itshappening
03-11-2013, 06:33 PM
Conor Friedersdorf who's drone articles Rand read from has a tremendous article in The Atlantic on press treatment of Rand in 2010 and of libertarians in general:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/how-the-establishment-press-got-rand-paul-wrong/273880/
Conor sounds like an objective guy. He's not a Democrat Party loyalist although since he writes for The Atlantic i'm guessing that's where his sympathies lie (like 90% of the press). He almost sounds like he'd entertain voting for Rand. He seems to value civil liberties and is willing to look past areas of disagreement and more 'right-wing' economic policies. I don't know how representative Conor is of left-leaning independent's who would be willing to vote for Rand and who value civil liberties and ending the war on drugs over say objections to less spending and a smaller state. How philosophically tied are these people to massive government? I don't know. I've never really engaged in debates with them to find out.
Conor refers to Rand's appearance on Maddow's show in 2009.
To this day I will never know why Rand went on that show. MSNBC is a propaganda outfit. All the hosts are propagandists for the Democrat Party and not objective journalists. Greenwald correctly called them 'highly paid mouthpieces for the DNC'. People like Maddow, Schulz, Matthews and O'Donnell. They viciously attack and smear anyone who doesn't conform to their view and the policies of the Democrat Party in general. They worship Democrat personalities and effortlessly lionize their talking points. It's obvious and you can see it night after night.
I'd like to find out who had that bright idea to let him go on there. I remember at the time when I heard he was going on and I rolled my eyes and fretted.
Rand's a libertarian and this was a great opportunity for them to "take it to the logical conclusion" as Conor points out and hit him with something to make him sound scary. This happens all the time to libertarians. We can't help getting involved in these debates and defending the "logical conclusion". I scare my mom with my stance on drugs. She says does that mean heroin will be legal? This "taking it to the logical conclusion" can be quite scary for the average person and MSNBC know that.
I can assume Rand went on there because he wasn't established enough to get on to Fox or CNN. He was behind Grayson in those days in the polls and was still relatively unknown in Kentucky. Any media appearance would thus be welcome is why I think he went on. Especially on a national cable news show. Even a left wing one and entering the realm of a professional propagandist like Maddow.
Rand thought he'd take his chance knowing full well what MSNBC is and what Maddow is because he gained exposure. It put Rand on TV.
Sadly it generated some controversy because they hit him with the Civil Rights Act. MSNBC kept the controversy going by playing and discussing the interview for days and days if I remember correctly. It could have sunk Rand's candidacy right there but thankfully it didn't. It made him more famous and got his name out there but had a huge risk of potentially sinking his candidacy. Happily Rand was/is such a great candidate and effective campaigner he was able to not allow it to sink his candidacy and offset the negative aspects. Not every poitical candidate is so lucky when faced with those moments.
Why did MSNBC have him on? How did it happen? Did they call him and suggest it? Did he call them? Who set it up? I'd be most interested.
MSNBC had him on because they're pure propaganda. They'll entertain having a libertarian on because they love to smear opponents. Libertarians are easy meat. They can hit them with a myriad of 'taking to the logical conclusion' and force them to defend their position within 10 minutes which is very difficult to do at the best of times. Drugs, property rights, welfare programs, civil rights act, take your pick. To one of their hosts this is a sport. They enjoy it. They know they'll get a controversy and can run with it.
In 2010 O'Donnell had Schiff on. This is the same line of thinking. A libertarian like Schiff. They wanted to do him what they did to Rand. Namely smear him and try and make him look out of the mainstream. O'Donnell failed. He hit him by alleging Schiff wanted to cut off old ladies in CT from their Medicare. Schiff handled him brilliantly but you can see it's the same mindset and reasoning as to why Maddow was willing to entertain Rand Paul. They thought they'd get another piece of easy meat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYEtTkanDx0
You'll notice that Rand hasn't been on MSNBC since. That's the correct thing to do. No libertarian should go on there even if they're relatively unknown and glad of the "national" coverage. They're a propaganda outfit and they're not objective. They want to smear you and damage you. That's their MO.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/how-the-establishment-press-got-rand-paul-wrong/273880/
Conor sounds like an objective guy. He's not a Democrat Party loyalist although since he writes for The Atlantic i'm guessing that's where his sympathies lie (like 90% of the press). He almost sounds like he'd entertain voting for Rand. He seems to value civil liberties and is willing to look past areas of disagreement and more 'right-wing' economic policies. I don't know how representative Conor is of left-leaning independent's who would be willing to vote for Rand and who value civil liberties and ending the war on drugs over say objections to less spending and a smaller state. How philosophically tied are these people to massive government? I don't know. I've never really engaged in debates with them to find out.
Conor refers to Rand's appearance on Maddow's show in 2009.
To this day I will never know why Rand went on that show. MSNBC is a propaganda outfit. All the hosts are propagandists for the Democrat Party and not objective journalists. Greenwald correctly called them 'highly paid mouthpieces for the DNC'. People like Maddow, Schulz, Matthews and O'Donnell. They viciously attack and smear anyone who doesn't conform to their view and the policies of the Democrat Party in general. They worship Democrat personalities and effortlessly lionize their talking points. It's obvious and you can see it night after night.
I'd like to find out who had that bright idea to let him go on there. I remember at the time when I heard he was going on and I rolled my eyes and fretted.
Rand's a libertarian and this was a great opportunity for them to "take it to the logical conclusion" as Conor points out and hit him with something to make him sound scary. This happens all the time to libertarians. We can't help getting involved in these debates and defending the "logical conclusion". I scare my mom with my stance on drugs. She says does that mean heroin will be legal? This "taking it to the logical conclusion" can be quite scary for the average person and MSNBC know that.
I can assume Rand went on there because he wasn't established enough to get on to Fox or CNN. He was behind Grayson in those days in the polls and was still relatively unknown in Kentucky. Any media appearance would thus be welcome is why I think he went on. Especially on a national cable news show. Even a left wing one and entering the realm of a professional propagandist like Maddow.
Rand thought he'd take his chance knowing full well what MSNBC is and what Maddow is because he gained exposure. It put Rand on TV.
Sadly it generated some controversy because they hit him with the Civil Rights Act. MSNBC kept the controversy going by playing and discussing the interview for days and days if I remember correctly. It could have sunk Rand's candidacy right there but thankfully it didn't. It made him more famous and got his name out there but had a huge risk of potentially sinking his candidacy. Happily Rand was/is such a great candidate and effective campaigner he was able to not allow it to sink his candidacy and offset the negative aspects. Not every poitical candidate is so lucky when faced with those moments.
Why did MSNBC have him on? How did it happen? Did they call him and suggest it? Did he call them? Who set it up? I'd be most interested.
MSNBC had him on because they're pure propaganda. They'll entertain having a libertarian on because they love to smear opponents. Libertarians are easy meat. They can hit them with a myriad of 'taking to the logical conclusion' and force them to defend their position within 10 minutes which is very difficult to do at the best of times. Drugs, property rights, welfare programs, civil rights act, take your pick. To one of their hosts this is a sport. They enjoy it. They know they'll get a controversy and can run with it.
In 2010 O'Donnell had Schiff on. This is the same line of thinking. A libertarian like Schiff. They wanted to do him what they did to Rand. Namely smear him and try and make him look out of the mainstream. O'Donnell failed. He hit him by alleging Schiff wanted to cut off old ladies in CT from their Medicare. Schiff handled him brilliantly but you can see it's the same mindset and reasoning as to why Maddow was willing to entertain Rand Paul. They thought they'd get another piece of easy meat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYEtTkanDx0
You'll notice that Rand hasn't been on MSNBC since. That's the correct thing to do. No libertarian should go on there even if they're relatively unknown and glad of the "national" coverage. They're a propaganda outfit and they're not objective. They want to smear you and damage you. That's their MO.