Full CNN Interviews shows Paul did not "walk off" under pressure

Hey CNN!:

I am utterly shocked that the media would edit footage of an interview to make it seem more sensational than it really is.

Wow, that was exactly like the transcript I read of it on CNN, and in fact he did get all whiny and walked off when she did not kiss his ass. So no lie, he did walk off under pressure, you fail.

Redress said:

Wow, that was exactly like the transcript I read of it on CNN, and in fact he did get all whiny and walked off when she did not kiss his ass. So no lie, he did walk off under pressure, you fail.

Click to expand...

Truth alarm! Truth alarm! Exposure of propaganda tactics detected. Anti-Paul programming activated. Bull**** generator at 100% capacity!

Demon of Light said:

Truth alarm! Truth alarm! Exposure of propaganda tactics detected. Anti-Paul programming activated. Bull**** generator at 100% capacity!

Click to expand...

The Protect Grandfather Paul's Ass Campaign seems to be in high gear also.

haymarket said:

The Protect Grandfather Paul's Ass Campaign seems to be in high gear also.

Click to expand...

That, or a desire to see him treated fairly. You know, either or. The anti-Pauls like to make mountains out of molehills if they can.

Redress said:

Wow, that was exactly like the transcript I read of it on CNN, and in fact he did get all whiny and walked off when she did not kiss his ass. So no lie, he did walk off under pressure, you fail.

Click to expand...

The guy's been asked over and over the same question to which he gives pretty much the same answer all the time. I'd get annoyed and walk out to. And she did state exactly why she was asking the question...."These things are pretty incendiary"....IE despite having the answer they keep bringing it up in order to create controversy and raise the ratings.

Kal'Stang said:

The guy's been asked over and over the same question to which he gives pretty much the same answer all the time. I'd get annoyed and walk out to. And she did state exactly why she was asking the question...."These things are pretty incendiary"....IE despite having the answer they keep bringing it up in order to create controversy and raise the ratings.

Click to expand...

She said the newsletters were incendiary, not her own questions.

The Herman Cain thing, that was a ridiculous media frenzy. Questioning how Ron Paul could have been oblivious to having his signature on a racist newsletter for several years is obviously a legitimate question. How could Paul's fans, who pride themselves on the matter of being well reasoned people, give him a pass on something like that? You know, maybe white supremacists (ie Stormfront) donate to Paul because his organization has a history of courting racist voters.

Also, in response to the OP's video: so you're saying that the difference between the originally broadcast interview and the uncut one is a portion where the reporter asks "did you make money from the newsletters" and then "did you not make money from them?" and Paul says something along the lines of "I don't know," and "what are you talking about," and then he rambles about gold investments or something like that, and they continue talking with his mic off, but you can't hear what he's going to say. So the difference is that CNN edited out the part with an awkward exchanged and some dialogue you can't hear? I agree that cutting out that exchange makes Paul removing his mic more "sensational," but Paul left that interview because he didn't want to talk about the newsletters and the parts that were cut out were clearly unusable. Ultimately, Paul leaving the interview occurred pretty much exactly like CNN portrayed it. If you want to call it an "exaggeration," I'd be fine with using that language. A "lie?" Absolutely not. Clearly not.

And to those saying "Paul's answered the question," how about you answer these questions: do you believe that at no point from 1989-1993 nobody told Paul that he was personally endorsing racist and homophobic statements? Do you accept that Paul was unable to find out who had written these statements? Because, unfortunately for posters like Kal'Stang, Paul has never answered those questions, thus rendering their "media sensationalism" argument quite absurd.

Mustachio said:

Questioning how Ron Paul could have been oblivious to having his signature on a racist newsletter for several years is obviously a legitimate question. How could Paul's fans, who pride themselves on the matter of being well reasoned people, give him a pass on something like that?

Click to expand...

Even if one assumes Paul had no role in writing the newsletters, the reality is that any reasonably prudent person would exercise oversight over content using his/her name, especially as one's reputation could be impacted. Ron Paul did not exercise the standard of diligence that a reasonable person would exercise when it came to the newsletters. Unfortunately for Paul, the standard of diligence expected of a President is much greater than that of a reasonable person. Hence, the newsletters are a lose-lose proposition for Paul. If he wrote them, and I'm going to assume he didn't, they would contain extremist content. If he failed to exercise proper oversight, it would mean that he lacks the capability to serve as President.

Finally, Ron Paul's supporters see the man as a political prophet of sorts. His ideology is, for them, an article of faith. Hence, issues such as the existence of the newsletters and his lack of oversight are irrelevant. Their belief in Ron Paul and his message is unwavering.

Kal'Stang said:

The guy's been asked over and over the same question to which he gives pretty much the same answer all the time. I'd get annoyed and walk out to. And she did state exactly why she was asking the question...."These things are pretty incendiary"....IE despite having the answer they keep bringing it up in order to create controversy and raise the ratings.

Click to expand...

If you can't handle the pressure, you shouldn't be running for president.

Redress said:

If you can't handle the pressure, you shouldn't be running for president.

Click to expand...

I strongly agree. No elected position comes with as much pressure as the Presidency.

Sure the guy should get the same scrutiny for running for prez as all others. Not an insane amount more. For ****s sake, watch this interview with Paul and Nader back in 2008 and just see the disrespect Wolf Blitzer shows them. They do not do this with establishment approved candidates. They don't even treat them as candidates at all. They set the tone in the media that they are a joke and not to be considered seriously. And IMO, that is not up to the media to determine that or to try and sway others of that.

Kal'Stang said:

The guy's been asked over and over the same question to which he gives pretty much the same answer all the time. I'd get annoyed and walk out to. And she did state exactly why she was asking the question...."These things are pretty incendiary"....IE despite having the answer they keep bringing it up in order to create controversy and raise the ratings.

Click to expand...

Except he clearly didn't walk out. The body language and tone of voice of both Borger and Paul together with the way the crew acts (like the camera pulling away before Paul starts taking moving to take the mic off) suggests this was just a rather cordial end to a brief interview squeezed into Paul's schedule where Borger, like most reporters, tries to get some last-second blurbs by pushing him even after her interview time is up.

Mustachio said:

She said the newsletters were incendiary, not her own questions.

The Herman Cain thing, that was a ridiculous media frenzy. Questioning how Ron Paul could have been oblivious to having his signature on a racist newsletter for several years is obviously a legitimate question. How could Paul's fans, who pride themselves on the matter of being well reasoned people, give him a pass on something like that? You know, maybe white supremacists (ie Stormfront) donate to Paul because his organization has a history of courting racist voters.

Click to expand...

No one is "giving him a pass" for anything. He said it was a legitimate issue to raise and then addressed the issue. Also, from what I understand, his signature did not actually appear on any of these newsletters. They appeared on some others where no objectionable material was mentioned.

Also, in response to the OP's video: so you're saying that the difference between the originally broadcast interview and the uncut one is a portion where the reporter asks "did you make money from the newsletters" and then "did you not make money from them?" and Paul says something along the lines of "I don't know," and "what are you talking about," and then he rambles about gold investments or something like that, and they continue talking with his mic off, but you can't hear what he's going to say. So the difference is that CNN edited out the part with an awkward exchanged and some dialogue you can't hear? I agree that cutting out that exchange makes Paul removing his mic more "sensational," but Paul left that interview because he didn't want to talk about the newsletters and the parts that were cut out were clearly unusable. Ultimately, Paul leaving the interview occurred pretty much exactly like CNN portrayed it. If you want to call it an "exaggeration," I'd be fine with using that language. A "lie?" Absolutely not. Clearly not.

Click to expand...

Oh, it is a lie. They claimed he "walked out" of the interview because of agitation over being asked about the newsletters. The reality is that half the interview focused on it and he never once failed to answer a question on the issue then, when the interview was over, he calmly left even while giving her some further comments. As far as his other responses not being "suitable" that is bull****. You are reaching for straws to justify plainly deceitful reporting by CNN. His comment that they must know more about his finances than him since he has not seen any substantial money received from the newsletter was not "unsuitable" unless you do not want people to know the candidate is doing exactly what you claim he is not doing.

And to those saying "Paul's answered the question," how about you answer these questions: do you believe that at no point from 1989-1993 nobody told Paul that he was personally endorsing racist and homophobic statements? Do you accept that Paul was unable to find out who had written these statements? Because, unfortunately for posters like Kal'Stang, Paul has never answered those questions, thus rendering their "media sensationalism" argument quite absurd.

Click to expand...

The newsletter was eight pages long and released monthly. That most of what they find are brief articles or small snippets from larger articles scattered over five years of material suggests this was hardly frequent enough to raise red flags for readers who may have overlooked the material or simply did not feel it was worth bringing up.

donsutherland1 said:

Even if one assumes Paul had no role in writing the newsletters, the reality is that any reasonably prudent person would exercise oversight over content using his/her name, especially as one's reputation could be impacted. Ron Paul did not exercise the standard of diligence that a reasonable person would exercise when it came to the newsletters. Unfortunately for Paul, the standard of diligence expected of a President is much greater than that of a reasonable person. Hence, the newsletters are a lose-lose proposition for Paul. If he wrote them, and I'm going to assume he didn't, they would contain extremist content. If he failed to exercise proper oversight, it would mean that he lacks the capability to serve as President.

Click to expand...

Seriously, go to the thread showing these articles and snippets. Look at the page numbers, understanding this newsletter was eight pages long, and the size of some of these articles or snippets. Consider the context of the articles as well, not to mention the behavior of other sensationalist news commentaries today and back then. Then check out what Paul was doing at the time. Any objective person can see this is a huge non-issue. I think Paul is being overly-charitable in describing himself as being negligent or morally responsible. Should Obama be faulted for the act of every single bureaucrat in the country?

Finally, Ron Paul's supporters see the man as a political prophet of sorts. His ideology is, for them, an article of faith. Hence, issues such as the existence of the newsletters and his lack of oversight are irrelevant. Their belief in Ron Paul and his message is unwavering.

Click to expand...

Seriously, you know jack **** about this. Most of us who support Ron Paul have combed over these accusations and have been pretty good at calling what is really going on. Almost as soon as the "walk-off" video showed up numerous supporters were pointing out that the scene was more like him leaving at the end of an interview rather than him leaving in the middle of one. Now we see the facts and it is blatantly obvious that is what occurred. We have regularly been ahead of the curve in predicting what new "surge" will come up or what the media will do under certain polling scenarios. The newsletter bull**** came up just as expected, and right when it was expected.

You are so lost in the anti-Paul echo chamber that you fail to recognize how people of wide, diverging views, including many "mainstream" voters are backing Paul because they see him as a consistent man of principle who behaves the way we all want politicians to behave. His specific ideology is secondary to many of us as someone having the same professed views would probably not have the character or consistency to appeal to us. Obviously certain parts of his ideology are important for supporters, but those parts vary from one supporter to the next. Some do adopt his ideology, but plenty more feel free to disagree with certain parts of his ideology, even to substantial degrees.

You usually have 1 side going after you (left or right). He has both at the same time :-D But it always been this way so I'm sure he can handle it.

Mustachio said:

She said the newsletters were incendiary, not her own questions.

Click to expand...

Did I say anything different? It is the fact that those newsletters are incendiary that she is asking those questions...despite the fact that he has been asked the same questions by CNN before and given his answers before. The fact that she is asking those questions, knowing that they had been asked before by the company that she works for is evidence that she is just asking those questions to create controversy and to raise the ratings.

Mustachio said:

The Herman Cain thing, that was a ridiculous media frenzy. Questioning how Ron Paul could have been oblivious to having his signature on a racist newsletter for several years is obviously a legitimate question. How could Paul's fans, who pride themselves on the matter of being well reasoned people, give him a pass on something like that? You know, maybe white supremacists (ie Stormfront) donate to Paul because his organization has a history of courting racist voters.

Click to expand...

I agree that it is a legitimate question. Even Ron Paul agreed that it was. The problem isn't that she asked the questions. The problem is that she asked the questions knowing that they had already asked him about it before...from what I understand multiple times before. Knowing this it is obvious that she wasn't there to just ask those questions, she was there to create controversy and raise ratings.

Redress said:

If you can't handle the pressure, you shouldn't be running for president.

Click to expand...

I saw nothing in the OP's video that showed he wasn't handling the situation in a good way. Despite what has been said in this thread I didn't see him "storming off". Was he annoyed? I have no doubt of that. Anyone in his situation would be also.

Are there any actually practicing journalists remaining in this country?

A career politician trying to write of a decade of his own political materials claiming he was in a political coma that decade and trying to write off who was his campaign staff members claiming that he also had amnesia during that decade is not something he can sluff off as pointless "pestering" him. His defense that he was totally incompetent and lost total control of his political life for a decade being totally cooped by persons-unknown due also to memory lapse is nto an explanation the press has to summarily accept. At least, then, the press should lock him down to his "I lost my mind for a decade" back then and "lost my mind now too" in terms of memory.

It is amazing. Basically, Ron Paul's defense is him claiming he is the Manchurian Candidate - vehemently adament that both his political campaigns for a decade was totally run without his knowledge by unknown people and now claiming his memory was somehow also erased during that decade. Maybe it was aliens who did these terrible things to him?

joko104 said:

A career politician trying to write of a decade of his own political materials claiming he was in a political coma that decade and trying to write off who was his campaign staff members claiming that he also had amnesia during that decade is not something he can sluff off as pointless "pestering" him. His defense that he was totally incompetent and lost total control of his political life for a decade being totally cooped by persons-unknown due also to memory lapse is nto an explanation the press has to summarily accept. At least, then, the press should lock him down to his "I lost my mind for a decade" back then and "lost my mind now too" in terms of memory.

It is amazing. Basically, Ron Paul's defense is him claiming he is the Manchurian Candidate - vehemently adament that both his political campaigns for a decade was totally run without his knowledge by unknown people and now claiming his memory was somehow also erased during that decade. Maybe it was aliens who did these terrible things to him?

Click to expand...

Your post really should be in the conspiracy fora. Do you have any proof that he is lying? No you don't. All that you have is suposition.

Kal'Stang said:

Your post really should be in the conspiracy fora. Do you have any proof that he is lying? No you don't. All that you have is suposition.

Click to expand...

You can TRY to shift what I said, but what I said is that his defense is VASTLY worst than if he had wrote the newsletters. His defense is one of total incompetency, a terribly failing mental capacity, indifferent to - according to him - theft of his campaign funds, and a total inability to manage people in a political context. His defense is that no one would be a more incompetent president and chief executive than him.

Ron Paul should be investigated for what happened to the money raised by the newsletter. In part during that time he was a candidate and officeholder. The candidate MUST account for every dollar. Ron Paul saying "I don't know what happened to all that money" is definitely NOT acceptable. The missing money is a crime. The crime should be investigated whether Paul wants it to or not because it was NOT his money. It was campaign money that must be accounted for and cannot be used for personal purposes by anyone.

Why didn't Ron Paul then or Ron Paul now report the crime?

I'm fairly confident that if Paul were the nominee, the Obama Justice Department would investigation the missing Ron Paul campaign funds.

poweRob said:

Sure the guy should get the same scrutiny for running for prez as all others. Not an insane amount more. For ****s sake, watch this interview with Paul and Nader back in 2008 and just see the disrespect Wolf Blitzer shows them. They do not do this with establishment approved candidates. They don't even treat them as candidates at all. They set the tone in the media that they are a joke and not to be considered seriously. And IMO, that is not up to the media to determine that or to try and sway others of that.

Click to expand...

People are tired of Ron Paul and his supporters playing the crucified Christ role.

Ummm.... He left after she kept asking questions and he kept giving the answer and she kept asking the same ****ing question again trying to push for something that SHE wanted.

Who cares if he made money off of it? WTF does that matter? And why should he be expected to give money back that he made over 20 years ago on something that he didn't know what going on at the time?

poweRob said:

Sure the guy should get the same scrutiny for running for prez as all others. Not an insane amount more. For ****s sake, watch this interview with Paul and Nader back in 2008 and just see the disrespect Wolf Blitzer shows them. They do not do this with establishment approved candidates. They don't even treat them as candidates at all. They set the tone in the media that they are a joke and not to be considered seriously. And IMO, that is not up to the media to determine that or to try and sway others of that.

Click to expand...

From the context of the interview it seems as though Paul has already lost the nomination. Otherwise Blitzer seems prefectly reasonable to me. He's supposed to pretend that Nader really has a shot at winning?

joko104 said:

A career politician trying to write of a decade of his own political materials claiming he was in a political coma that decade and trying to write off who was his campaign staff members claiming that he also had amnesia during that decade is not something he can sluff off as pointless "pestering" him. His defense that he was totally incompetent and lost total control of his political life for a decade being totally cooped by persons-unknown due also to memory lapse is nto an explanation the press has to summarily accept. At least, then, the press should lock him down to his "I lost my mind for a decade" back then and "lost my mind now too" in terms of memory.

It is amazing. Basically, Ron Paul's defense is him claiming he is the Manchurian Candidate - vehemently adament that both his political campaigns for a decade was totally run without his knowledge by unknown people and now claiming his memory was somehow also erased during that decade. Maybe it was aliens who did these terrible things to him?

Click to expand...

Seriously, do you even think about this kind of tripe? It wasn't "a decade of his own political materials" but various snippets and short articles in a dozen or so eight-page monthly newsletters distributed over five years. The overwhelming majority of the material in the newsletters was not of this nature and the material that was of this nature generally did not even occupy most of the page it was on, let alone most of the newsletter.

joko104 said:

You can TRY to shift what I said, but what I said is that his defense is VASTLY worst than if he had wrote the newsletters. His defense is one of total incompetency, a terribly failing mental capacity, indifferent to - according to him - theft of his campaign funds, and a total inability to manage people in a political context. His defense is that no one would be a more incompetent president and chief executive than him.

Ron Paul should be investigated for what happened to the money raised by the newsletter. In part during that time he was a candidate and officeholder. The candidate MUST account for every dollar. Ron Paul saying "I don't know what happened to all that money" is definitely NOT acceptable. The missing money is a crime. The crime should be investigated whether Paul wants it to or not because it was NOT his money. It was campaign money that must be accounted for and cannot be used for personal purposes by anyone.

Why didn't Ron Paul then or Ron Paul now report the crime?

I'm fairly confident that if Paul were the nominee, the Obama Justice Department would investigation the missing Ron Paul campaign funds.

Click to expand...

Who said the money is missing? Paul said he didn't see a million dollars in profit from it. No one has even clarified whether it was a million dollars in net income for the newsletter or just revenue from the newsletter that did not account for expenditures related to its production and distribution. The latter would mean most of that money was not profit as it would have been put towards paying for the various expenditures that come with running a business.

AdamT said:

From the context of the interview it seems as though Paul has already lost the nomination. Otherwise Blitzer seems prefectly reasonable to me. He's supposed to pretend that Nader really has a shot at winning?

Click to expand...

He's a reporter. Meaning he is supposed to respect the candidates they interview. Not tell the watching public, "You have no chance so who in the two parties would you vote for?"