Ron Paul just appeared on Meet the Press for the show’s running series of interviews with candidates leading up to the Iowa caucuses. Some video is available here. I hope to get some clips streamed from this blog later today.
I’m not typically a big Russert fan anyway, but I found this interview remarkably unprofessional and condescending, especially in his questions regarding Paul’s earmarks , constitutional interpretation, and the 1964 Civil Rights Acts. That said, Paul’s seeming inability to deflect what really were inane and nonsensical questions does not bode well for the candidate. Especially disconcerting is his usual struggle to bend over backwards to tie everything back to national id cards and foreign intervention. Paul’s not a single-issue candidate, and in my opinion, the man has a strong platform all-around, but he’s turning himself into a Tom Tancredo with his inability to get past one or two issues.
I was particularly disappointed with his softness on Social Security and public schools. Maybe the recent fundraising pull has softened his rhetoric, which would be fair enough, and an increasing likelihood of faring well in at least a few states could be leading Dr. Paul to try to use the outlet to appeal to the unpersuaded, but the product that Paul is peddling is an uncompromising support for the Constitution and limited government, and he cheapens that when he starts talking about “an out for our kids” on Social Security and so forth.
But anyway, I’m providing a quick reply on Paul’s behalf to the three issues mentioned above:
1. Earmarks: although Paul allows some breaks to his constituents, the man himself has refused federal college aid for his children and returns a portion of his office budget to the Treasury every year out of principle. All politicians complain about pork, and all of them continue to bring it home to their constituents, so Paul’s no worse than his colleagues on this one. This is the ultimate collective action problem, and I actually respect Paul for not allowing his personal ideology to bear upon the financial well-being of his constituents.
2. Strict Constructionism: this term, Tim, means you interpret the Constitution as it was written. It does not preclude one from proposing or supporting a constitutional amendment. In fact, a strict constructionist would be more likely to support amendment, as he or she would oppose using statutory law to bypass what the Constitution itself says.
3. Civil Rights Act of 1964: I haven’t read the act and don’t aim to provide a normative analysis of its utility, especially vis-a-vis other options. But when the southern states have to codify segregation in the form of Jim Crow laws, you have to assume that the social trend is otherwise away from such unforgivable violations of basic rights. You don’t legislate what people are doing anyway. This raises an interesting federalism question – I fully believe that such Jim Crow laws at the state or local levels are impermissible in a free society – but as I understand it, the Civil Rights Act goes past that to intrude upon individual property rights. Maybe I’ll post more on this later…
Tags: Meet the Press, politics, Ron Paul
December 23, 2007 at 6:12 pm
[...] The Caffeinated Citizens « Ron Paul on Meet the Press [...]
December 23, 2007 at 6:47 pm
RON PAUL GOT OWNED BY RUSSERT!!!! THE MAN CAME OFF LIKE THE COOK THAT HIS FOLLOWERS REFLECT!!!! IT WAS COMMICAL….
1) Ron PAul takes MASSIVE EARMARKS-Hypocrite
2) CALLED RONALD REAGAN A FAILURE— Hilarious
3) LINCOLN SHOULD HAVE NEVER FOUGHT THE CIVIL WAR… COMES OFF GREAT…NOT!!!
4) WAY TO GO ON CIVIL RIGHTS DR. PAUL!!!! HILARIOUS!!!
WATCH IT ON YOU TUBE… RON PAUL COME OFF LIKE A TOTAL NUTTCASE!!!!! LOL!!!
December 24, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Ron Paul supporters know the difference between a cook and a kook. Other than that, you are correct; watching the You Tube video will better clarify Ron Paul’s positions on the topics referenced.
I actually thought Tim Russert seemed to know surprisingly little about the nature of earmarks. Before earmarks are ever added, the bill has already passed the committee in Congress. Therefore, the money will be spent regardless. Earmarks are simply a way for a congressman to direct money already approved for spending to a specific project in their district. In Ron Paul’s case, he submits virtually all of them providing they come from a community group or local industry group or local government entity who want to make sure that some money is allocated for a particular project.
If the money is not earmarked in committee, it all passes to the relevant agency under the control of the executive branch who then decides to spend it however they like, without any consideration for the priorities of the local communities.
Earmarking does not change the levels of money being spent. A bill with no earmarks costs the US taxpayer the exact same amount as a bill with 10,000 earmarks.
As to whether Ron Paul is a hypocrite, he has no say on whether his earmark even makes it into the final bill. As soon as he submits it for his constituents, it goes to an appropriations subcommittee that he’s not on, then onto the appropriations committee, which he’s not on, and then gets reported to the floor for debate, amendments, and a final vote, which in Ron Paul’s case is always “No.”
Reagan increased the size and scope of government. He supported corrupt CIA actions around the world like the Iran-Contra Affair. He was a big-time deficit spender. Those are major strikes against a conservative. Ron Paul has also spoken favorably of Reagan’s leadership and foreign policy accomplishments, most notably getting the US through the Cold War without invoking nuclear warfare.
About the Civil War, Ron Paul made an excellent point. The Civil War was the bloodiest, costliest and most tragic war in American history. If the aim was to eradicate slavery, it would have been easier to simply buy the slaves and free them, then work on giving them equal rights. Many thousands of lives would have been saved. The Civil War was more than a civil rights issue, and opposing it does not make one a racist.
The US still has a long way to go in healing old wounds and providing truly equal rights for all Americans. Many black Americans, as well as people of all backgrounds and walks of life, support Ron Paul for his strong championing of civil liberties. It’s collectivism v. the rights of individuals, and at the end of the day, every American wants freedom. If the Civil Rights Act were such a resounding success, you would not have race riots as late in the day as the 90’s. Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist, and again, it’s a matter of how you approach this.
December 25, 2007 at 8:20 pm
I watched the meet the press interview and I thought that Mr. Paul did not do himself any favors during the interview
While his answer to the earmarks question made sense. I think Mr. Russert planted a seed in the question itself that Mr. Paul did not effectively deflect.
I also think that much of the presidential campaign rightly or wrongly has to do with preception, especially in the case of the casual voter. I think Mr. Paul failed to reach out to a broader auidence and clearly explain his position. I for one thought his comment on soft-fasicism made alot of sense. In the case of the uniformed voter this comment may make Paul seem like a radical because most people immediately think of Hitler at the mere mention of Fasicism.
This was an oppurtunity for Paul to reach out to a broader audience and i think he failed to do so
April 15, 2009 at 10:48 am
If you ever want to see a reader’s feedback
, I rate this post for four from five. Detailed info, but I have to go to that damn msn to find the missed parts. Thank you, anyway!