Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Ron Paul Meets the Press

Bookmark and Share

During NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday morning, Ron Paul was the latest recipient of host Tim Russert's grilling of presidential candidates. Paul is currently polling around 5 percent in national polls on the GOP side, and is flirting with double that amount in some state polls, such as New Hampshire.

Paul, who has raised more money this quarter than any other Republican candidate (including more than 10 million on two fundraising days), was longer on slogan and shorter on substance during the half-hour interview.

Paul was at his best advocating a U.S. foreign policy disentangled from the problems of the world—bringing all of our troops home (from Iraq, Korea etc.) and cutting foreign aid, particularly to Israel and all Middle Eastern countries. Paul no doubt angered Bush Republicans when he restated his controversial comments made during previous presidential debates that our actions are contributing to the hatred directed at the U.S. by radical Islamists.

Paul was disadvantaged, however, in how Russert forced him to first raise these foreign policy stances not from an ideological perspective, but as a means to pay for necessary federal government programs, in view of Paul's advocacy of eliminating the I.R.S. and the income tax. When Paul was asked by Russert how much revenue would be lost by eliminating the income tax, Paul could not state specifics and replied, "a lot" (Paul gave the same imprecise response when Russert asked him exactly how many U.S. troops were stationed overseas that should be brought home).

Paul was also a not-so-artful dodger of past statements he had made, particularly during his stint as a Libertarian and his early political career. Paul claimed that several quotes attributed to him were simply not true, such as calling Ronald Reagan a 'traitor' and that he wanted to eliminate federal funding of public schools.

Paul was at his best in the interview when discussing constitutional issues—those that lend themselves more towards the kind of sloganeering that has made Paul a formidable fundraiser and almost cult hero among the libertarian wing of the GOP. Paul ranted against how the U.S. was flirting with fascism in view of the influence corporations and the military have over the federal government, as well as the chipping away of American civil liberties that Paul feels have taken place under the Bush administration. When Russert asked Paul how he could be a strict constructionist when it comes to the U.S. Constitution as well as advocate amending the constitution to not allow children of illegal immigrants to automatically become U.S. citizens if born on American soil, Paul stated that amending the Constitution is constitutional—it's part of the process set forth by the document.

Paul probably did not lose any supporters during the Meet the Press exchange, but, as is the case with any candidate less prepared than the estimable Mr. Russert, he likely did not win over many skeptics.

Previous post: Tom Tancredo's Exit and the Immigration Legacy
Next post: ARG Iowa Poll: Clinton Up 14; 3-Way GOP Race

3 Comments


  • Um...I believe Ron Paul has said many times that if the US was still at the spending level of 2000, the income tax could be eliminated, as it accounts for only 42% of the current budget.

    He has stated this in past debates and interviews, as well as a new radio ad.

    Your attempt to make him look ill-informed cheaply goes in the face of facts. Dr. Paul has also written several books on the economy, NOT filled with any slogans or shallow political ab-lib (compare that to any other candidate's book).

    I'm sure Mr. Russerts interview with Hillary was just as hard edged as with this "2nd tier" candidate.

    This article, as many others, have tried to link Paul to political imaturity. Only in a political process corrupt and inane to the core would following the spirit of freedom and the constitution be seen as "politically imature" instead of our greatest goal.

  • Your point is well-taken that the media generally (and my recent blog post, to some extent) has the net effect of seeming to marginalize Ron Paul. However, Congressman Paul does not do himself any favors by not demonstrating the knowledge of basic facts which are at the cornerstone of his campaign (e.g. how many troops does the U.S. have abroad).

    If you watched the Russert interview you would have seen several times Paul distinguish his past words and platforms (e.g. his 1988 Libertarian run) with THIS 2008 campaign for the presidency. Therefore, what Dr. Paul has written in the past (the books to which you refer) is probably not going to influence most voters in Iowa or New Hampshire - they are simply not going to bother to read those books. But what he says in debates, and in high-profile interviews like Meet The Press, will have an effect. Paul needs to perform better to boost his numbers; he has the platform (to which I a bit casually referred to as 'slogans'), but he needs to inspire confidence.

  • I agree with your point. There has been a shift in his strategy from being descriptive/facts to a more bombastic style as of late.

    Still I have to say that compared to other candidates there is a lot more substance during debates and exchanges.

    "Major" candidates appear afraid to alienate any member of their electorate by making strong stances or statements of any kind. Paul and some other "fringe' candidates appear less moved by this fear.

  • Leave a comment


    Remains of the Data

    Plurality-Winning Governors Elected At Century-Long High Water Mark

    The rate of gubernatorial candidates elected without the support of a majority of voters is at its highest level since the 1910s.

    Political Crumbs

    Seeing Red

    Congressman Nick Rahall's failed bid for a 20th term in West Virginia this cycle, combined with a narrow loss by Nick Casey to Alex Mooney in Shelley Moore Capito's open seat, means that West Virginia Democrats will be shut out of the state's U.S. House delegation for the first time in over 90 years. The Republican sweep by two-term incumbent David McKinley in the 1st CD, Mooney in the 2nd, and Evan Jenkins over Rahall in the 3rd marks the first time the GOP has held all seats in the chamber from West Virginia since the Election of 1920. During the 67th Congress (1921-1923) all six seats from the state were controlled by the GOP. Since the Election of 1922, Democrats have won 76 percent of all U.S. House elections in the Mountain State - capturing 172 seats compared to 54 for the GOP.


    Home Field Advantage?

    When the 114th Congress convenes in a few days, Maine will be represented by one home-grown U.S. Representative: Waterville-born Republican Bruce Poliquin. With the departure of Millinocket-born Mike Michaud, who launched a failed gubernatorial bid, the Pine Tree State was poised to send a House delegation to D.C. without any Maine-born members for the first time since 1821. Three-term U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree (born in Minnesota) coasted to reelection as expected, however Poliquin edged Kentucky-born Emily Cain by 5.3 points to keep the streak alive. Since 1876, a total of 208 of the 222 candidates elected to the nation's lower legislative chamber from the state have been born in Maine, or 94 percent.


    more POLITICAL CRUMBS

    Humphrey School Sites
    CSPG
    Humphrey New Media Hub

    Issues />

<div id=
    Abortion
    Afghanistan
    Budget and taxes
    Campaign finances
    Crime and punishment
    Economy and jobs
    Education
    Energy
    Environment
    Foreign affairs
    Gender
    Health
    Housing
    Ideology
    Immigration
    Iraq
    Media
    Military
    Partisanship
    Race and ethnicity
    Reapportionment
    Redistricting
    Religion
    Sexuality
    Sports
    Terrorism
    Third parties
    Transportation
    Voting