Young Turks: Does Fox News Want to Use Rand Paul for GOP Interests?

[Harald]

Not sure if this was posted already, but I found this discussion interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=k2aypEvHoOI

[Quark]

I don't think they understand Rand Paul too well, or at least his ability to manipulate the GOP and conservative media. Plus they're not too up-to-date on the liberty movement within the GOP in general. Basically, I think they underestimate two things: Rand Paul's own individual ability, and the growing support he's getting in the GOP. If this filibuster showed us anything, it's that Rand Paul shouldn't be underestimated by anybody. At the same time, they accurately gauged the establishment/corporatist response, but it will be interesting to see how powerful they are this time around. Anyway, this will be a very interesting election compared to 2012.

[AlexAmore]

Rand Paul has not had any problem discussing war. I'm not sure what he's talking about.

[twomp]

At this point, it's hard to see who is using who but I suppose we shall see. Hopefully Rand Paul will be able to create a niche in peoples minds to where if the media decides to give him the "Ron Paul treatment", it will backfire on them.

[Bastiat's The Law]

It was interesting to listen them theorize, but since when does taking campaign contributions conflict with libertarian beliefs? Rand's donors were largely small donations from everyday people, and they often gave several times during the campaign.

[AlexAmore]

At this point, it's hard to see who is using who but I suppose we shall see. Hopefully Rand Paul will be able to create a niche in peoples minds to where if the media decides to give him the "Ron Paul treatment", it will backfire on them.

Tell me if I'm wrong but I think there's a simple formula to explain who's using who:

Rand Paul is always making the first moves and the media is always responding to him.

[twomp]

Tell me if I'm wrong but I think there's a simple formula to explain who's using who:

Rand Paul is always making the first moves and the media is always responding to him.

You are correct but I was more thinking along the lines of them using Rand Paul to reel in the viewers then when 2016 comes, they say ooh well, we like Rand Paul but we think so and so is more electable and we need to all unite behind him.

[AlexAmore]

You are correct but I was more thinking along the lines of them using Rand Paul to reel in the viewers then when 2016 comes, they say ooh well, we like Rand Paul but we think so and so is more electable and we need to all unite behind him.

Oh I see. It will be interesting to see if Rand can continue to build up the momentum that could steamroll even a media blackout. He pretty much has to take into account that possibility and prepare for it. The good news is we'll have a much larger, more established grassroots, a polished speaker and so forth.

[T.hill]

There was some legitimacy to this discussion like the concerns rand supporters have about Fox News praising him left and right, but I really don't think Cenk understands the entirety of the situation. He has said some very misguided things before about Rand.

[dinosaur]

Tell me if I'm wrong but I think there's a simple formula to explain who's using who:

Rand Paul is always making the first moves and the media is always responding to him.

You are absolutely correct IMO. Of course they want to use him. It remains to be seen who will get, or keep, the upper hand.

[orenbus]

This was also probably posted the other day but in case anyone missed it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoWy7wnucXY

[cero]

can't stand that asshole cenk

[PatriotOne]

You are absolutely correct IMO. Of course they want to use him. It remains to be seen who will get, or keep, the upper hand.

We will because Fox's (and all MSM) credibility is dismal in the public's eye right now and they are scrambling for credibility and viewers again. I remember a PPP presidential election poll (I think it was Iowa) where they polled republicans for their Presidential choice and one of the questions were how much they trusted Fox News (or something like that). The result was quite low. Of course they are using Rand. They are all about the bottom line ($). Unless the country makes Fox a Government subsidized channel like BBC, they don't have a choice but to change their tune to reflect the will of the people.

[anaconda]

It was interesting to listen them theorize, but since when does taking campaign contributions conflict with libertarian beliefs? Rand's donors were largely small donations from everyday people, and they often gave several times during the campaign.

Only $1.4 million of Rand's $$$$ raised for the 2010 campaign was from individual donors. I would be interested to see a break down of the larger donations if anyone has a source or link. Although the article at the link below says $6.7M was raised for the campaign against Conway, it does not say if the $1.4M includes the primary. I'm thinking it does, so the numbers aren't completely clear. Nonetheless, I think Rand raised most of his money from special interests (not saying they weren't necessarily good and ethical special interests).

http://www.kentucky.com/2010/11/13/1523098/rand-paul-got-69-percent-of-individual.html

[orenbus]

One thing that hasn't been pointed out in this thread is believe it or not there are still some Ron Paul supporters that are not completely sold on Rand Paul. You can label these individuals as purists or what not, but you can not completely dismiss them as they are some of the hardest working activists I've seen in a generation.

I have a friend in particular who is a staunch Ron Paul supporter but questions Rand Paul's integrity in terms of following in his father's footsteps on principle when he sees Rand Paul supporting Romney during the convention while others were still working to promote Ron Paul or in other words compromise vs. coalitions, was the line crossed? Now some of you would say it was already over at that point, however the fact that Rand even supported Romney is questionable to some when you consider if Ron would have done the same? Also another thing to think about is that some of the actions Rand has taken since being in office Ron Paul would never have done, and lets face it the only reason Rand is even a senator is because his last name is Paul and was able to get the nationwide support of Ron Paul activists around the country during his bid and not just in Kentucky, I'm not saying this to be hurtful, this is just a fact.

Anyway I don't want to dredge up discussions we've had in the past in this thread, I'll only say that Cenk in his closing statement isn't completely off base as some may think at least in the minds of some Ron Paul supporters. Time will tell how far Rand is willing to "play the game" to get to the position to do some good and at what cost it will come. While I was typing this another friend (Also a Ron Paul supporter) reminded me that Rand Paul is his own person and at least from the outside perspective seems to somewhat be more of a traditional player who plays politics, whether this turns out to be a good thing or not for many of us is yet to be seen.

As for me I will continue to support Rand as one of our strongest Senators for the liberty movement currently in office, but at the same time will keep a close eye on his voting record.

[AlexAmore]

I think once Ron Paul endorses his son and travels the country for him, the purists will change their mind.

[FSP-Rebel]

I think once Ron Paul endorses his son and travels the country for him, the purists will change their mind.
Exactly, been saying this for a while as it's either they start seeing what they should've been seeing all along or they end up looking foolish and with no place left to go that matters. Rand is building on what Ron did for so long and I can't for the life of me, considering I' an ancap, see why other similar minds can't see the big picture here. Intelligence tells ya that Ron reached who was ready to listen and Rand is retooling the liberty brand to appeal many legions more and it's obviously becoming bullet proof and troublesome for the true neocon power brokers out there. More times than not, to break the matrix one must spoon feed doses of liberty and it's clearly working out for Rand's favor, and by extension all of us.

[seapilot]

I think once Ron Paul endorses his son and travels the country for him, the purists will change their mind.

Some Purists do not see what is really going on. They believe that every vote and action has to follow the principal as Ron's did.Anything different or similar to the status quo is heretic. If Rand did the same methodology in politics as his dad then the results would be the same.

Rand saw what did not work with his dad and making it work for him. Rand is going a different angle that is working so well it is fooling the purists , GOP hardliners, liberals, media etc. He is playing it brilliant. He agrees with the party where it wont cause huge rifts but goes on his own at times to remind people where he really stands. The recent filibuster proved without a doubt where Rand's true loyalties lie, the same as his fathers, the US Constitution and BOR.

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

http://s24.postimage.org/ye0j9ljut/Wharrgarbl_Mc_Cain.jpg