Left's View of Rand: From "Committed to Electing a Democratic Senate"

[Brett]

By the numbers: Nine. The number of times Senate candidate Rand Paul mentioned the Tea Party in his victory speech after winning the Republican primary on May 18. He mentioned Kentucky only once.

State of the race: By now, everyone has heard of Paul's revolting views on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. What you might not know are the other decidedly out-of-the-mainstream views Paul holds. When asked about the British Petroleum oil spill, Paul said "sometimes accidents happen," and he accused President Obama of sounding "really un-American" in demanding that BP be held accountable. Paul opposes the Americans with Disabilities Act and regulations that keep workers safe on the job. He also wants to eliminate the Departments of Education and Agriculture, and thinks Wall Street isn't to blame for the financial collapse. Paul also wants to build an electric fence on our border and opposes protections in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to people born in the United States.

What to watch: Currently, the Republican Party is keeping Paul away from the national media in an attempt to keep his foot out of his mouth. When he begins talking again, will Paul continue to spout off about his bizarre beliefs, or will he flip-flop and start pretending to be a member of the political mainstream?]

The quote about the oil spill is ridiculous. Oppose Rand Paul because he agrees that "sometimes accidents happen". Doesn't that sound scary?

[LittleLightShining]

Gotta say they definitely did a good job making him sound scary.

[rprprs]

The quote about the oil spill is ridiculous. Oppose Rand Paul because he agrees that "sometimes accidents happen". Doesn't that sound scary?

Well, to be perfectly candid, of all the recent controversies, I believe it is this issue, if handled improperly, which has the potential of doing the most damage to his candidacy. Of course, I KNOW that he NEVER suggested that BP shouldn't be held accountable, and that his words have been tortured and misrepresented by the left. But Americans are out for blood on this and he needs to be very careful and precise in explaining his reasoning and his position in regard to the spill, the responsibility of BP, and the federal government's role. This is not an issue that can be relegated to the past. It is ongoing, and is likely to get worse before it get's better. His message needs to be solid and unassailable. He cannot afford to sound even remotely cavalier in addressing this issue.

[Fozz]

Well, to be perfectly candid, of all the recent controversies, I believe it is this issue, if handled improperly, which has the potential of doing the most damage to his candidacy. Of course, I KNOW that he NEVER suggested that BP shouldn't be held accountable, and that his words have been tortured and misrepresented by the left. But Americans are out for blood on this and he needs to be very careful and precise in explaining his reasoning and his position in regard to the spill, the responsibility of BP, and the federal government's role. This is not an issue that can be relegated to the past. It is ongoing, and is likely to get worse before it get's better. His message needs to be solid and unassailable. He cannot afford to sound even remotely cavalier in addressing this issue.

He needs an ad that shows that Conway took money from BP and other corporations.

He also needs to point out that Conway lied about his position.

[rprprs]

He needs an ad that shows that Conway took money from BP and other corporations.

He also needs to point out that Conway lied about his position.

Fine. But he needs a great deal more than that.
By all means, Rand should hit Conway any way he can, but he must also refine his own message.

To reiterate, he needs to articulate a position which in no way sounds dismissive of this catastrophe and recognizes it as such. The "accidents happen" statement, while true, fails in that regard. It was too easily painted as a callous disregard for the enormity of the situation. It wasn't meant as such, but it, nonetheless, gave the opposition a hole big enough to drive a truck through. Rand needs to more cautiously choose words which avoid such imprecision and are not so easily misconstrued. They'll twist his words anyway, of course, but he needn't so readily provide the ammunition. I know that much of this is like Monday morning quarterbacking, but I'm talking about how he proceeds in the future when addressing this issue.

[0zzy]

Liberals being liberals. i never supported the left-right paradigm, but I am starting to understand the hate in which "conservatives" have towards liberals.

[economics102]

Rand Paul shouldn't mince words. If someone, like this author, says that Rand "accused President Obama of sounding 'really un-American' in demanding that BP be held accountable," the proper retort is to call that person a liar. It's not necessary to couch it in the form of "out of context." It's simply factually incorrect, and if anyone tried to twist my words like that in real life, I would simply respond "you're either too stupid to properly understand a normal English-language sentence I spoke, or you're a liar, claiming I said something I didn't. So which is it?"

If they want to argue, Rand needs to just keep repeating himself over and over: "You want to have a debate on this issue, but you can't seem to even manage accurately reporting what it is that I said. So before you get all fancy trying to have a conversation with me, let's have a debate over why you and your network seem incapable of carrying out the most basic journalistic task of accurately quoting the subject of the news piece."

IF he's going to continue appearing on TV, Rand needs to take these guys to the woodshed, HARD.

[Nate]

Rand Paul shouldn't mince words. If someone, like this author, says that Rand "accused President Obama of sounding 'really un-American' in demanding that BP be held accountable," the proper retort is to call that person a liar. It's not necessary to couch it in the form of "out of context." It's simply factually incorrect, and if anyone tried to twist my words like that in real life, I would simply respond "you're either too stupid to properly understand a normal English-language sentence I spoke, or you're a liar, claiming I said something I didn't. So which is it?"

If they want to argue, Rand needs to just keep repeating himself over and over: "You want to have a debate on this issue, but you can't seem to even manage accurately reporting what it is that I said. So before you get all fancy trying to have a conversation with me, let's have a debate over why you and your network seem incapable of carrying out the most basic journalistic task of accurately quoting the subject of the news piece."

IF he's going to continue appearing on TV, Rand needs to take these guys to the woodshed, HARD.

^THIS
X 100000000000000000000000000000000000

When attacked in this deceitful & ignorant manner, respond like above.

"Respond intelligently even to unintelligent treatment." ~Lao Tzu

[AminCad]

Liberals being liberals. i never supported the left-right paradigm, but I am starting to understand the hate in which "conservatives" have towards liberals.

Me too. The way so many of them make up the most vicious lies about someone just because they happen to be a Republican is revolting to see. It really tarnishes and cheapens political discourse. Of course it doesn't happen only on the left, but I'm noticing just how prevalent it is when I see what the commenters in pro-Democrat blogs like Huffington Post say about Rand.