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

    Is There a Presidential Drag On Gubernatorial Elections?

    Only five of the 20 presidents to serve since 1900 have seen their party win a majority of gubernatorial elections during their administrations, and only one since JFK.

    Political Crumbs

    Strike Three for Miller-Meeks

    Iowa Republicans had a banner day on November 4th, picking up both a U.S. Senate seat and one U.S. House seat, but Mariannette Miller-Meeks' defeat in her third attempt to oust Democrat Dave Loebsack in the 2nd CD means the GOP will not have a monopoly on the state's congressional delegation in the 114th Congress. The loss by Miller-Meeks (following up her defeats in 2008 and 2010) means major party nominees who lost their first two Iowa U.S. House races are now 0 for 10 the third time around in Iowa history. Miller-Meeks joins Democrat William Leffingwell (1858, 1868, 1870), Democrat Anthony Van Wagenen (1894, 1912 (special), 1912), Democrat James Murtagh (1906, 1914, 1916), Democrat Clair Williams (1944, 1946, 1952), Democrat Steven Carter (1948, 1950, 1956), Republican Don Mahon (1966, 1968, 1970), Republican Tom Riley (1968, 1974, 1976), Democrat Eric Tabor (1986, 1988, 1990), and Democrat Bill Gluba (1982, 1988, 2004) on the Hawkeye State's Three Strikes list.


    Larry Pressler Wins the Silver

    Larry Pressler may have fallen short in his long-shot, underfunded, and understaffed bid to return to the nation's upper legislative chamber, but he did end up notching the best showing for a non-major party South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate in more than 90 years. Pressler won 17.1 percent of the vote which is the best showing for an independent or third party U.S. Senate candidate in the state since 1920 when non-partisan candidate Tom Ayres won 24.1 percent in a race won by Republican Peter Norbeck. Overall, Pressler's 17.1 percent is good for the second best mark for a non-major party candidate across the 35 U.S. Senate contests in South Dakota history. Independent and third party candidates have appeared on the South Dakota U.S. Senate ballot just 25 times over the last century and only three have reached double digits: Pressler in 2014 and Ayres in 1920 and 1924 (12.1 percent). Pressler's defeat means he won't become the oldest candidate elected to the chamber in South Dakota history nor notch the record for the longest gap in service in the direct election era.


    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