Rachel Maddow Laments Rand Running From Her Questioning

[AuH20]

Maddow laments not derailing Rand Paul's campaign, even though he explained himself numerous times to her disgust.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/rachel-maddow-rand-paul-ran-away-from-me-to-a-senate-win/

[sailingaway]

He should never go on her show again. Until last night I felt differently but it is clear she sees that interview as some kind of triumph instead of a dirty trick, and she is eager to try to top her moment of glory.

After a while I'd like to see him on Hardball with Matthews, a one time Goldwater supporter, however.

[Elwar]

I wouldn't let my boys play a little league baseball game with that Rachel Maddow kid.

[BenIsForRon]

I hope Rand goes on her show in a few months, if she agrees to talk about other things.

She is definitely holding a grudge though. Does she not realize that Rand not wanting to talk about his opposition to article 2 of CRA is the same as liberals not wanting to talk about their support of European style socialism?

I don't think so. She needs to realize Rand could be a huge ally to true liberals if she just got over this non-issue.

[sailingaway]

I hope Rand goes on her show in a few months, if she agrees to talk about other things.

She is definitely holding a grudge though. Does she not realize that Rand not wanting to talk about his opposition to article 2 of CRA is the same as liberals not wanting to talk about their support of European style socialism?

I don't think so. She needs to realize Rand could be a huge ally to true liberals if she just got over this non-issue.

I think she sees him as her mealticket to stardom, through tearing him apart. She got massively partisan strokes over her show, and sees fame there. I think she's gone from being a potential ally to, at least in the forseeable future, being dangerous. It isn't like he GAINS anything by going on her show.

[BenIsForRon]

It isn't like he GAINS anything by going on her show.

He could gain some credibility with liberals if he talks about military spending and civil liberties issues.

[TheDriver]

Everyone knows the government should decide who a private business owner gives his services to, not the individual American business owner. :rolleyes:

[AuH20]

I think she sees him as her mealticket to stardom, through tearing him apart. She got massively partisan strokes over her show, and sees fame there. I think she's gone from being a potential ally to, at least in the forseeable future, being dangerous. It isn't like he GAINS anything by going on her show.

She's a liberal gatekeeper obviously. She's aghast that she let this monster enter the senate and possibly unify like-minded people nationally.

[Libertea Party]

http://onlinefinished.com/images/dvd/tea%20bag%20%2811%29.jpg
http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/7380/maddowteabagginggawkerf.jpg

[sailingaway]

He could gain some credibility with liberals if he talks about military spending and civil liberties issues.

He can do that on Hardball or Blitzer's show, or Good Morning America, or.....

he isn't limited to her, at all.

[BenIsForRon]

Maddow has more credibility with liberals, from what I've seen. Many of my friends actually know who Rachel Maddow is, whereas they have no clue who Wolf Blitzer is. Unless they watch the Daily Show, who makes fun of Wolf on a weekly basis.

[sailingaway]

Maddow has more credibility with liberals, from what I've seen. Many of my friends actually know who Rachel Maddow is, whereas they have no clue who Wolf Blitzer is. Unless they watch the Daily Show, who makes fun of Wolf on a weekly basis.

Then he can go on the Daily Show.

I'm not kidding. I've always respected Maddow's intelligence but she had a VERY partisan attack demeanor last night talking about her interview with Rand that is very different than even she spoke about it the day after it happened. She has, at least for now, bought into the daily kos 'party uber alles' mindset.

[BenIsForRon]

Then he can go on the Daily Show.

I'm not kidding. I've always respected Maddow's intelligence but she had a VERY partisan attack demeanor last night talking about her interview with Rand that is very different than even she spoke about it the day after it happened. She has, at least for now, bought into the daily kos 'party uber alles' mindset.

True. The Daily Show would be a much better avenue to communicate with liberals.

However, he doesn't need to worry about the media too much until he's actually in office. Then, it will be crucial for him to appear in the media often, so they can't control the narrative.

[TheDriver]

True. The Daily Show would be a much better avenue to communicate with liberals.



We don't need "the liberals" we need a coalition to take power from their hands, not work with them to destroy America.

[AuH20]

We don't need "the liberals" we need a coalition to take power from their hands, not work with them to destroy America.

I agree. Liberals made their minds up a long time ago. They want this monstrous government and phony economy. Just look at their comments last night. There is a small fraction who will align with us. Many are suckers for any social justice deceptions and the bloodsuckers at the top play them for fools time after time.

[BenIsForRon]

I'm talking about real liberals. Liberals who aren't on TV or in politics. There are millions of them in this country, and they have their heads on pretty straight. They're not universally pro-regulation or pro-taxation.

[AuH20]

I'm talking about real liberals. Liberals who aren't on TV or in politics. There are millions of them in this country, and they have their heads on pretty straight. They're not universally pro-regulation or pro-taxation.

So the 10 to 15% on the left. I'm cool with them.

[Romulus]

We don't need "the liberals" we need a coalition to take power from their hands, not work with them to destroy America.

Agreed.. who cares about the liberals. I would never think of walking on her show again. She doe not deserve the attention and ratings. She simply tries to ambush and assault character - nothing more.

I love the fact this is haunting her. And let that be a message to others partisan phony jourNOlists. Deal with it!

[sluggo]

He could gain some credibility with liberals if he talks about military spending and civil liberties issues.

Maddow isn't going to let him discuss those things. He's only interested in digging up shit.

[BenIsForRon]

So the 10 to 15% on the left. I'm cool with them.

I didn't understand the link between fiscal conservatism and protecting liberty until I heard Ron Paul. I've know many other liberals who were in the same boat as me that came around after they listened to Dr. Paul.

That means there are many times more waiting in the wings, who it hasn't clicked for yet. We shouldn't write them off. You may not be able to talk all them out of universal health care, or out of public campaign financing, but you will be able to convince them about ending the Fed and balancing the budget.

[georgiaboy]

I didn't understand the link between fiscal conservatism and protecting liberty until I heard Ron Paul. I've know many other liberals who were in the same boat as me that came around after they listened to Dr. Paul.

That means there are many times more waiting in the wings, who it hasn't clicked for yet. We shouldn't write them off. You may not be able to talk all them out of universal health care, or out of public campaign financing, but you will be able to convince them about ending the Fed and balancing the budget.

Agreed.

Rachel needs Rand more than Rand needs Rachel at this point.

I trust Rand to make wise decisions going forward about his media appearances & interviews. If he decides to go on Maddow's show, it will be with eyes wide open.

[TheDriver]

I didn't understand the link between fiscal conservatism and protecting liberty until I heard Ron Paul. I've know many other liberals who were in the same boat as me that came around after they listened to Dr. Paul.

That means there are many times more waiting in the wings, who it hasn't clicked for yet. We shouldn't write them off. You may not be able to talk all them out of universal health care, or out of public campaign financing, but you will be able to convince them about ending the Fed and balancing the budget.

Things are different in 2010, than whenever you got turned on to Ron Paul.

Rand is one of the faces of the sworn enemy of the left - the Tea Party.

They are now predisposed to hate him!

Our best hope is with conservatives and thinking independents, not liberals.

[Romulus]

Things are different in 2010, than whenever you got turned on to Ron Paul.

Rand is one of the faces of the sworn enemy of the left - the Tea Party.

They are now predisposed to hate him!

Our best hope is with conservatives and thinking independents, not liberals.

Yep.. I would not waste time with anyone who thinks we get our rights from government.

[BenIsForRon]

Yep.. I would not waste time with anyone who thinks we get our rights from government.

Enough with broad generalizations. I'm trying to have a nuanced discussion.

You're just plain wrong.

[AuH20]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/11/2/916404/-Rand-Paul-explains-Republican-economic-philosophy-in-30-seconds

[AuH20]

Yep.. I would not waste time with anyone who thinks we get our rights from government.

I wouldn't go that far. Reality has a habit of waking up people from their preconceived biases.

[Jeremy Tyler]

He is right about trying to convert liberals. I have converted many neo-cons, social conservatives, and liberals to libertarian thought. There are just two types of liberals. There are ones who want social liberty and are anti-war, and you just have to convince them of economics liberty (which usually is not too hard) and the there is the statist...who prob should not bother with.

[Romulus]

Thats right Jeremy.


I wouldn't go that far. Reality has a habit of waking up people from their preconceived biases.

It's not that I wouldn't engage them, but we shouldn't think that reason and logic will change their mind. They need to learn from hard knocks of reality if at all. Some folks are born to be statist.

As for Maddow, she's a snake - no way in the world should Rand give her ratings after she tried to sabotage him. There are many like her.. spiteful and vindictive. I would never rush to try and 'change' their mentality.

Time better spent on others..

[silverhandorder]

I kinda agree with Ben. Think about it Rand can dictate the rules before he comes on. If she breaks them, he can say is that this is not what we agreed to talk about and I am not interested in wasting my time on talking about these things at this time. Obviously this means she might not want him on after all but this way we are insured and she gets her interview if she does really want to discuss other things.

[anaconda]

Rachael is now crying in her beer that the potentially most sensational and ratings worthy senator talk show guest will not be appearing on her show for the next 6 years.:)

[winston_blade]

I am sure that the two people who watch MSNBC AKA Olbermann's mom and Maddow's life partner were just tickled with their coverage of the election.

[propanes]

Maddow had her chance to be civil with Rand. Her only regret is not to have him on again. Unless she does a reversal, a mea-culpa over her behavior on air there is no reasonable hope of gaining anything good with another appearance there.

[roho76]

After she asked him that question he should have immediately asked her: "So you support Black restauranteurs being forced to serve people dressed in KKK gowns? Wow thats harsh, Rachel? Sounds like you should be charged with a hate crime, Rachel"

Give that bitch a big old spoonful of her own medicine.

[BenIsForRon]

Rand should definitely just make sure he goes on the Daily Show to get his liberal cred. Rachel Maddow would be unnecessary.

[S.Shorland]

I didn't understand the link between fiscal conservatism and protecting liberty until I heard Ron Paul. I've know many other liberals who were in the same boat as me that came around after they listened to Dr. Paul.

That means there are many times more waiting in the wings, who it hasn't clicked for yet. We shouldn't write them off. You may not be able to talk all them out of universal health care, or out of public campaign financing, but you will be able to convince them about ending the Fed and balancing the budget.

Maddow and O'Donnell would shout him down.If he can get guarantees from Matthews,I think he could actually have an ally there.99% of Americans haven't heard what Matthews knows Paul can tell them and I think he feels that it's so late in the day that they need to hear it right now.I think he has capital with Matthews and could maybe even introduce Tom Woods and one of the Mises economists into the mix? It might well be worth asking the question,anyway.

[sailingaway]

Maddow and O'Donnell would shout him down.If he can get guarantees from Matthews,I think he could actually have an ally there.99% of Americans haven't heard what Matthews knows Paul can tell them and I think he feels that it's so late in the day that they need to hear it right now.I think he has capital with Matthews and could maybe even introduce Tom Woods and one of the Mises economists into the mix? It might well be worth asking the question,anyway.

I don't know if he'd have an ALLY, but at least I think he'd be able to have an actual discussion, not someone trying to spin what he is saying into something totally different.

Also, lately Matthews has sounded disillusioned with Obama. He also said, a few weeks ago that he had waited his entire adult life for the American people to wake up and become enraged with business as usual on Capital hill, and here it was happening -- but on the right. He sounded a bit like he thought that was really unfair, but I think he wonders what someone like Rand would do with that.

[ItsTime]

What does he have to gain from going on her show? Nothing. What does she have to gain? 2 or 3 more viewers which would triple her ratings.