Ron Paul on Meet the Press tomorrow, 12/23/2007

[Pat H]

This should be a superb, extensive interview by Tim Russert. Expect the usual questions; 1. independent campaign, 2. the "you can't win" question, and 3. what other Republican would you support. Other than those give-away questions, I think it has the promise of being interesting.

Tim Russert vs. Ron Paul on Sunday
Posted by Lew Rockwell at 07:36 PM

Tomorrow morning, Ron will triumph on Meet the Press. Russert, an establishment journalist if ever there was one, would like to demolish Ron. He won't be able to do it, of course. Our man is unflappable and right. But here's one reason he won't want to be hyper-vicious: capitalism.

Russert and his bosses know that this will be the most-watched MTP in Russert's career, and maybe ever. They'd like to keep some of those new viewers around. So as much as they might wish to take the shiv out, market pressures will prevent pure nastiness (as versus partial!).

 

[tooltimey]

Meet the press is a mouthpiece for establishment propaganda so I expect Ron Paul to be hit with the "question" designed to paint him as a "white supremacist."

Tim Russert: "You received a donation from a white supremacist, why haven't you returned it." Since the public has no attention span, doesn't research things, and lazily supports government and the establishment, the mere existence of this "question" will have the effect of painting Ron as a "white supremacist" no matter HOW Ron answers.

I'm sure that those who write for Tim Russert will try everything they can to paint Ron as scary, "extreme" and/or unelectable. Tactic one will be bringing up the irrelevant donation from Don Black. Tactic two will probably be to focus on long term items such as Ron's desire to end the IRS.

All in all, Ron will come out better for having done this interview. Any publicity is good publicity when the establishment hates you as much as they hate Ron Paul.

 

[Mainah]

I thought that Paul ended up looking like a typical politician, especially when he responded to Russert's questions about the discrepancy between his small government ideals and the pork that he sends home to his district in Texas.

I do agree with him on several issues, like the war on drugs, and I'm glad that he's made it to the point where he gets a seat on the show.

 

[cool hand luke 22:36]

Tim Russert: "You received a donation from a white supremacist, why haven't you returned it." Since the public has no attention span, doesn't research things, and lazily supports government and the establishment, the mere existence of this "question" will have the effect of painting Ron as a "white supremacist" no matter HOW Ron answers.

Assuming for a moment that all you say is true, the smart thing for Paul to have done would have been to refuse the money and publicly repudiate the donor and the donor's racist views.

Paul seems to have as little in the way of good political communications skills as George Bush.

 

[possum]

Hey, didn't you guys love it, I mean absolutely love it when Paul said that Abraham Lincoln shouldn't have gone to war over slavery, and then said that if he'd been president at the time, his plan would have been to buy all the slaves from the South and then free them?

 

[ForksLaPush]

"The 10-term congressman and longshot candidate for the Republican presidential nomination added that although he has requested special projects known as earmarks, he ultimately ends up voting against them in the House. "

Right, he's so different from the typical politician.

 

[Unregistered]

if he'd been president at the time, his plan would have been to buy all the slaves from the South and then free them?

Thats the first time I have ever heard anyone suggest that, but it sounds like a great idea.

 

[PWK]

Buying up all the slaves and then freeing them would have been a whole lot cheaper in lives and dollars than the civil war was.
Good idea.

What's Paul supposed to do? His constituents elected him and pay their taxes just to see all their money go elsewhere. It's a lousy situation but this is politics.

 

[Unregistered]

What people don't seem to understand is that the earmarks they are talking about is for tax money that has already been collected, and is going to be spent one way or another, no matter what Ron Paul does.

He would prefer NOT to collect that tax money to begin with. But, of course he is in the minority on that. So the government collects the tax. He's simply trying to get some of that money back to his district. If he doesnt make an attempt to get some of that money back to his district, then he is doing his constituents a disfavor, as their tax money will be spent in other districts instead.

Here is an analogy for you. Lets say your wife tells you that you need to go out and spend $500 today. Don't come home till the money is spent. Its up to you what to spend it on. Are you going to go buy a new gun? Or are you going to go buy $500 of ladies panties? He's simply choosing how to spend the tax money that he would have preferred not have collected in the first place.

Whats so hard to understand about that?

 

[possum]

The only thing more funny that Paul's "Meet the Press" appearance today is watching Ron Paul supporters trying to put a positive spin on his nuttiness.

possum

 

[publius42]

400,000,000 dollars on earmarks? Right, let's talk about the spending. Everyone get out your copy of the Economic Report of the President.

Let's talk about the fact that when Bill Clinton took office, the annual budget for our government was $1,400,000,000,000, and when he left it was $1,800,000,000,000, an increase of $400 billion.

The budget estimate for 2008, when Bush leaves office, is $2,900,000,000,000, an increase of $1.1 trillion dollars.

I'm voting for the one guy who wants to reverse that trillion dollar explosion of growth, even if he occasionally asks for a few hundred million of it back for his constituents.

 

[Buzzcook]

Just a note. Remunerating slave holders for freeing their slaves was one of the proposals floated by abolitionists. It was rejected by the South out of hand.

Violence was the only way to end slavery, the slave holders made sure of that.

 

[Carryabigstick]

How is it that Slave's weren't free in the North untill a year after the war ended? Grant had slaves. I don't defend the slave holding southerners but the North was wrong. What would you say if China invaded Veitnam because they need to free the people there from Comunism? Well... You'd recognize a hypocrite. The South wasn't all right and pure but the North was in general worse. The war was fought to destroy the political and economic power of the Southern states. The South may have been very wrong about respecting the image of God in other human beings but they did respect the constitution and small federal government. It wasn't just about slavery. The North didn't abolish slavery(In the North) untill after the war. So somehow in this supposed quest to free the slaves, they forgot to free their own?

 

[Pat H]

Just a note. Remunerating slave holders for freeing their slaves was one of the proposals floated by abolitionists. It was rejected by the South out of hand.

Violence was the only way to end slavery, the slave holders made sure of that.

I'm sorry, but those comments are ahistoric.

 

[Carryabigstick]

Hey Pat H. Do you have any of the info about the percentage of abloitionist organizations? I mean about their geography? I believe that 3 out of 5 anti slavery organizations was in the South? Of course they weren't gonna show as much quick success, because the South were slow moving agrarians. I thought that this (fact?) could also be brought up. The anti slavery movement wasn't just based in the North.

 

[Pat H]

Hey Pat H. Do you have any of the info about the percentage of abloitionist organizations? I mean about their geography? I believe that 3 out of 5 anti slavery organizations was in the South? Of course they weren't gonna show as much quick success, because the South were slow moving agrarians. I thought that this (fact?) could also be brought up. The anti slavery movement wasn't just based in the North.

Abolitionist organization were most numerous in the South, about 2/3's of them located there and run by Southerners. The downward spiral of abolitionism in the south began in the 1850's, with the John Brown raids, funded by the "Secret Six" northerners driving the last nail in their coffin.

What most folks ignore is the proposed Constitutional Amendment making slavery permanent and, most importantly, irrevocable. It was approved by 2/3's of both houses, in part after most of the southern members had left, AND endorsed by Lincoln. Here's how it read:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will
authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere,
within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including
that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said
State.

Also, Lincoln stated in his Speech:

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution has
passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government
shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States,
including that of persons held to service. Holding such a
provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no
objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

Again, this was AFTER the Southern states had lawfully seceded from the Union.

The Emancipation Proclamation affected no slaves in Confederate territory under Union occupation, in no Union state, and not in Washington, D.C. It was eyewash for the European powers.

 

[TheBluesMan]

And with that, this thread is closed for going off topic.