Rand Paul will be on Maddow tonight

[MsDoodahs]

Just heard it.

:)

[tremendoustie]

Just heard it.

:)

It will be interesting to see how Rand interviews with a leftist, after winning the primary. I wonder if he will adjust his rhetoric at all.

[speciallyblend]

kewl i promised my wife i wouldn't watch news today,sneak it in at work. she's knows i am in rpf now:( hehe

I hope Rachel Maddow comes thru on this one, I Want Liberty Tea!!



YouTube - Jamiroquai Dance Compilation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMC3ffwoMVE)

[specsaregood]

It will be interesting to see how Rand interviews with a leftist, after winning the primary. I wonder if he will adjust his rhetoric at all.

It will be more interesting to see how Rachel Maddow's attitude towards him changes (if at all). You must remember that he gave her the "scoop" of announcing his exploratory committee on her show 1 year ago.

YouTube - Rand Paul Senate Exploratory Committee Announcement on Rachel Maddow MSNBC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlH14hWxHMk&feature=player_embedded)

[RforRevolution]

Didn't he make his first national appearance and announce his exploratory committee on her show almost a year ago? If I had to guess, he's gonna thank her for that.

YouTube - MSNBC: Rand Paul Senate 2010 on Rachel Maddow (5/14/2009) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e3OSr2tSTM)

[Andrew-Austin]

Shes going to ask him about stuff like abolishing the Department of Education, and he probably won't give a straightforward answer but re-frame the subject.

[AuH20]

Now he's a bonafide threat as opposed to a nice story. Watch the gloves come off!

[speciallyblend]

It will be more interesting to see how Rachel Maddow's attitude towards him changes (if at all). You must remember that he gave her the "scoop" of announcing his exploratory committee on her show 1 year ago.

YouTube - Rand Paul Senate Exploratory Committee Announcement on Rachel Maddow MSNBC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlH14hWxHMk&feature=player_embedded)

rachel maddow is a smart woman, she knows exactly what is up. I expect an awesome interview! foreign policy and many issues rand and rachel can agree on!!!

Rachel has a chance to stick it to the gop establishment and let Rand Paul explain the Liberty Movement!! minus the neo-con platform

[HOLLYWOOD]

Maddow will love bashing the OLD RINO Republican party and their failings of backing Trey Grayson and others that lost. I expect snipes against Michael Steele, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell which are well deserved.

I'm sure the RNC is scrambling in the War Room figuring out NEW WAYS, on how they can use the Tea Party all the way to November.

[specsaregood]

rachel maddow is a smart woman, she knows exactly what is up. I expect an awesome interview! foreign policy and many issues rand and rachel can agree on!!!

Rachel has a chance to stick it to the gop establishment and let Rand Paul explain the Liberty Movement!! minus the neo-con platform

Let me guess, you are a "the bowl is half-full" kinda guy. :)
I certainly hope you are correct, we'll see though.

[mello]

I don't think I've seen one interview where she was mean or deceptive to either Paul.

[tremendoustie]

rachel maddow is a smart woman, she knows exactly what is up. I expect an awesome interview! foreign policy and many issues rand and rachel can agree on!!!

Rachel has a chance to stick it to the gop establishment and let Rand Paul explain the Liberty Movement!! minus the neo-con platform

Yeah, if rand takes a principled liberty position, like his dad usually does, there will be much they can agree on. If he sticks solely to the rhetoric he used in the primary, probably not so much.

Here's hoping he stands up for non-intervention, ending the drug war, etc -- even if he tempers his statements to be more broadly appealing. I imagine they will at least be able to agree on ending government preferential treatment and subsidies for big business and banking.

[Imaginos]

The big irony is although Rachel Maddow is a card carrying, hard core liberal/progressive, she treated Ron Paul and Rand Paul better than some of Fox news propagandists.
From what I have seen, Rachel Maddow is a not a fake progressive but a principled one.
She's the only one in MSNBC calling out and grilling Obama on war issue.
Although I can't stand her domestic policies (i.e. welfare state), she has my respect for calling out Obama because it takes a principle to do so.
And I believe what Ron Paul believes which is on certain issues, we can work with liberal/progressive if they are the principled one.
We need to re-energize anti-war movement and people like Rachel Maddow is our ally on that effort.

[catdd]

She has to be careful when dealing with the Paul's because there's so much overlap between us. It's hard to launch an attack when you stand a good chance of hitting your own people with friendly fire.

[Andrew-Austin]

She might have only treated both Paul's fairly well in the past because they were perceived as both:

A) long shot candidates who couldn't win
and
B) dissenting voices who fragment the Republican party

Now that it seems he actually can be a Senator, and maybe even an influential one, she may focus more on the things she disagrees with him on.

[BenIsForRon]

I watched Maddow last night, she seemed pretty excited about the win. She thought it was pretty awesome that Rand beat the guy with the Cheney and McConnel endorsements.

[speciallyblend]

Let me guess, you are a "the bowl is half-full" kinda guy. :)
I certainly hope you are correct, we'll see though.

can always find a lil green in a half full bowl:)

[Distinguished Gentleman]

She will probably ask him tough questions including what will become the Democratic core attacks. She's not a bully, though, and Rand has impressed me in his manner of fending off mischaracterizations.

[lester1/2jr]

she'll hold her nose and basically give him the floor for 5 minutes so she never has to have him on again.

[speciallyblend]

she'll hold her nose and basically give him the floor for 5 minutes so she never has to have him on again.

i have more respect for rachel maddow then fox news neo-cons or cnn/msnbc talking heads!!

i have a feeling rachel will give a great interview,anything less and i will be surprised!!!

she has given ron paul and rand paul a fair shake compared to the rest of the bs msm!!

rand announced his run on her show!!! rachel knows what is up!

[itshappening]

Rand needs to reach out to Mongiardo supporters and point out that in Kentucky the Democrat party is split and fractured and that he hopes he can win support from many Democrats for his common sense positions

[Galileo Galilei]

Maddow is freinds with some Libertarians I know.

[ravedown]

i hope he addresses the claim that is being repeated non-stop right now on MSNBC that he wants to repeal the civil rights amendment. its clearly being spread around by the dems as fast as possible.

[lester1/2jr]

":rachel knows what is up!"

I will be taking the opposite side of this bet

[speciallyblend]

olbermann is full of BS, ERRRRR THIS GUY IS JUST A LIAR!

[speciallyblend]

i hope he addresses the claim that is being repeated non-stop right now on MSNBC that he wants to repeal the civil rights amendment. its clearly being spread around by the dems as fast as possible.

YEAH i hope he clears all this bs up, see if rachel is honest or starts pushing this msnbc bs on Rand!!

rachels interview will decide if i block msnbc along with fox already. i don't bother blocking cnn i just never stop on that one!!

[cmasslibertarian]

of course olbermann is snarky about rand being on maddow

[cmasslibertarian]

she is being horrifically dense

[Paulitical Correctness]

Woooow, is she f$*@ing stupid?

[AuH20]

The blood is in the water!!!!!! WHOA!!!

[Paulitical Correctness]

This interview is going to hurt more than help.

[Brian4Liberty]

This is painful! Hate to be negative, but this could be handled much better. Way over the heads of the general public. Way over the heads of anyone but someone well versed in libertarian theory.

[cmasslibertarian]

what a bitch

[AuH20]

what a bitch

I told everyone. The left plays for keeps. There are no allies over there.

[low preference guy]

so Rand is going to stick to the libertarian viewpoint on this one? hope he does it well.

[ARealConservative]

never go on ~his~ show again

[MsDoodahs]

I didn't watch, but you guys are making me think it did not go well.....

[MRoCkEd]

ouch

[Depressed Liberator]

The way I see it, Rand needs to make this argument.

"I do not support private business allowing segregation, though I feel that they have the right to. But at the same time, people have the right to not go there, boycott their establishment, and either force them to desegregate or to close down."

[Brian4Liberty]

so Rand is going to stick to the libertarian viewpoint on this one? hope he does it well.

He was channeling Uncle Murray. Some people around here will love it. Politically it may not work.

[Original_Intent]

nice assasination Rachel. You were well prepped for that interview. Rand is a racist to almost any uninformed person watching. And once the soundbites have been disseminated.....not good not good at all. And Rand did a great job of answering honestly and HONORABLY - but that isn't going to matter.

[Paulitical Correctness]

Very painful. If it made me feel awkward?

Shit.

[Bergie Bergeron]

Rand Paul, The Civil Rights Act, And Individual Liberty http://ping.fm/lY58v

Tweeted this to about 100 haters on Twitter who were watching Maddow...

[Depressed Liberator]

The way I see it, Rand needs to make this argument.

"I do not support private business allowing segregation, though I feel that they have the right to. But at the same time, people have the right to not go there, boycott their establishment, and either force them to desegregate or to close down."

bumpin dis

[speciallyblend]

Very painful. If it made me feel awkward?

Shit.

rand did a poor job! rachel did nothing wrong! she asked questions that should of been answered with a NO, then he could explain!

this was not a good showing!! shakes my head how this interview went was not rachel maddows fault! i give a d for rand paul being biased an f for folks outside of the revolution!

[low preference guy]

Well, if Rand decided to get into this debate, he will have to go all the way and introduce people to the libertarian viewpoint. I bet he is doing this only because he thinks he can succeed.

[Michael Landon]

Youtube?

[Brian4Liberty]

The way I see it, Rand needs to make this argument.

"I do not support private business allowing segregation, though I feel that they have the right to. But at the same time, people have the right to not go there, boycott their establishment, and either force them to desegregate or to close down."

How about this:

"I do not support racism or discrimination of any kind. The Constitution has been amended to make sure that it doesn't happen, and I support the Constitution."

[MRoCkEd]

The way I see it, Rand needs to make this argument.

"I do not support private business allowing segregation, though I feel that they have the right to. But at the same time, people have the right to not go there, boycott their establishment, and either force them to desegregate or to close down."
Yep.

.."just as I do not support people saying racist things, but would not have them arrested for doing so. People have the right to be racist, but others have the right to avoid associations with racists."

[Paulitical Correctness]

rand did a poor job! rachel did nothing wrong! she asked questions that should of been answered with a NO, then he could explain!

this was not a good showing!!

I agree, no blame on her really.

IMO worse than any of the interviews/questions about the newsletters.

[AuH20]

She just made a joke about Rand to Sestak!!! They're talking in liberal code speak!

[jackers]

The way I see it, Rand needs to make this argument.

"I do not support private business allowing segregation, though I feel that they have the right to. But at the same time, people have the right to not go there, boycott their establishment, and either force them to desegregate or to close down."

Exactly, how hard is that? They just went round and round and that always make the interviewer look weak.

The problem is, she was looking at it from a basic liberal standpoint (racism is bad and only the government can stop it). He is looking at it from the libertarian standpoint (racism is bad but we don't need government to interfere in a private business, the market and public opinion will do fine on its own).

He lost this round....bad.

[Mini-Me]

I didn't watch it, but it sounds like it went REALLY badly...and the O'Reilly interview also sounds like it went REALLY badly too, in the sense that Rand gave up too much ground on Iran.

This is going to be a LONG six months...or worse, a long six years, if he doesn't start pulling some Ron Pauls on foreign policy.

[AuH20]

I didn't watch it, but it sounds like it went REALLY badly...and the O'Reilly interview also sounds like it went REALLY badly, in the sense that Rand gave up too much ground on Iran.

This is going to be a LONG six months.

Interview wasn't that bad. Maddow was very aggressive in her questioning. Rand looks haggard but did a fine job in answering the question under the circumstances.

[HOLLYWOOD]

I can see the scheming Progressive/Liberal spin doctors at work twisitng on this one, headline reads: "Racists... Like Father, Like Son"

Watch, it's coming... they need that Democratic Senator in Kentucky 2010 and Jefferey Immelt's Obama channel aka NBC/MSNBC/CNBC/Newsweek, will push 110% all the way to November.

[Depressed Liberator]

Having seen the whole thing, I feel that the only people who will really care about this will be the hardcore Dems who wouldn't have voted for Rand anyway. They'll try to make an issue out of this, but I feel that the people in Kentucky aren't that stupid.

[AuH20]

Aren't you proud that Rand is running as Rand, instead of taking the easy road?

[Depressed Liberator]

I can see the scheming Progressive/Liberal spin doctors at work twisitng on this one, headline reads: "Racists... Like Father, Like Son"

Watch, it's coming... they need that Democratic Senator in Kentucky 2010 and Jefferey Immelt's Obama channel aka NBC/MSNBC/CNBC/Newsweek, will push 110% all the way to November.

http://www.google.com/search?q=racist+like+father+like+son&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[Paulitical Correctness]

Aren't you proud that Rand is running as Rand, instead of taking the easy road?

Yes, BUT...

I don't understand...he played politics for the primary and now that the real fight has begun he turns into a megaprincipled libertarian?

Commendable, yeah. Smart? Not really.

[Brian4Liberty]

Having seen the whole thing, I feel that the only people who will really care about this will be the hardcore Dems who wouldn't have voted for Rand anyway. They'll try to make an issue out of this, but I feel that the people in Kentucky aren't that stupid.

Agreed.

[messana]

No surprise, MSNBC is the Fox News of the left wing.

[MRoCkEd]

The good thing is I don't think he gave any direct enough answers to be used in attack ads.

The Dems will say he is "opposed to civil rights" no matter how this interview went.

Five months to go. This is going to be one bloody race.

[cmasslibertarian]

mega twitter outrage over this, he's one of the top topics right now

[speciallyblend]

I agree, no blame on her really.

IMO worse than any of the interviews/questions about the newsletters.

after that interview all i can say is Ron Paul 2012 !! and hope rand pauls handlers get a grip!!

[AuH20]

C'mon. We all knew the deal when Rand threw his name into the ring. They are going to flatten him if they can. He's the Tea Party darling now.

[speciallyblend]

mega twitter outrage over this, he's one of the top topics right now

and he should be Rand Paul did a lowsy job!! geez only palin does worse!! not going to win elections that way!!

[HOLLYWOOD]

http://www.google.com/search?q=racist+like+father+like+son&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US (http://www.google.com/search?q=racist+like+father+like+son&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a):official&client=firefox-a


Incredible... yeah must be those lunatics over at Democracy Now, which love stirring nasty crap every week... they're the same clowns give their undivided love with their heads up a real racist's ass named Senator Robert Byrd. Shows you their hypocritcal mentality and twisted distorted facts so they see exactly what they wanta see.

Man, those Liberal Progressive kooks are F*cked Up.

[KramerDSP]

Yes, BUT...

I don't understand...he played politics for the primary and now that the real fight has begun he turns into a megaprincipled libertarian?

Commendable, yeah. Smart? Not really.

What if, as crazy as this sounds, this ended up being the best thing to happen? Now, Rand has six months to explain his positions to an audience that will be hanging on every word he has to say. To the liberal media, he's essentially the new Palin and they're going to attack him with everything they got.

Goldwater ran as Goldwater. Ron ran as Ron. Rand's running as Rand. And if Rand wins with all of the exposure (positive and negative) he is going to get in the next six months, that almost certainly sets the stage for Ron Paul 2012. Rand's got a hell of a fight, though, and so do we.

[Depressed Liberator]

Alright, there seems to be some sort of mess on Twitter.

[AuH20]

after that interview all i can say is Ron Paul 2012 !! and hope rand pauls handlers get a grip!!

He didn't do that poorly. He made a great counterpoint about gun rights not being protected under the same conditions the CRA called for.

[speciallyblend]

C'mon. We all knew the deal when Rand threw his name into the ring. They are going to flatten him if they can. He's the Tea Party darling now.

umm rand paul flattened himself in this interview! that is how i saw it!!

[Depressed Liberator]

The way I see it, Rand needs to make this argument.

"I do not support private business allowing segregation, though I feel that they have the right to. But at the same time, people have the right to not go there, boycott their establishment, and either force them to desegregate or to close down."


I still think Rand needs to make some sort of variation of this argument.

[AuH20]

umm rand paul flattened himself in this interview! that is how i saw it!!

By changing his belief system and telling Maddow what she wanted to hear?

[speciallyblend]

No surprise, MSNBC is the Fox News of the left wing.

don't blame msnbc or rachel on this one. Rand Paul made his own bed on this issue!!! facepalm embarrassing

[PatriotOne]

I guess the honeymoon is over already. Time to put the bullet proof vest back on.

[MsDoodahs]

I guess the honeymoon is over already. Time to put the bullet proof vest back on.

You actually took yours off?

;)

[Depressed Liberator]

I think Rand needed a better argument, and the one I said is the one I typically use with my liberal friends. They tend to quiet down after that argument, because they see the logic in it. The truth is most Americans aren't so big government as some of the TV personalities they see, so that argument makes enough sense to them. I do think Maddow was trying to make a hit on Rand though. You could see it in the next segment when he interviewed that guy from Pennsylvania and said, "Don't you wish you were running against Rand?"

[speciallyblend]

By changing his belief system and telling Maddow what she wanted to hear?
no by arguing the point that private business had the right to discriminate, sounds just like it sounded!!

more power to rand,don't blame rachel maddow. that interview was embarrassing period and not good!!

i will stick to Colorado politics forget Kentucky!!

rand paul can keep arguing about civil rights act and lose.

Rand paul made his own bed on this one!!!

buzz kill

[zach]

he wasn't tired either. :rolleyes:

his answer implied that any private business can do what they want, and no government mandate should go above that institution's rules, no matter how racist or intolerant they are to a group of people.

if people want the business to leave, then they can choose not to go and get a new business up because that one will fail.

if you can't tolerate another's free speech, then what type of rose colored glasses do you have on??

[NoHero]

That was hard to watch. He sounded like every other dishonest politician dancing around a yes or no question. He should have said, "Yes, but here is why..." After him just telling O Rly that Iran is a threat, and nukes are not off the table, I am questioning any enthusiam I had for him. AND I AGREE WITH HIM ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL. He could have said that any racist successful enough to own a business can do as he pleases without violence.

[PatriotOne]

You actually took yours off?

;)

After 3 yrs of continuous wear, it needed to be washed. It hasn't even dried yet though...it's still damp :eek:

[JK/SEA]

Having seen the whole thing, I feel that the only people who will really care about this will be the hardcore Dems who wouldn't have voted for Rand anyway. They'll try to make an issue out of this, but I feel that the people in Kentucky aren't that stupid.

Agree 100%. And not only that, Rand was as cool as can be, and answered with an expertly presented, and concise tone.

He did well. Geez, what do you expect from Maddow anyway?...good job Rand.

[Mini-Me]

It seems like Rand went on the Maddow show low on sleep and ill-prepared for a hostile interview. He might not have been expecting such loaded questions today, and I hope he learned a valuable lesson about keeping his own bullet proof vest on. :-/ He'll live to fight another day at least...he just needs to always remember that he's off the map, and "here be monsters."

[zach]

the interview sucked on her part. it's not rand's fault that she couldn't ask a variety of better questions.

[itshappening]

This is just the same crap Grayson tried and failed with many issues

This election is not going to be about the civil rights act or whatever else the left dreams up. This election wont be about whether Iran is a threat to the US whatever else the Neocons think

This election will be a referendum on Obama, debt, cap and trade, healthcare and immigration

Whenever Rand is asked about the civil rights act, he should not answer the question and simply talk about something else: "I prefer to discuss the debt and our fiscal issues, did you know that.... " Cable programs are limited for time and have to move on

[Cowlesy]

Why don't we all take a step back, take a deep breath, and use this as a teaching moment on the internet tubes.

We have very bad habit of being given a lemon, cutting it open and squirting it in each other's eyes, instead of making lemonade.

He stuck on the principle of a business owner having control of his business, and that our speech can trump the speech of a business owner via boycotting a business with a policy like segregation.

[TER]

i haven't seen the video yet, but it doesn't sound like I'm going to enjoy it much :(

Having said that, I think it's better he states his positions now and faces up to the attacks and works for the next 6 months defending it to the Kentucky voters which would give him enough time to educate and elucidate better his views rather than getting attacked late in the game and having no time to work with. This may be better than we think (I hope)

[Romulus]

Yep.

.."just as I do not support people saying racist things, but would not have them arrested for doing so. People have the right to be racist, but others have the right to avoid associations with racists."

this

[Paulitical Correctness]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/37244354#37244354

[MsDoodahs]

i haven't seen the video yet, but it doesn't sound like I'm going to enjoy it much :(

Having said that, I think it's better he states his positions now and faces up to the attacks and works for the next 6 months defending it to the Kentucky voters which would give him enough time to educate and elucidate better his views rather than getting attacked late in the game and having no time to work with. This may be better than we think (I hope)

You know, I was just thinking that very thing.

Since the whole "racist!" squeal from the left has been steadily losing its punch, I have a feeling more people will actually HEAR Rand's explanation of his position. Which, in turn, will hurt the left's ability to get any points from squealing "racist" in the future.

WAY better that the left did this NOW while Rand has ample time to address it than closer to November.

[Flash]

I'm about half way through it and it isn't going too bad yet. I don't get why everyone is freaking out. He isn't talking in sound bites and shes getting annoyed, its fairly obvious at this point she wanted this to be a hit piece.

[AuH20]

I'm about half way through it and it isn't going too bad yet. I don't get why everyone is freaking out. He isn't talking in sound bites and shes getting annoyed, its fairly obvious at this point she wanted this to be a hit piece.

Yes. She raised her voice, when he made his point about private property rights. She was literally aghast when Rand told her.

[j6p]

not too bad, more of a history lesson.

[Don't Tread on Mike]

i seriously almost cried after watching that. how can people be that stupid! You did good Rand, and I pray this turns around and works positively for you.

[Flash]

Yes. She raised her voice, when he made his point about private property rights. She was literally aghast when Rand told her.

Towards the ending when she says, "Just answer yes or no" makes it clear she wanted this to be in a Conway commercial.

[awake]

They will try and play the son against the father at some point...

[pacelli]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/37244354#37244354

Thanks. Wow, after watching that, it was pretty clear that Rachel had her marching orders for the interview.

[JoshLowry]

"Do we have private property ownership in America?"

Rand Paul just took a huge bite of one of the biggest issues I can think of.

[Bergie Bergeron]

Allowing businesses to discriminate based on race infringes on the rights of a group of people, doesn't it?

[CoreyBowen999]

No. Since when is buying things from any company you want a right?

[cmasslibertarian]

my liberty tattoo broke out in hives after watching this and the twitter shit and worrying. i'm not kidding. it was bizarre

[catdd]

tube yet?

[purplechoe]

YouTube - RAND PAUL vs RACHEL MADDOW pt.1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VGdP2mNPeo)

YouTube - RAND PAUL vs RACHEL MADDOW pt.2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ61qYT3Pe8)

[JK/SEA]

Allowing businesses to discriminate based on race infringes on the rights of a group of people, doesn't it?

So if i have a restaurant, and i have a sign WE DO NOT SERVE NORWEGIANS on the front door, how long do you think i'd be in business with or without a law preventing me from doing that?

[AlexMerced]

You know while that was an awkward interview, he had some good tangents, and he successfully made sure there is no exceptionally damning 30 second clip that can be replayed.

It's just painful to watch the whole interview, but I doubt you can replay the whole interview as a segueway on other shows

He didn't come off racist, but he did sure as hell didn't come off as wanting to answer the question.

[awake]

If a business was free to discriminate, doing so on unsound criteria, would be tantamount to handing an advantage over to his or her competitors.

[Peace&Freedom]

Allowing businesses to discriminate based on race infringes on the rights of a group of people, doesn't it?

Individuals have rights, groups have government privileges. Business operators have a liberty right to associate or disassociate with anybody they choose. They must handle the personal responsibility for the consequences of their disassociations (loss of customers if they sense racism is being practiced).

[freshjiva]

This is why the prospects of a Senator Rand do not excite me much. Rand is clearly a watered down version of his father.

If that was Ron in that interview, he would've said it loud and clear:

"I abhor racism, but the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional because it eliminates the civil liberties private business owners. Racism is societal problem, and the best solution is by holistic grassroots movements like that of Dr. MLK, NOT through more government intrusion of civil liberties."

That would've answered Maddow's fair and honest question in less than 15 seconds, without jumping through 20 hoops like Rand did.

Ron does not play politics. Rand does. That's the difference.

[catdd]

hmmmm
He's sort of stuck trying to be all things to all people and you can't do that. Not everyone will like you for one reason or another so it's best that they respect you.
Ron isn't afraid of making a stand because he sees it all as philosophy - "just discussing philosophy here."

[Paulitical Correctness]

People will accuse me of being unprincipled, but is it not in his best interest to play politics?

These deep philosophical ideas aren't easy to grasp for the nonpolitical. The nonpolitical decide elections.

[awake]

I prefer a reliable employee to a an unreliable one; I discriminated.
I prefer an honest individual to a non-honest individual; I discriminate
I like Blonds over brunettes, the act of marriage discriminates against all other blond and brunette females.
The list could go on and on...

Since NBA Teams are predominantly black should we make a law to balance the teams in some socially acceptable quota arrangement? Like wise for the NHL? how do you think this would affect the level of competition?

As far as I can tell the laws that politicians have passed have not ended racism- they never will. In some cases these laws have made it worse in many regards.


Laws do not end things like racism. Only voluntary changes in ones belief over time can do this.

[awake]

I have said this in another thread; They will play the son off the father...watch.

[EndDaFed]

Rand did great given the circumstances. If he would've answered yes all nuance would have been lost. This is true in post interview coverage given that the media likes tight news programing. He did answer her question, but in way that can't be as easily turned into sound bytes. He didn't dodge in that sense. Of course if I were his campaign manger he wouldn't be on any of these talking head programs. Those shows are of lesser value than active campaigning in the state. They also have associated risks given that polarized figure heads have a higher tendency, compared to the general populace, of being mentally unbalanced. It's obvious that Maddow knows the answer to the question as it's clearly apparent to anyone with a brain. It's clear that her goal is not about informing her audience, but to form sound bytes to further her own political agenda. Rand did answer her question, but not to the liking of her strategic needs.

[SWATH]

What is all the bitching about? Rand did fine although he could have been a little more clear and forceful in driving his point home. Rachel is as dense as a bag of hammers on this issue, and I've argued with liberals very similar to her with the whole "you just don't understand what people are going through" attitude. The point is this. Who owns your business? You or the fucking government? Whoever owns it calls the shots for better or for worse. "Without these laws nothing could stop America from re-segregating" Bull fucking shit! If Walgreens segregated their cafeterias again do you have any idea how fast that company would tank? Over fucking night. Besides if the government can force businesses to be non-selective of their patronage then what is to stop them from forcing restaurants to permit customers that would hurt their business such as those without shirts and shoes or the gun store from selling guns to people it suspects of being criminals. It is their decision to make the call based on what they deem is appropriate for their business. If they make the decision based on irrationality like racist then their business will reap the consequences of that. If it ends of being a good business decision...well then we need to look at the views of our society about race and stop scapegoating businesses for our own shortcomings.

[catdd]

He's probably more than a little overwhelmed by all of this media attention that's suddenly been thrust upon him. Maybe he should back off now and collect himself.

[Matt Collins]

nice assasination Rachel. You were well prepped for that interview. Rand is a racist to almost any uninformed person watching. And once the soundbites have been disseminated.....not good not good at all. And Rand did a great job of answering honestly and HONORABLY - but that isn't going to matter.

rand did a poor job! rachel did nothing wrong! she asked questions that should of been answered with a NO, then he could explain!

this was not a good showing!! shakes my head how this interview went was not rachel maddows fault! i give a d for rand paul being biased an f for folks outside of the revolution!


Exactly, how hard is that? They just went round and round and that always make the interviewer look weak.

The problem is, she was looking at it from a basic liberal standpoint (racism is bad and only the government can stop it). He is looking at it from the libertarian standpoint (racism is bad but we don't need government to interfere in a private business, the market and public opinion will do fine on its own).

He lost this round....bad.


What if, as crazy as this sounds, this ended up being the best thing to happen?


I guess the honeymoon is over already. Time to put the bullet proof vest back on.


he wasn't tired either. :rolleyes:



Why don't we all take a step back, take a deep breath, and use this as a teaching moment on the internet tubes.

We have very bad habit of being given a lemon, cutting it open and squirting it in each other's eyes, instead of making lemonade.

He stuck on the principle of a business owner having control of his business, and that our speech can trump the speech of a business owner via boycotting a business with a policy like segregation.

First off, I believe that Rand had a grand total of 45 minutes of sleep last night and probably not much more than that the previous night.

Secondly, this I think is our cold shower wake up call after the daze we are all in from yesterday. Seriously, there hasn't been a victory like this since Goldwater getting into the Senate. Rand will win hands down, but it won't be easy for sure.

Third, the left was well prepared for Rand because they knew he would be the victor.

Fourth, having the left openly attack Rand is good to unify the GOP and other conservatives behind him.

Fifth, this gives us a bit of an understanding of the bs and nonsense we are going to be up against, so it allows us to prepare both mentally and otherwise for what to expect over the next 6 (ugh) months.

Use it as a lesson not to get complacent and then move on. Rand will win, we just have to get him there.

[speciallyblend]

i hear you matt;) we cannot blame rachel maddow though. i hope rand finds a better way to pick this fight!!

[BenIsForRon]

Fifth, this gives us a bit of an understanding of the bs and nonsense we are going to be up against, .



What BS in this interview are you talking about? I think Rachel was fair. She made it clear that this is going to be something used against him in the campaign, so he should make it clear whether he supports that article of the Civil Rights Act. She never suggested he was a racist, never suggested he was for discrimination in public institutions.

I think we should understand here that the problem lies in the way Rand handled the question.

[Bergie Bergeron]

David Adams better be ready to go nuclear to dismantle this bomb.

[catdd]

Anyway we may as well get used to this racial business because it is the weapon of choice for the left. As a matter of fact - it's their only weapon - and they will use it early and often.

[freshjiva]

First off, I believe that Rand had a grand total of 45 minutes of sleep last night and probably not much more than that the previous night.

Secondly, this I think is our cold shower wake up call after the daze we are all in from yesterday. Seriously, there hasn't been a victory like this since Goldwater getting into the Senate. Rand will win hands down, but it won't be easy for sure.

Third, the left was well prepared for Rand because they knew he would be the victor.

Fourth, having the left openly attack Rand is good to unify the GOP and other conservatives behind him.

Fifth, this gives us a bit of an understanding of the bs and nonsense we are going to be up against, so it allows us to prepare both mentally and otherwise for what to expect over the next 6 (ugh) months.

Use it as a lesson not to get complacent and then move on. Rand will win, we just have to get him there.

Matt,

I have a great respect for you, but honestly, none of these reasons really excuses Rand, or ANYONE, of being a classic politician and dancing around the question. He should clearly answer the question and set the record straight: "Yes, I support the right of private business owners, under the First Amendment of the Constitution, to decide who they want to serve."

Also, this is not "BS and nonsense". It was a fair and honest question posed by Maddow. It was Rand who refused to go on the record.

We've got a classic politician here, folks. We've come to love Ron Paul precisely because he doesn't do shit like this.

[Brian4Liberty]

Let's not forget self-interest. Rachel is a lesbian, and this issue is no doubt near and dear to her. She (and her friends) have been waiting to ask that question...

[JoshLowry]

Matt,

I have a great respect for you, but honestly, none of these reasons really excuses Rand, or ANYONE, of being a classic politician and dancing around the question. He should clearly answer the question and set the record straight: "Yes, I support the right of private business owners, under the First Amendment of the Constitution, to decide who they want to serve."

Also, this is not "BS and nonsense". It was a fair and honest question posed by Maddow. It was Rand who refused to go on the record.

We've got a classic politician here, folks. We've come to love Ron Paul precisely because he doesn't do shit like this.

I think Rand argued poorly, but the argument he is making is the same one that you succinctly state.

He needs to get some sleep and will have a chance to turn the tide on this one.

It should be framed like this:



Do you support freedom of speech?

1. That doesn't make you racist.

2. It doesn't mean you support people saying racist things.

Do you support the freedoms of private property ownership?

1. That doesn't make you racist either.

2. It doesn't mean you support businesses who would discriminate.

[Bergie Bergeron]

Seen this on Twitter:
Tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of churches have mono racial congregations. If a church can survive, a business can.

Yeah right.

[Bergie Bergeron]

There are white only establishments right now that black people just don't go to because they're not welcome.

Seriously?

[tsopranos]

And I will keep posting this until it gets through to someone...

Wayne Dyer's, "Letter to Politicians From a Spiritual Working Stiff"...

Excerpt:


YOU ARE NOT OUR LEADERS. No one that I know goes to sleep at night saying, "My leaders are in Washington, D.C." I fume when you refer to yourselves as our leaders. You may pass laws while sitting in committees and having Rose Garden ceremonies, but the laws come after the real leadership has been implemented.

No politician was responsible for leading us in the struggle for civil rights. Rosa Parks was a leader. Those who marched and ignored the racist laws passed by lawmakers were the leaders of the civil rights movement.

Who were the leaders of the Renaissance? The office holders? The politicians? No! The leaders were those who brought the world a new consciousness through their writing, art, music, and through challenging the entrenched ideologies of the office holders. These were the leaders.

When I hear you refer to yourselves as our leaders, I am always amused by such arrogance. We go to work and send up to 50 percent of our earnings to you. You use our earnings to make yourselves more privileged than we are, with unlimited medical care, overly generous retirement guarantees, and perks galore! All that you really do is write the rules using our funds to do so. This might be hard to accept, but try it on for size. We are not sheep who need to be led. We need servants who care. We are perfectly capable of leading ourselves; in fact, we do it every day.

This is a philosophical battle. Modern day liberals would make the same case as Rachel Maddow, and they just STOP there. We need to take them one step further along the debate. Politicians didn't end racism. The fucking PEOPLE did, black AND white, together. The government enforced Jim Crowe laws! Point this out, point out the hypocrisy. Point out exactly who is responsible for the important societal changes that have been made over time. Brave individuals that's who.

We need to tap into Wayne Dyer's message more in this letter. Read the whole thing here... http://www.ofspirit.com/drwaynedyer1.htm

[ravedown]

She understands the libertarian position on civil rights etc, she's just using this to spin it racist for her less enlightened viewers and turn him into a bigot which is intellectually dishonest on her part and sleazy as hell. Hang him with his own rope basically. I'm not surprised she'd do this, they all will.

[Baptist]

Ouch.

Another perfect example of why you can't trust dikes on bikes.

[TER]

Ouch.

Another perfect example of why you can't trust dikes on bikes.

really? thats your response?

[tsopranos]

She understands the libertarian position on civil rights etc, she's just using this to spin it racist for her less enlightened viewers and turn him into a bigot which is intellectually dishonest on her part and sleazy as hell. Hang him with his own rope basically. I'm not surprised she'd do this, they all will.

Honestly I think Rand did well. He guides the listener along, and forces them to look at his perspective FIRST, before the interviewee has a chance to throw him under the bus. I'm not so sure Maddow is being intellectually dishonest. I think she might actually believe that the sole reason for the integration of blacks & whites in this country, has been because of government force.

I just think there needs to be a little more appeal to emotion when arguing his point. Appeal to the "less enlightened" to win races :D

[Justinjj1]

Take a fucking stand for god's sake. These weasely, political answers are what infuriate me about watching Rand Paul. He wants to be everything to everybody. He wants to be an Israel-first, Iran hater to the neocons, he wants to be a liberty candidate to his dad's supporters, he wants to be an independent to the left-wingers, he wants to be a tea-partier to that group.

People respect honesty, whether you agree with them or not. People do no respect wishy-washy, weasely bullshit.

[catdd]

She was arguing for more government while Rand and the Liberty movement argues for less - and she tried to snag him.
"Don't you see what a GOOD thing big government is? Don't you see what a TERRIBLE world this would be without government intervention???"

[SooperDave]

definitely an uncomfortable few minutes. BUT I love how he didn't crumble to this butch mad cow's liberal interview tactics to peg him as a racist because he believes business owners should be allowed to conduct business with whoever they want.

he should have said that in this day and age very few walk-in type establishments would last very long if they conducted business like that and that we should let the free market work it out, not the feds.

[Baptist]

really? thats your response?

Yes.

[Baptist]

Take a f***** stand for god's sake. These weasely, political answers are what infuriate me about watching Rand Paul. He wants to be everything to everybody. He wants to be an Israel-first, Iran hater to the neocons, he wants to be a liberty candidate to his dad's supporters, he wants to be an independent to the left-wingers, he wants to be a tea-partier to that group.

People respect honesty, whether you agree with them or not. People do no respect wishy-washy, weasely b******.


I made that same argument here months ago. People jumped on me saying "that's how you win elections."

[tsopranos]

I made that same argument here months ago. People jumped on me saying "that's how you win elections."

WTF are you two talking about? Rand does not "mince" words :D... I think he was pretty clear.

He's actually pretty fuckin Zen-like. I like Zen-like Christians... I prefer them over Baptists now that I think of it.

[speciallyblend]

Seriously?

yep. a church in north carolina across from our house shunned us and black folks away,since we were friends with blacks(they didn't apporve of)!! they let it be known we were not welcome!

[fj45lvr]

Anyone know where there is a lunch counter that doesn't serve left-wing statists? I'd love to eat there and support them.

There is a strong collegiate rivalry near me and I wouldn't be surprised if some business owners discriminated against fans of the rival school. Can anyone blame them??


If maddow is lesbian maybe she is pissed because she's lived through feelings of inadequacy that are festered by the treatment(s) from others that may not even feel she is "lesser" or "bad" just "sorry/sad" for her as someone who is "different" on at least one level (morally).

I don't believe the federal government has the right to make churches and or religious organizations hire or retain gays/lesbian employees just as they would not hire other people that may be discovered to be unrepentant in some other sinful behavior which is contrary to their purposes. (but there are gays/lesbians that do not practice that lifestyle...and color of skin is not a sin)

[Matt Collins]

Matt,

I have a great respect for you, but honestly, none of these reasons really excuses Rand, or ANYONE, of being a classic politician and dancing around the question. He should clearly answer the question and set the record straight: "Yes, I support the right of private business owners, under the First Amendment of the Constitution, to decide who they want to serve."

Also, this is not "BS and nonsense". It was a fair and honest question posed by Maddow. It was Rand who refused to go on the record.

We've got a classic politician here, folks. We've come to love Ron Paul precisely because he doesn't do shit like this.

Take a fucking stand for god's sake. These weasely, political answers are what infuriate me about watching Rand Paul. He wants to be everything to everybody. He wants to be an Israel-first, Iran hater to the neocons, he wants to be a liberty candidate to his dad's supporters, he wants to be an independent to the left-wingers, he wants to be a tea-partier to that group.

People respect honesty, whether you agree with them or not. People do no respect wishy-washy, weasely bullshit.


Gentlemen... you should some time take a look at the rhetoric used to get Ron elected in his home district. It might just surprise you :)

[Baptist]

WTF are you two talking about? Rand does not "mince" words :D... I think he was pretty clear.

He's actually pretty fuckin Zen-like. I like Zen-like Christians... I prefer them over Baptists now that I think of it.

OK, it's even worse then. He's not a politician. He really does want to deny "natural" rights to "terrorists," and he really does lean neocon on foreign policy.

[Matt Collins]

I think we should understand here that the problem lies in the way Rand handled the question.Of course, but chalk it up to no sleep. Also it was kind of an ambush.

[Matt Collins]

David Adams better be ready to go nuclear to dismantle this bomb.
There is a lot of irony in that statement ;)

[tremendoustie]

If he's going to take controversial stands, how about one on foreign policy?

Is he playing politics, or not?

[Flirple]

Take a fucking stand for god's sake. These weasely, political answers are what infuriate me about watching Rand Paul. He wants to be everything to everybody. He wants to be an Israel-first, Iran hater to the neocons, he wants to be a liberty candidate to his dad's supporters, he wants to be an independent to the left-wingers, he wants to be a tea-partier to that group.

People respect honesty, whether you agree with them or not. People do no respect wishy-washy, weasely bullshit.

Exactly. What Justinjj1 said.

The key difference between Ron and Rand should be crystal clear by now. Ron is an educator first. Rand is a politician first. Ron uses every single second of every opportunity to explain and educate. This was a golden opportunity to teach the viewer about property rights and the non-aggression principle. Rand wasted it because his political answers only reduced his credibility with people hearing these ideas for the first time. Rachel gave Rand plenty of time to speak and she did not talk over him.

I remember on Meet the press back in the campaign when Tim Russet tried the same thing on Ron by out of the blue bringing up the civil war and that Ron was on record saying it shouldn't have happened. But Ron did not flinch and responded "Absolutely". Ron then explained how slavery was ended everywhere else without a bloody war and that the primary motives of the civil war were not slavery. Tim knew he was outmatched and quickly moved on while any open minded viewer watching had to be at least intrigued at this new take on "conventional wisdom".

But this Maddow interview never went beyond this one issue because she couldn't get a straight answer out of him.

I wish you well Rand. But I won't lie. I don't trust you.

[Anti Federalist]

She has to be careful when dealing with the Paul's because there's so much overlap between us. It's hard to launch an attack when you stand a good chance of hitting your own people with friendly fire.

Hah, Danger Close is right.

[TER]

This is going to be a war of philosophies. We always new it would come down to this. I just wish he wasn't working on less than one hour of sleep on his way to battle!

[tremendoustie]

This is going to be a war of philosophies. We always new it would come down to this. I just wish he wasn't working on less than one hour of sleep on his way to battle!

I don't want him to be the one representing freedom if that's what it's going to be .. he's too waffly. I want Ron, or Tom Woods, or any one of a number of others.

It is what it is. I hope he finds a way to communicate principles effectively and fearlessly, like his father.

[Imaginos]

How about this:

"I do not support racism or discrimination of any kind. The Constitution has been amended to make sure that it doesn't happen, and I support the Constitution."
+1.
Rand should use your argument and shut down any future attack from now on.
Average voters are so dumb and they just need a short answer.
They can't digest any answer that is more than few sentences.
Anybody here communicate with Rand Paul or his advisor?
If so, please inform this to Rand Paul, ASAP.
He has to be prepared on this issue.

[Anti Federalist]

Proves once again, neither the "left" nor the "right" wing of the MSM will treat any "outsider" with any kind of respect and cannot be trusted.

Look for Glenn Beck to sandbag him close to election day as well.

Word to the wise, approach every one of these "journalists" as a hostile prosecutor.

[AuH20]

Exactly. What Justinjj1 said.

The key difference between Ron and Rand should be crystal clear by now. Ron is an educator first. Rand is a politician first. Ron uses every single second of every opportunity to explain and educate. This was a golden opportunity to teach the viewer about property rights and the non-aggression principle. Rand wasted it because his political answers only reduced his credibility with people hearing these ideas for the first time. Rachel gave Rand plenty of time to speak and she did not talk over him.

I remember on Meet the press back in the campaign when Tim Russet tried the same thing on Ron by out of the blue bringing up the civil war and that Ron was on record saying it shouldn't have happened. But Ron did not flinch and responded "Absolutely". Ron then explained how slavery was ended everywhere else without a bloody war and that the primary motives of the civil war were not slavery. Tim knew he was outmatched and quickly moved on while any open minded viewer watching had to be at least intrigued at this new take on "conventional wisdom".

But this Maddow interview never went beyond this one issue because she couldn't get a straight answer out of him.

I wish you well Rand. But I won't lie. I don't trust you.

In defense of Rand, he has the entire democratic machine trying to foment some controversy. He's running for Senate after he just called out the President. He's under a ridiculous microscope.

[JoshLowry]

If he's going to take controversial stands, how about one on foreign policy?

Is he playing politics, or not?

He didn't pick the issue, it came up and he defended it.

[Sentient Void]

He and we all know exactly what she was trying to do. She was not only trying to conflate the issue, but also trying to find some way to get a quote out of him so the liberal left could take it out of context, run with it and paint him as a racist, which we all know he isn't.

As a libertarian, I know exactly what he's saying (I'm sure you all do too), which is essentially the belief that the federal government should not be able to force private individuals nor businesses who they can or can't do business with. This is a violation of free speech and property.

In the end, someone who decides to be racist or bigoted will simply lose business. And someone down the street who does serve anyone will get more business and be more successful. The market handles all problems appropriately.

Although I would have preferred a 'Ron Paul answer', as Ron somehow magically finds a way to present the 'risky truths' simply, eloquently and in a way to educate and present it in a way that would be more 'palatable' to non-libertarians... we have to understand that not everyone can present things the way Ron Paul does. Rand Paul is an effective politician - backed by pure principle... he understands that such things get twisted into what they're not and are risky business in debate with todays politically correct society, etc...

I know if it were me (and I'm pretty well spoken about libertarian issues) I would not have been able to find a way to present the issue discussed in a palatable way - especially to a liberal audience.

At the same time... Maddow was right - this issue will *not* go away... the MSM (left AND right) will try to find a way to turn it into an issue to attack him, marginalize him and discredit him by.

It's truly ridiculous how anti-freedom some people are. Either that or they just really DON'T understand how freedom works. Ugh...

[Son of Liberty 2]

Rand Paul is a very courageous and a very principled man.

[Fr3shjive]

The way I see it, Rand needs to make this argument.

"I do not support private business allowing segregation, though I feel that they have the right to. But at the same time, people have the right to not go there, boycott their establishment, and either force them to desegregate or to close down."

Correct. Instead he just looked like he was afraid to let people know where he stood on the issue and now it seems like he has something to hide.

I hope he learns from this interview and gets a few pointers from his father.

[RM918]

I'm really sick of these random torpedo interviews, but until they stop working I guess they'll keep doing them. I'm far too much of a cynic these days to think they won't.

[Uriel999]

We should have paratrooped in Toady to bitchslap Maddow during the interview.

[Bman]

Correct. Instead he just looked like he was afraid to let people know where he stood on the issue and now it seems like he has something to hide.

I hope he learns from this interview and gets a few pointers from his father.

I didn't see it that way at all. He answered the question. He just didn't give the answer using the words Rachel wanted.

He doesn't need to learn anything, Handled it perfectly IMHO, and if the Dems want to continue down this path I think we can expect Grayson's loss to look like quite a respectful showing.

[CasualApathy]

Rand was too defensive, but he finished off strong at least.

Racism is evil, but private property isn't.

[BillyDkid]

And, of course, Morning Joe did all they could to stir the pot, saying that Rand has until the end of the day to "take it back". Rand needs to take this head on. The worst thing he can do is back down on this. He needs to articulate his views forcefully, emphasizing the importance of equality under the law as well as the sanctity of property rights. Things may well fall apart in this country by the end of the year, so it may all be a moot point. Maybe when people have something real to worry about, like where their next meal is coming from and how to clothe their kids, they won't get hysterical over a lack of political correctness.

[YumYum]

This is going to be a war of philosophies. We always new it would come down to this. I just wish he wasn't working on less than one hour of sleep on his way to battle!

When Howard Dean was running and started screaming, he too was working on less than an hour of sleep. The press didn't care, and they murdered him. Rand's position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will be his undoing. It will be his "Dean Scream".

[HOLLYWOOD]

Man O Man... MSNBC's Morning Joe with Mika and Joe Scarborough and the POLITICO just had huge coverage about Rand Paul's interveiw with Racquel Maddow,

The Morning Joe Crew and the POLITICO hack ripped Rand apart. If it's up on MSNBC later, we need to post it.

GESUS... Shades of Beck & Medina

[pacelli]

Man O Man... MSNBC's Morning Joe with Mika and Joe Scarborough and the POLITICO just had huge coverage about Rand Paul's interveiw with Racquel Maddow,

The Morning Joe Crew and the POLITICO hack ripped Rand apart. If it's up on MSNBC later, we need to post it.

GESUS... Shades of Beck & Medina

Just wait until Beck tapes today or tomorrow's show, and you'll see some real filth.

[BillyDkid]

And I will keep posting this until it gets through to someone...

Wayne Dyer's, "Letter to Politicians From a Spiritual Working Stiff"...

Excerpt:



This is a philosophical battle. Modern day liberals would make the same case as Rachel Maddow, and they just STOP there. We need to take them one step further along the debate. Politicians didn't end racism. The fucking PEOPLE did, black AND white, together. The government enforced Jim Crowe laws! Point this out, point out the hypocrisy. Point out exactly who is responsible for the important societal changes that have been made over time. Brave individuals that's who.

We need to tap into Wayne Dyer's message more in this letter. Read the whole thing here... http://www.ofspirit.com/drwaynedyer1.htmI always thought that Dyer was kind of a dick (probably for no good reason) but he is DNO (dead nuts on) with this. And this is stuff that is never said. The racism in the south was institutionalized by government and government only moved with respect to civil liberties when compelled to do so by private citizens fighting for equal treatment under the law.

[ItsTime]

Lucky for us no one watches MSNBC

[lester1/2jr]

rachel knows what is up!"


I will be taking the opposite side of this bet

here to collect

[catdd]

This isn't the end of the world, Rand has time to realize his mistakes and work on his game.
Race baiting is the weapon of choice for the left and they will use it early and often - as evidenced. They will use it to point out the necessity of government intervention into our private lives and if Rand has integrity and if he believes in our cause, which I'm sure he does, then he will make a stand.

[Golding]

Race-baiting is the weapon of choice. Indeed so.

No thinking allowed if you intend to run for political office. Opposing any part of the Civil Rights Act = racism in the eyes of those who never read legislation. Opposing any part of Roe v. Wade = sexism in the eyes of those who never read the ruling. Now watch as ignorance reigns supreme on cable TV newz.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Man... it is all out Liberal Vendetta...

NBC/MSNBC has turned into the 24hr a day Rand Paul Civil Rights Bashing....

On their channels right now, again... reairing, reairing, etc. :rolleyes:

[Theocrat]

YouTube - RAND PAUL vs RACHEL MADDOW pt.1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VGdP2mNPeo)

YouTube - RAND PAUL vs RACHEL MADDOW pt.2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ61qYT3Pe8)

She is definitely trying to derail his Senate campaign with the civil rights issue. I think Rand could have given some stronger answers, and he should have just answered "Yes" or "No" to Maddow's more direct questions.

[lester1/2jr]

this is the same as how hillary goes to europe and tried to sell the war in afghanistan as a "human rights" war for muslim women.

they want to use human rights to stop someone who is anti war!

[speciallyblend]

here to collect

you collect nothing ,sorry folks rand blew this interview, rachel did nothing wrong at all. she asked vaild questions that had been discussed during the day! RAND PAUL BLEW IT, you collect nothing!!


the only one to blame for this interview is rand paul. i would have to say this interview is right up there sarah palins gem.

[.Tom]

For the record, I AGREE with Rand Paul on the Civil Rights Act.

I also agree that statist bitch Rachel Maddow was trying to smear him and call him a racist, which is not true.

However, I've been fucking warning people that he's just a typical Republican, possibly Palin-lite at best.

He sounds hawkish on foreign policy - something incompatible with fiscal conservatism and less government.

He sounds anti-liberty on Gitmo - calling these people terrorists with no rights - even though there's no way to determine if they're terrorists without trials.

Not to mention he won't come out against the drug war.

Seriously, I'm a principled fucking libertarian, and this guy seems like just another statist Republicunt wishy washy politician.

[Light]

I hope this interview enlightens the people here that the left is not on our side, and are even more vicious than the neocons (unlike the neocons they actually have influence outside of a political party). We have come so far, and we need to finish the fight. The marxists (the leftists, globalists, neocons, etc.) are running scared that someone like Paul has made it this far, their hegemony could very well be tearing apart by the seems. We need to send a message that will rock the foundation of their empire, and begin the slow march toward liberty. That message is that we will no longer be intimidated by baseless slurs such as "racist", "homophobe", "xenophobe". If their magic enchantment breaks, so do their hold on their so-called "intellectual high ground".

[Brian4Liberty]

This isn't the end of the world, Rand has time to realize his mistakes and work on his game.
Race baiting is the weapon of choice for the left and they will use it early and often - as evidenced.

Got that right.

[yokna7]

She understands the libertarian position on civil rights etc, she's just using this to spin it racist for her less enlightened viewers and turn him into a bigot which is intellectually dishonest on her part and sleazy as hell. Hang him with his own rope basically. I'm not surprised she'd do this, they all will.

Exactly, she knows its a philosophical discussion. It is ironic because she, I would assume, has very staunch beliefs about the religious right and how they project their beliefs (say on gay marriage) on others and that "it's wrong". That belief and the belief that the fed govt can tell you who to serve or whatever are the same. They eliminates one's right to self-determination. That's typically why both sides are usually wrong and libertarians are right. What a bitch. I have the same haircut though. I go it at supercuts.

[jclay2]

For the record, I AGREE with Rand Paul on the Civil Rights Act.

I also agree that statist bitch Rachel Maddow was trying to smear him and call him a racist, which is not true.

However, I've been fucking warning people that he's just a typical Republican, possibly Palin-lite at best.

He sounds hawkish on foreign policy - something incompatible with fiscal conservatism and less government.

He sounds anti-liberty on Gitmo - calling these people terrorists with no rights - even though there's no way to determine if they're terrorists without trials.

Not to mention he won't come out against the drug war.

Seriously, I'm a principled fucking libertarian, and this guy seems like just another statist Republicunt wishy washy politician.

I share your sentiment. Personally, I think our country is royally screwed with or without rand or ron paul. Even in the last two years (when people were actually waking up) they were still able to pass healthcare, bailouts, (continued war), and gargantuan budgets. The ship is sinking and I think its about time people accepted it. Even if we do have success in the next few years, the strong surge in opposition will be hijacked by the republicans and we will have nothing to show for it. I know its a poor attitude, but I feel just like staying back and letting this thing collapse.

[.Tom]

I know its a poor attitude, but I feel just like staying back and letting this thing collapse.

I know it might sound kind of sick, but I wouldn't mind seeing the sheep get what they deserve, and then rubbing it in their face how libertarians were right all along.

It sounds kind of "gotcha", but who cares. :D

[AuH20]

I know it might sound kind of sick, but I wouldn't mind seeing the sheep get what they deserve, and then rubbing it in their face how libertarians were right all along.

It sounds kind of "gotcha", but who cares. :D

I'll admit to that as well. There is no saving this ship. But we need to get our messages of rebuilding out to the public, so they remember it when the time is right.

[silentshout]

However, I've been fucking warning people that he's just a typical Republican, possibly Palin-lite at best.

He sounds hawkish on foreign policy - something incompatible with fiscal conservatism and less government.

He sounds anti-liberty on Gitmo - calling these people terrorists with no rights - even though there's no way to determine if they're terrorists without trials.

Not to mention he won't come out against the drug war.


Seriously, I'm a principled fucking libertarian, and this guy seems like just another statist Republicunt wishy washy politician.

I agree with you.

[MsDoodahs]

Word to the wise, approach every one of these "journalists" as a hostile prosecutor.

These people are NOT journalists.

There's got to be a better term we can use to refer to them....

[MsDoodahs]

I know its a poor attitude, but I feel just like staying back and letting this thing collapse.

Not a poor attitude.

Realistic attitude.

Seriously, I don't think there is any way to stop it.

[torchbearer]

Not a poor attitude.

Realistic attitude.

Seriously, I don't think there is any way to stop it.

true dat.

[Anti Federalist]

These people are NOT journalists.

There's got to be a better term we can use to refer to them....

Hacks?

Mouthpieces?

[Shredmonster]

Here are some comments by some good conservative people as to how Rand came off:

Paul's opponent -- Secretary of State Trey Grayson -- and groups allied with him did everything they could to send signals to Republican primary voters that Paul's ideas had the potential to cause major problems in a general election where they would be plucked out of the theoretical realm and planted directly in the political one. (One ad -- sponsored by the American Future Fund -- showed a cuckoo popping out of a clock following a series of past statements by Paul.)

While the establishment quickly rallied to Paul -- National Republican Senatorial Committee communications director Brian Walsh issued a statement noting that it was Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights Act -- you can be sure that behind the scenes there is some level of consternation about Paul's tendency to relish philosophical fights that he simply can't win in a political context.

This controversy also speaks to a broader question as it relates to Paul's general election candidacy: will he bow the political conventions that he ran against during the primary or will he continue to assert his independence from traditional political rules and, by doing so, run the risk that the next several months are a series of episodes just like this one?

Paul is a genuine candidate of a movement formed in opposition to the party establishment that they believe did a disservice to conservative principles. It's why we have always been skeptical that a single unity rally -- like the one scheduled for Saturday in Kentucky -- will resolve the significant differences between Paul and Grayson (as well as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell).

Paul's comments virtually ensure that the planned rally will be overshadowed -- at least in part -- by this controversy. How Paul -- and McConnell -- act will be a telling window into how (and if) the two wings of the party can peacefully co-exist heading into the fall."

AND

Here's Paul's political problem in two easy steps.

1) He was trying to make a theoretical argument about what role the government does (or should) have telling private businesses what to do. (Weigel has the full explanation of what he believes Paul means here.)

2) Theoretical arguments are stone cold losers in the context of political campaigns.

AND

This is what I was afraid of. Rand Paul has changed from a winner to a loser in less than 2 days!

I think we've given the Dems all they need to take Bunning's Senate seat. Rand Paul's arrogance is appalling and he'll pay for his lack of political acumen.

This misstep won't be forgotten...and the comment about saving a drowning man makes Rand seem petty, aloof and cruel.


TIME WILL TELL AS TO HOW BIG A MISTAKE THIS HAS BEEN.:confused:

[AGRP]

I've said this several times:

Maddcow is an advocate for murdering black babies because she supports abortion that kills black babies at a higher rate than other races.

[MsDoodahs]

TIME WILL TELL AS TO HOW BIG A MISTAKE THIS HAS BEEN.:confused:

Not a mistake.

Rand will win.

[low preference guy]

I wouldn't put much faith in what TIME "Bernanke is the person of the year" Magazine says.

[Southron]

Just remember this for those who want Rand to advocate for every single libertarian position.

They can and will take an issue the public doesn't understand very well and beat it to death till it destroys him.

He did such a good job until now, I'm afraid he got a little overconfident after the big win.

Hopefully this will go away quietly.

[SovereignMN]

Just watched (finally) the Maddow interview. Rand Paul came off fine. This was a desperate attempt to smear him and in the long-term it will be fine.

[Sentient Void]

Not a mistake.

Rand will win.

^^THIS. It surely won't be easy... we'll all have to help fight for it... but he WILL win.

For now - let's focus on Schiff! TBH, he's my favorite of ALL the liberty candidates!

[Condor Bastadon]

I've said this several times:

Maddcow is an advocate for murdering black babies because she supports abortion that kills black babies at a higher rate than other races.

This is kind of a good point. People like Maddow are completely for being able to do what you want with your body....but not your property or business?