Candidates with the usual emphasis on the Democratic top three. Hillary, Obama and John Edwards names being said over and over blah blah blah.
It's worth noting that change is often desired but rarely pursued by people in their regular lives. Change is hard, and there's always the uncertainty that change may make things worse. I think that is often the subtle attraction of status quo candidates. Ron Paul is the candidate offering the sea change to American Governance. It's all well and good to run on reducing spending but at the end of the day people want spending reduced but not their benefits. Tim Russert ran down a list a ear marks for Ron Paul's district and asked him point blank why he doesn't refuse them. Ron Paul said that he's just trying to get his district's money back for them. He then went on with some stump speech about a corrupt system.
As for me, I have no idea what candidate I'll support. I see reality disconnects in all of them. Perhaps it's best in our soft Fascist state that special interests will simply rig the election and try to keep this Great American smoke and mirrors game going. Like I said, change may not always be good. Change always sounds good in the sales pitch, but the devil is in the details on the ground. So far I'm unconvinced, besides, no Candidate is saying how all this change would be made and how it would come to be.
http://blog.myspace.com/hosshoss777
I am a simple man of eclectic interests and tastes with no particular academic credentials. I still perceive, think, read and write somewhat. Writing music is a hobby of mine
And in my opinion he did a terrible job of defending his positions, flip-flops and often extreme goals. The more you hear from him, the more implausible his presidency becomes.
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (126 articles, 31 quicklinks, 58 diaries, 508 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 12:31:23 PM
His problem is, excluding Iraq, his ideas wrong-foot America. For example: (1) withdrawing all U.S. troops from overseas (including Korea) and (2) ending the federal income tax without instituting a revenue-neutral replacement.
That's all I heard. My fair-hearing was exhausted at that point and my remote went 'click'.
Still, I'm glad he's out there, making some other Republicans think that it's okay to dissent against Busheney.
by
Vigilante (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 1:30:10 PM
If Ron Paul's supporters should happen to get him elected, they are in for a big surprise. It is a fact of economic matters that any program that loses Federal support must be paid for....in full...by the states. State taxes would raise terribly to compensate for those necessary programs that now are paid, either in full or on partnership, by Federal funds. In order to carry this burden, property and sales taxes, the mainstay of state and local governments would soar, so the individual would see no "tax relief" over all. IMHO, this is the single reason for all the hoorah over his candidacy and one of his many ideas that would lead to absolute anarchy and the ruin of the country.
While you may find that he makes sense in certain instances, in others he speaks like a gibbering idiot. If universal health care is your issue, vote for Dennis Kucinich!
by
Mary Pitt (65 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 176 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 3:15:33 PM
Mumzee, where do you think all those federal funds come from in the first place?
Ron Paul is calling for taxation with representation, which I dare say none of us would be against if there was responsive representation on the issue instead of politicians making decisions without our consent. Also, at the beginning of this century most of tax revenues didn’t come from individuals, but from foreign and domestic corporations, tariffs, and excise taxes. The goal is not to shift the burden of taxation on the people from one government entity to another, it is to once again relieve the people from an unjust application of taxation. As far as anarchy, well this country did pretty damn well for a long time without direct taxation, I dare say it can again. Besides, if you read the publications of the Federal Reserve you will find that the only reason for the progressive income tax is to place social controls on society, redistribute wealth and to prop up the fiat money system. The FED itself admits that under its fiat system taxation is not needed for revenue purposes on a federal level since the government can borrow the “money” from the FED’s magic printing presses.
by
Republicae (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 8:19:32 PM
The problem is that the entire system is built on a foundation of debt creation. Every single fiat Federal Reserve Note is an IOU, a debt obligation and must be borrowed into existence. The only thing backing our money is the act of borrowing, the act of creating debt creates our money. The problem is that on top of the principle debt there is also an interest obligation and the whole thing becomes irreversible. Not only can the debt not be paid down or off, under the fiat system it was never intended to be paid off because it must continually expand to keep the economy growing however, because of this fact the debt will reach a point where it demands more service than the economy can produce and at that point the circulation is absorbed by the debt and the whole thing collapses. All our investments, our pensions, our insurance, our government programs and bonds, our Social Security, everything will collapse under the current system and it appears that only Ron Paul understands what this country is actually facing.
by
Republicae (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 8:20:21 PM
First, all income taxes don't even put a dent in the periodic interest and principle payments on the debt...and as the Federal Reserves own publications state, they are not even necessary to raise revenues on a nation level since it is all based on fiat, the government can just continue to print and borrow.
As the Director and Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank for 10 years, Beardsley Ruml stated in his paper titled: “Taxes for Revenue are Obsolete” He stated that given the control of a central banking system and an inconvertible currency, a sovereign national government is finally free of money worries and need no longer levy taxes for the purpose of providing itself with revenue. All taxation, therefore, should be regarded from the point of view of social and economic consequences. . . . 1.As an instrument of fiscal policy to help stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar; 2. To express public policy in the distribution of wealth and of income, as in the case of the progressive income and estate taxes; 3. To express public policy in subsidizing or in penalizing various industries and economic groups; 4. To isolate and assess directly the costs of certain national benefits, such as highways and social security."
As we can all see in point 1, income tax has not help stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar since it has been so drastically reduced through fiat inflation that it now has a relative value of 3 to 4 cents verses the real 100 cents dollar of 1913. In point 2, that has definitely happened and the social effects have been far from desirable. Point 3, has been very effective and has basically decimated many businesses in this country, especially small business owners. Point 4, this has been a dismal failure since the government cannot be trusted to keep its greedy paws off the Social Security Trust Fund that now primarily contains “special government securities” i.e. unmarketable securities that are worthless on the open market and are merely IOUs from a government that is rapidly loosing a credit standing in the world.
In other words, income tax is merely a sham created to control society through the redistribution of wealth, punish businesses and provide slush funds for the government to dip into like Social Security, that now contains little more then unfunded future obligations…all scrapped off ofthe backs of the working men and women in this country. So, we are forced to pay
Income taxes that do little in the way of actual revenues,pay FICA taxes into a system that has been robbed for years and the funds replaced with worthless unmarketable “special government securities”. I have to wonder if we even ask where the Trillions of Dollars we spend on the massive STATE Military Machine comes from, or where all the Billions of Dollars in foreign aid comes from?It’s not from income taxes, it’s all printed up by the FED, loaned to the government and the government sells its T-Bills, T-Bonds and then owes more interest to all the foreign governments, like China, to keep this incredibly stupid system going. On top of the direct 9 Trillion debt this government has accrued, it also has about 80 Trillion in future UNFUNDED obligations that can never be paid.
Now what would have to be proposed to avert a future fiscal collapse is not only very unacceptable, even to the most left-wing liberal, but will do nothing since the currency itself will ultimately collapse under its debt load. It has been estimated that in addition to raising taxes to about 130% of all corporate and personal income, and cutting all government functions, benefits, services, and the military by two-thirds would still not be enough to do the job.
As far as intervention is concerned, this country has intervened in over 200 countries in the last 109 years. What has it actually done to provide this nation with real security, what were the benefits of such intervention?
Why do we have over 75,000 troops stationed in Germany, why in Britain, why are they in Korea?
by
Republicae (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 9:02:03 PM
I can't believe so many "progressives" actually buy the propaganda the CIA feeds them.
The CIA and US troop presence worldwide has caused nothing but misery around the world. Iran had a stable democracy until the CIA overthrew it and installed the brutal Shaw of Iran.
Guatemala had a democracy until the CIA over threw it, and they've had brutal militarist leaders ever since.
Chile had a democracy until the CIA overthrew it and installed the bloody Pinochet dictatorship which slaughtered Chileans.
And these are only the publicized crimes. The only war one could even begin to argue had any legitimacy was WWII. And as Ron Paul eloquently points out, that was caused by our involvement and meddling in WWI. WWII could have been avoided.
Pulling US militarist corporatist empire back from the world will be the best thing that ever happened to us and the world.
I served under the auspices of the United Nations High Commission on Refugees in the 1980's and saw up close and personal the misery US foriegn intervention in the name of "democracy" but in reality at the service of corporations seeking to steal 3rd world resources and secure slave labor markets. A million Salvadorans fled North to escape the butchers we secured to rule their nation. In fact much of the Latin American immigration to the US is because the CIA and US govt. has murdered their good leaders, and supported the butchers in nation after nation in Latin America and worldwide.
The last election in Mexico was stolen by the same company that illegally purged registered voters from the roles in Florida in 2000, stealing the election for Bush. Guess who paid for the company to go to Mexico and steal their election from a populist who actually cared about his people? The Bush Admin.
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate anyone who cares about our nation or the world could vote for in good conscience.
Join the Ron Paul revolution if you care about peace and justice. All the other candidates will only massage a corrupt brutal interventionist corporate system.
by
Bill Douglas (68 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 11:04:49 PM
and insisted on asking overblown questions that implied their own answers- and then wouldn't allow a complete response from Paul.
Is it any surprise that Paul may have changed some positions or ideas since 1988? Any of us with open minds will have done that too.
I'm not a particular Paul supporter, but I do appreciate his plain talk about the economic ruin that the Federal Reserve has set up for ordinary Americans. We've been plundered and we need to be told about it.
by
Laudyms (0 articles, 807 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 403 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 1:41:55 PM
Ron Paul received contributions from over 100,000 different people this quarter. He received $18,000,000 from those 100,000 people. His support is wide and deep. Look around your town and notice you see RP signs everywhere. Grab a cup of coffee and go to http://freeme.tv
Run, Ron Paul, Run!
by
Mayberry (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 2:16:33 PM
Tim Russet REALLY had to struggle to find some quasi-dirt to confront Dr. Paul with. I mean, 20-year-old quotes from a disgruntled campaign worker used to assert his positions? I thought the Dr. Paul handled the attempted Mudslinging with aplomb and character, as when he was refuting the ridiculous points that Mr. Russert attempted to make, Tim would quickly try to move on to the next bucket of mud.
One real cheap shot was the attempt to use misquotes, out-of-context quotes and lblatant lies to disassociate Ron Paul from Ronald Reagan. This was a blatant attempt to hurt the Dr.'s image, as he is probably the CLOSEST of all the Republican candidates to Reagan's philosophies andpositions. But by trying to make it look like Dr. paul was disingenuous of his support of Ronald Reagan was a stretch and I'm sure strained even a casual viewer's credulity with the line of questioning.
One of the best lines Dr. Paul got off was when he was asked (for the 1001st time) about a 'third party run'. YOu could audibly hear Dr. Paul sigh, then answer the question at least three times! He then asked Tim if he has asked that of ANY other candidate he has interviewed! Tim lamely muttered something like 'I'll ask it on next week's show' or something to that effect.
Overall, I think Dr. Paul handled the "gotcha' format of the show quite well. He was able to make his points after steering away from the obvious and ridiculous boxes that Mr. Russert was trying to back him into. One notable omission from the show- there was NO question or even mention of Monetary Policy, except for a mention by Dr. Paul of the deliberately weakened dollar, when Mr. Russert cut him off and hurriedly went on to talk about another topic.
THe question about 'Calling Mike Huckabee a fascist' was WAY out of bounds and misleading, but I thought Dr. Paul handled it expertly, He turned it around into a discussion of the definition of fascism, and how corporate or, as the Dr. put it 'Soft' fascism has taken over this country. I'm sure the folks at GE (who sponsor the show and OWN the network) were none too pleased at this subject being broached on NATIONAL TELEVISION! Ironically, the advertisement for Boeing that followed the interview segment took on (at least for me) an almost Leni Riefenstahl quality, as it softly pushed the Military-Industrialist Corproate Fascist line as creepily 'warm and fuzzy' and 'good for America'. Goebbels-esque, if you ask me!
Overall, good exposure for Dr. Paul. He stayed forcefully on message about ending the war, shrinking government, abolishing the income tax and the IRS and going back to what REAL Republicans believe in. This should go a long way to giving him credibility with the millions of disaffected Republicans who weren't sure or hadn't heard much about Dr. Paul.
The last impression I was left with was how openly HOSTILE Tim Russert seemed to be with Dr. Paul. I've seen interviews for years by Mr. Russert, and he is a tough interviewer. But in other interviews with candidates, I have NEVER seen him to be so totally hell-bent on finding something, ANYTHING to trip up a Presidential Candidate he was interviewing. It seemed that he was almost resentful that he was FORCED to do this interview by public demand for it, and at least the APPEARANCE of fairness in interviewing all the candidates.
Another tough win for Dr. No, with many Americans for the first time being exposed to the man without the filter of the punditocracy between them and the man's own words.
xtrabiggg ++++++++++++++++++
by
Thaddeus Kaczor Jr (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 32 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 3:31:21 PM
First - I am NOT a Ron Paul supporter, nor will I ever be. I'm a progressive and ardent liberal.
But what I saw today on Meet The Press was Tim Russert taking Ron Paul seriously. And I saw Ron Paul speaking his piece and doing it very well. And I went to Paul's website and saw the money rolling in, and I believe this interview will bring Paul up a few points in the ratings. There's some good ideas that Republicans can learn from Paul....
~ Steve
by
Steve32867 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 3:51:04 PM
It is hard to look at this particular interview objectively, in my opinion. If you agree with Dr. Paul, then you think his defense was satisfactory... if you disagree with him, then you thought it was a total failure.
I am a Paul supporter strictly because of ideology. Every time I watch him though, I squirm a little. He's not particularly comfortable in public speaking, which is something I understand. It is difficult to publicly argue your case when the argument is complex. Unfortunately for Ron Paul, the majority of the public does not explicitly understand the libertarian viewpoint enough to comprehend the basis of the argument he is making. For example, Ron Paul's argument against the Civil Rights Act has nothing to do with racism; rather, it is a Constitutional argument steeped in a philosophy of Lockean natural rights. Consequently, when word gets out about one of these issues, he comes off sounding crazy/cold/racist/etc, when in fact, there is firm principle behind it. Many people don't think the logic through, and just accept it at face value.
Back to the point, Ron Paul is not a great public speaker. I will argue, however, that this says nothing about his intelligence. The man is brilliant, and his arguments are well constructed in his writings. In other words, he's much better with the pen than the spoken word.
Pragmatically, this is a problem when you're running for president... though I think Dr. Paul is correct in his assesment that the message, not himself, is the driving force in his campaign
by
Leon Kassab (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 4:45:29 PM
Amazing how openly HOSTILE Tim Russert was with Dr. Paul today. I've seen interviews on Meet the Depressed for years and Russert is a tough interviewer. But in other interviews with candidates, I have NEVER seen him to be so totally hell-bent on finding something, ANYTHING to trip up a Presidential Candidate he was interviewing. Ron Paul held his own and did a good job.
I receive Google Alerts daily for Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. I am a political junkie and I love reading all the posts, reports, commentaries and blogs about all of Republican candidates. The observation I continue to make is that whenever anyone writes about Dr. Paul there are numerous comments posted about Dr. Paul with most of them supportive. I have spent hours reading what people around the US are posting in the comments in response to the article on Ron Paul. BUT on the other candidates there are very few posted comments and most of them are negative not supportive to their perspective candidates.
The media says that Paulites control and spam the Internet? My question is doesn't the other candidates have supporters that know how to use the Internet this way too?
It makes one think. I watched Dr. Paul on "Meet the Depressed" this morning and think that he did a fine job and showing lots of honesty, integrity and class. Loved his smile.
GO RON PAUL 2008
by
collin28 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 5:43:57 PM
Tim Russert is really something. He investigates OTHER people back to what they said 20 years ago, but does Mr. Russert disclose his OWN conflicts of interest? No, instead he silently plans his character assassination attempt without letting anyone know he has a dog in the fight. Well, you kind of have to expect that type of hatchet job from someone who in bed with the status quo. I did my OWN little fact checking expedition and found the advertisers for Meet The Press.
GE lists 824 items regarding defense contracts on their website for 2007. GE owns the NBC network.
Boeing lists 72,200 items regarding defense.
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 young 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.
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.
by
Louis Nardozi (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 7:04:04 PM
you'll see that ALL the firms you listed have the SAME inter-related Major Holders, and because most have 0% insider ownership in the company, they're simply plantations with simple plantation managment, owned by foreign abstentee owners. It is in their self-interest to control programs like this so people don't see behind the curtains.
by
Edward Ulysses Cate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 217 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 7:30:46 PM
No Big Business has nothing to fear from Ron Paul. Deregulation justs gives corporations complete freedom to raise prices as much as they want and sell unsafe products to consumers with little consequence. This is no different from the economic policies of the other corporate candidates.
There's only 1 candidate Corporate America has to fear, Dennis Kucinich. Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate that seeks to take away "Corporate Personhood." Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate that supports a not-for-profit healthcare system that would put an end to the obscene profits of the health insurance and drug companies. Kucinich unlike Paul doesn't support subsidies for the oil companies and wants to invest in clean, renewable, and cheap energy such as solar, wind, geothermal, and hemp. Kucinich is opposed to oil, coal, and nuclear power. Ron Paul supports drilling for oil. Unlike Paul who supports tax cuts for the very wealthy, Kucinich wants wealthy people and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes which will reduce the tax burden on the poor and middle classes. Kucinich wants to end the independence of the Federal Reserve and also wants the government to issue interest-free loans for infrastructure projects. Kucinich wants a full employment economy and every worker to have a living wage. Ron Paul wants to end the minimum wage and allow corporations to pay people as little as they want. Ron Paul supports free trade and eliminating tariffs and other trade barriers that protect domestic industry from foreign competition. Kucinich supports fair trade based on workers rights, human rights, and environmental quality principles. Kucinich supports a women's right to have an abortion if she so chooses and supports the right of gay couples to get married. Ron Paul doesn't.
by
Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 821 comments)
on Monday, December 24, 2007 at 6:11:12 PM
16 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
