Ron Paul walks out of CNN interview

[BLS 313]

http://youtu.be/_zp6A-l-TwE

[Recliner Pilot 61]

2004...and counting.

 

 

You are almost there. :pointstosky:

[phillybear 364]

Lazy journalism from an ugly broad. I hope her uterus falls out.

[MedStudent 56]

Getting ignored by the mainstream media has it's advantages. CNN digging this back up is probably a positive sign for his campaign. I don't get the feeling that the public is buying ghat he wrote the stuff. If he gets the republican nomination you can bet the jessie's and sharpton's will hit this hard. Again I think his problem will be getting hammered by the conservatives for his foreign policy and his "blaming America" for 911.

[Me_2006 14]

I mean, did they expect him to finally just rip open his shirt and show off his Nazi tat? He's answered it a thousand times.

[Phurfur 70]

Is anyone else old enough to remember when the media covered the issues during a Presidential Campaign?

[MDC 5,895]

This is pretty old and not something that will affect my vote, but Paul has never truthfully answered how a publishing company run by his family that raised $$$ of dollars could have run this stuff and he still doesn't know who wrote it and claims to have been totally unaware of it.

 

I'll probably vote for the guy but his answers don't pass the smell test.

[RicemanX 20]

Is anyone else old enough to remember when the media covered the issues during a Presidential Campaign?

 

Wait...there are issues to talk about?

Like what? Who their favorite Khardashian is?

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

2004...and counting.

 

 

You are almost there. :pointstosky:

You are as conservative as O himself. The fact that you can't see it is comical. You should just register democrat and get it over with.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

I know you are going to jump down my throat for this, but I don't think this was a good move for Ron Paul. He has to answer these questions and not just put his hands over his ears and go "lalalalalala" until they go away.

 

No I don't approve of the specific manner in which this "journalist" went about questioning him but the substance of the questions are valid nonetheless. And yes, I know he has already answered them but apparently not well enough. A lot of people don't buy that he had no idea what was being published under his name.

 

It's kind of like when a liberal gets interviewed on Fox News. You know they are going to be hostile and probably unfair. You have to either decline the interview or hold your own without getting upset and stomping off. Remember when Obama was interviewed on Fox News and the guy kept cutting him off like he WASN'T the focking President of the United States? Obama could have gotten major bent out of shape but he recognized that in the end it would make him look worse.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

Is anyone else old enough to remember when the media covered the issues during a Presidential Campaign?

 

I sure wish they would get back to that. We don't agree on much but apparently we do agree on this.

[gocolts 300]

Sounds like Paul is using the same excuse Obama used about his racist pastor. The media didn't press Obama like they are Paul though. Just more proof of the extreme liberal bias in the media.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You are as conservative as O himself. The fact that you can't see it is comical. You should just register democrat and get it over with.

 

So, because I'm not buying into the wacky world of Ron Paul I'm not conservative? Hey, if he gets the Rep nod I'll vote for him. I just don't see how that will happen.

[BLS 313]

I know you are going to jump down my throat for this, but I don't think this was a good move for Ron Paul. He has to answer these questions and not just put his hands over his ears and go "lalalalalala" until they go away.

 

No I don't approve of the specific manner in which this "journalist" went about questioning him but the substance of the questions are valid nonetheless. And yes, I know he has already answered them but apparently not well enough. A lot of people don't buy that he had no idea what was being published under his name.

 

It's kind of like when a liberal gets interviewed on Fox News. You know they are going to be hostile and probably unfair. You have to either decline the interview or hold your own without getting upset and stomping off. Remember when Obama was interviewed on Fox News and the guy kept cutting him off like he WASN'T the focking President of the United States? Obama could have gotten major bent out of shape but he recognized that in the end it would make him look worse.

 

 

Nah, I sort of agree with you. But he was honest, he actually answered this question TWICE yesterday....both times on CNN.

I would've said the same thing honestly.

 

I guess on AC360 just now they TOTALLY bombarded him, including making sh1t up. The MSM is in a FULL ON attack on him now.

 

My biggest question isn't if he'll find a way to explain himself....it's whether or not the public can see the obvious smear.

[Phurfur 70]

I know you are going to jump down my throat for this, but I don't think this was a good move for Ron Paul. He has to answer these questions and not just put his hands over his ears and go "lalalalalala" until they go away.

 

 

He has been answering this question for over a decade. HTH

[nikki2200 4]

He has been answering this question for over a decade. HTH

 

To be fair... this is really just hitting the national news now. It was part of his campaigns in Texas, but most people outside of there, probably are just hearing about this stuff for the first time now.

 

I really wish all this crap was not basically the only thing covered by our media and there weren't all the smear campaigns. You take anyone that's 60 years old and your are going to find SOMETHING to go after them on.

[tikigods 76]

She should be fired. If you're going to bait someone, you need a better approach than that.

[MDC 5,895]

He has been answering this question for over a decade. HTH

 

The problem is that claiming you had no idea who was writing this crap in a newsletter with Paul's name on it, published by a company run by his family, is bullsh1t. Paul doesn't want to answer those questions because he knows his answers so far have been dishonest. I'll probably vote for the guy anyway but he could've put this issue to bed years ago by coming clean.

[Me_2006 14]

To be fair... this is really just hitting the national news now. It was part of his campaigns in Texas, but most people outside of there, probably are just hearing about this stuff for the first time now.

 

I really wish all this crap was not basically the only thing covered by our media and there weren't all the smear campaigns. You take anyone that's 60 years old and your are going to find SOMETHING to go after them on.

Good point on the just hitting national news. He says they just asked him the same stuff YESTERDAY though. I'd have been annoyed too.

 

 

Completely agree on your second part though. The whole 'lets dig up everything we can on these people even if it's not about them specifically' is getting old. Ask them how they'll fix the economy or keep us safe. STFU about smoking pot in college and having library late fees.

[Mrsteak21 0]

Getting ignored by the mainstream media has it's advantages. CNN digging this back up is probably a positive sign for his campaign. I don't get the feeling that the public is buying ghat he wrote the stuff. If he gets the republican nomination you can bet the jessie's and sharpton's will hit this hard. Again I think his problem will be getting hammered by the conservatives for his foreign policy and his "blaming America" for 911.

 

I dont think Jessie and Sharpton have a leg to stand on. Do some research before throwing blanket statements out there.

 

The head of the Texas NAACP Nelson Linder has known Ron Paul well since the 1980's and is currently vouching for him that he is not "racist."

 

Link: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/11137575-naacp-leader-nelson-linder-ron-paul-is-not-a-racist

[MedStudent 56]

I dont think Jessie and Sharpton have a leg to stand on. Do some research before throwing blanket statements out there.

 

The head of the Texas NAACP Nelson Linder has known Ron Paul well since the 1980's and is currently vouching for him that he is not "racist."

 

Link: http://www.allvoices...is-not-a-racist

 

Since when did Jessie or Sharpton ever need a leg to stand on before they went after anyone? I don't need to do any research. That's their modus operandi.

 

I don't believe Paul is racist either. But I also didn't believe Obama was a Muslim or that he was not born in Hawaii.

[BLS 313]

Since when did Jessie or Sharpton ever need a leg to stand on before they went after anyone? I don't need to do any research. That's their modus operandi.

 

I don't believe Paul is racist either. But I also didn't believe Obama was a Muslim or that he was not born in Hawaii.

 

I won't say this sort of thing often, but you're a very pragmatic person.

I can appreciate your perspective on arguments because you provide clear and concise points and you bring facts to the argument.

 

 

On fiscal issues, I think you're not as educated as you'd like to think, and you haven't spent any real time working in the private sector.

You remind me of the Doctor who retires with considerably less than he should because he doesn't understand economics and gets his investment advice at the clubhouse and not his advisor.

 

For the most part, I would very much enjoy having a beer with you and having a great discussion about Keynesianism and nice tttities.

[IAMWood 6]

This is pretty old and not something that will affect my vote, but Paul has never truthfully answered how a publishing company run by his family that raised $$$ of dollars could have run this stuff and he still doesn't know who wrote it and claims to have been totally unaware of it.

 

I'll probably vote for the guy but his answers don't pass the smell test.

Link?

 

The dude is a good liar if he is lying.

[IAMWood 6]

To be fair... this is really just hitting the national news now. It was part of his campaigns in Texas, but most people outside of there, probably are just hearing about this stuff for the first time now.

 

I really wish all this crap was not basically the only thing covered by our media and there weren't all the smear campaigns. You take anyone that's 60 years old and your are going to find SOMETHING to go after them on.

 

I know, then they say:"Gingrich is taking the high road with no negative ads." The only negative thing he could come up with is this piece of paper that CNN seems to be harping on. I don't watch CNN so much any more, FOX keeps me too entertained with their "War on Xmas" and their hypocrisy and their double standards. You would think you were watching FOX there.

 

Paul said he answered CNN twice yesterday, then he answered her twice again, and she kept asking about it. Really weak.

 

[naomi 343]

He did talk about issues that hit close to other issues people can be really sensitive about (like citing numbers of black men incarcerated in Washington DC). His points might be part of a holistically innocent discussion, but he would incorporate information most people avoid like the plague. Unfortunately it's really easy to smear him by loading up the context in the absence of it, and also tacking together thoughts that originally had a lot of space between them, to convey a consistent negative thrust (but not one he had).

 

Since most people aren't going to dissect the letters (the ones he doesn't disavow entirely), and since when you actually do...and then try to read them from the perspective of someone that may feel really sensitive about the prospect of him being a racist, you realize what he HAS said could easily still be too uncomfortable for them.

 

Dallas Morning News, 1996

[phillybear 364]

I don't watch CNN so much any more

 

Nobody does. Their ratings are awful.

[MDC 5,895]

Link?

 

The dude is a good liar if he is lying.

 

Go to Reason.com and search for an article called "Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters?"

 

Paul has always claimed that he didn't know about the content of the report and doesn't know who wrote the articles, even though they were published by Ron Paul and Associates, a company run by Paul's campaign manager, wife and daughter.

 

You really believe he has no idea who wrote it, as he's repeatedly claimed?

 

You could've learned all this with alittle curiosity and 30 seconds on Google.

[TD Ryan2 314]

WASHINGTON - Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

 

He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot."

 

these are the comments?

If anyone has a better link, please post it.

 

- it's not news that the area around D.C. is essentially a high-crime-rate slum, largely populated by economically disadvantaged african americans.

 

- black teenagers can be fleet of foot, many teenagers can be fleet of foot.

 

I'm not sure if seeing more of the context will help or hurt.

Seems to me that these statements fall more into the, "you shouldn't have said it that way" rather than, "you're a racist if you said/think that way".

[KSB2424 3,083]

Politics is an ugly game. I'm willing to wager that 99.9% of any person would have some sort of stone uncovered from sometime in their life that would be considered negative. It's the nature of the beast I guess.

 

With that said isn't rather funny that as soon as a candidate becomes the leader in the clubhouse everybody puts on their Sherlock Holmes hat and goes a digging for media gold. It's comical.

 

I simply wish the media would focus more on the issues at hand; but that stuff is boring to most Americans. They'd rather look at gossip about cheating or something deemed racist. It's the world we live in. Where people can't think for themselves and waste hours of their day watching Keeping up with the Kardashians.

 

We're all in hadbasket, it's getting hot, and people still wonder where we are going.

[phillybear 364]

Seems to me that these statements fall more into the, "you shouldn't have said it that way" rather than, "you're a racist if you said/think that way".

 

The mouth breathers in this country have absolutely no concept anymore of what is racial vs. racist. Only one of these is potentially wrong, and even then you have to prove intent. Making an observation is perfectly socially acceptable.

[KSB2424 3,083]

The mouth breathers in this country have absolutely no concept anymore of what is racial vs. racist. Only one of these is potentially wrong, and even then you have to prove intent. Making an observation is perfectly socially acceptable.

And the problem is that even if the proper context is later given, the scarlet letter has been cast already. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube with stuff like this. It doesn't really even matter now what the 'truth' is. Ron Paul is a racist. That's what guys like NewbieJr (sorry Newbs but I needed an example) will say six months from now. "Oh yeah, that Ron Paul guy he was a racist, I remember seeing it on CNN!@#!".

[jerryskids 5,209]

And the problem is that even if the proper context is later given, the scarlet letter has been cast already. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube with stuff like this. It doesn't really even matter now what the 'truth' is. Ron Paul is a racist. That's what guys like NewbieJr (sorry Newbs but I needed an example) will say six months from now. "Oh yeah, that Ron Paul guy he was a racist, I remember seeing it on CNN!@#!".

 

Newbie doesn't watch CNN or any news show. He just knows everything that is on them.

[MedStudent 56]

I simply wish the media would focus more on the issues at hand; but that stuff is boring to most Americans. They'd rather look at gossip about cheating or something deemed racist. It's the world we live in. Where people can't think for themselves and waste hours of their day watching Keeping up with the Kardashians.

 

 

In the early days of TV, the networks didn't care how much money the news broadcasts made, it was considered an acceptable loss. How times have changed. Its all about ratings and making a splash and its unfortunate because the press (I'm using that to cover all media reporting) have always been considered an important part of the country in holding the government accountable. Not sure exactly when the change happened to the press but it seemed to be sometime between the Vietnam war and when I was born.

 

"Our citizens may be deceived for awhile, and have been deceived; but as long as the presses can be protected, we may trust to them for light." -Thomas Jefferson, 1799

 

The Press no longer digs for the truth. They dig for the sound bite or the conflict. The biggest failure of the Press IMO was their silence in the runup to the Iraq war. They were afraid to look unpatriotic. They didn't question the government. They didn't enlighten the public. It makes me sick to my stomach the way these campaigns are covered. It happens on both sides: the swift boat lies, the GWB stories about his national guard days, the ron paul news letters. and there are bias people spouting their slanted opinions on places they call news channels.

 

The focken truth is out there but these reporters are too lazy to do the work to find it. You want to do a story on the Ron Paul news letters? Do some digging. Do some research, find out who wrote on the web site, find out how often Ron Paul visited the site during the time in question. Don't just focken ask the same old tired questions to try and get an angry sound bite. Look at all the research Woodward and Bernstein did to uncover the Nixon crap. I don't know if that gets uncovered in the same way today. They would be all over watergate the day it happened but I don't know if they would keep digging and digging like woodward and bernstein did for a couple of years. The story more likely would just fade away after a month in these times.

 

The press now: Too much opinion, too much laziness, not enough hard work digging for the truth.

 

Rant over.

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

So, because I'm not buying into the wacky world of Ron Paul I'm not conservative? Hey, if he gets the Rep nod I'll vote for him. I just don't see how that will happen.

No, you're a liberal because you blindly follow the so called leaders of the republican party. But when one comes along that has, dare I say it, real conservative views, you won't support him. He's the only republican candidate that actually supports views of the republican party. All the other candidates are the same as Bush or Clinton or Obama. Big government, big oversight, big Fed.

[Phurfur 70]

No, you're a liberal because you blindly follow the so called leaders of the republican party. But when one comes along that has, dare I say it, real conservative views, you won't support him. He's the only republican candidate that actually supports views of the republican party. All the other candidates are the same as Bush or Clinton or Obama. Big government, big oversight, big Fed.

 

 

Don't get fooled again

No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss

Same as the old boss

- Pete Townshend

[Greedo 13]

Sounds like Paul is using the same excuse Obama used about his racist pastor. The media didn't press Obama like they are Paul though. Just more proof of the extreme liberal bias in the media.

 

This is a load of crap. Maybe you have a bad memory - that pastor was in the news off and on for months. You don't remember the questions Obama got on it every day? And that he had to have an entire speech to address it? We've gotten nowhere near that far with Paul.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

If he's been answering this for a decade he should be able to knock it out of the park. If he can't handle a CNN Reporterette he may not be up to being the leader of the free world.

[SUXBNME 1,340]

Politics is an ugly game. I'm willing to wager that 99.9% of any person would have some sort of stone uncovered from sometime in their life that would be considered negative.

True dat.

 

Like if you ever ran for a public office, your opposition would be able to find a pic of you in a sweater vest playing with a kat.

Career ovah

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

I know you are going to jump down my throat for this, but I don't think this was a good move for Ron Paul. He has to answer these questions and not just put his hands over his ears and go "lalalalalala" until they go away.

 

No I don't approve of the specific manner in which this "journalist" went about questioning him but the substance of the questions are valid nonetheless. And yes, I know he has already answered them but apparently not well enough. A lot of people don't buy that he had no idea what was being published under his name.

 

It's kind of like when a liberal gets interviewed on Fox News. You know they are going to be hostile and probably unfair. You have to either decline the interview or hold your own without getting upset and stomping off. Remember when Obama was interviewed on Fox News and the guy kept cutting him off like he WASN'T the focking President of the United States? Obama could have gotten major bent out of shape but he recognized that in the end it would make him look worse.

 

I agree. He needs to pass the "Presidential" test, which involves keeping your temper under wraps. It hurt McCain last time, and it will hurt Paul this time unless somebody tells him to focking cool it. He gets real shrill and p!ssy in every debate, and that does not serve him well.

 

He needs a better PR team badly.

[naomi 343]

these are the comments?

If anyone has a better link, please post it.

 

- it's not news that the area around D.C. is essentially a high-crime-rate slum, largely populated by economically disadvantaged african americans.

 

- black teenagers can be fleet of foot, many teenagers can be fleet of foot.

 

I'm not sure if seeing more of the context will help or hurt.

Seems to me that these statements fall more into the, "you shouldn't have said it that way" rather than, "you're a racist if you said/think that way".

 

Those are statements that he didn't disavow in the mid 90s but said were used out of context. He later said his campaign counsel advised him not to say that they were ghostwritten because it would make matters even more complicated. When it comes to this particular matter, he acknowledges making the statistical statements, but not in the flow of thought reports of the newsletters make it sound like they're in.

 

I still like Paul and I don't think race is an issue to him or that he hates jews, but I would understand someone turned off even if taking him at his word. Busy doctor or not, if someone writes a lot of stuff under your name you aren't down with, in a newsletter bearing your name, you should be on top of that.

 

Scans of a lot of the controversial stuff. The heart of most of it doesn't bother me. But it's written in a reactionary tone and doesn't sound like someone above the fray. Sounds like someone who'll jump on propaganda without much discrestion.