Courier-Journal Hit Piece

[r3volution 3.0]

Nothing subtle here, just a list of accusations. Let's review them, and consider possible responses.

hxxp://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/gerth/2015/04/04/paul-must-tiptoe-past-issues/25311843/

In a 2010 editorial board interview with The Courier-Journal, he questioned the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and suggested it went too far in forcing businesses to serve people of all sexes, races and creeds. He said that while he wouldn't patronize businesses that discriminated, he told the newspaper that "in a free society, we will tolerate boorish people with abhorrent behavior."

In a 2002 letter to his hometown Bowling Green Daily News, he questioned a need for the federal Fair Housing Act.


"Should it be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individual's beliefs or attributes? Most certainly," he wrote. "Should it be prohibited for private entities such as a church, bed-and-breakfast or retirement neighborhood that doesn't want noisy children? Absolutely not. Decisions concerning private property and associations should in a free society be unhindered."

Remedy? Own it. Explain the libertarian position without defensiveness or apology. Making an analogy with free speech, as Rand's done in the past, is a smart move.

He has called for slashing the U.S. military budget and then recently push to increase military spending by $190 billion.

Remedy? Explain it was a rhetorical point about the need for fiscal conservatism, not an actual proposal. Go on the attack against Rubio and Cruz for being spendthrifts.

Paul traditionally opposed foreign aid completely but has since altered his view and said he favored sending money to Israel.

Remedy? Still in favor of cutting all foreign aid in principle, but realized that it has to be phased out gradually as a practical matter. Easy.

And on a nuclear Iran, Paul over the years repeatedly said he didn't favor a policy of containment and in a 2007 interview on the Alex Jones Show, said the country was not a threat to either the U.S. or Israel.


(He recently signed a letter to the Iranian government suggesting that the U.S. might not live up to any nuclear weapons agreements negotiated by the Obama administration and then said he did that to somehow strengthen President Barack Obama's hand.)


"Even our own intelligence community consensus opinion now is that they're not a threat," Paul said in 2007. "Like my dad (Rep. Ron Paul) says, (Iranians) don't have an Air Force, they don't have a Navy. You know, it's ridiculous to think they're a threat to our national security. It's not even that viable to say they're a national threat to Israel. Most people say Israel has 100 nuclear weapons, you know."

Remedy? ....that's a tricky one. Any thoughts?

 

[Rudeman]

Iran comments were 8 years ago, a lot can change in 8 years.

 

[Brett85]

Remedy? Own it. Explain the libertarian position without defensiveness or apology. Making an analogy with free speech, as Rand's done in the past, is a smart move.

He obviously won't do that. The media would just generate another fire storm and would just talk about that 24/7. With the way the media is today you simply can't run on a hardcore libertarian platform and become President. Rand understands that and has adjusted his views accordingly. The flip flopper label is less damaging than being labeled a racist.

 

[Millennial Conservatarian]

Iran comments were 8 years ago, a lot can change in 8 years.

except almost nothing has changed, besides the Neo Cons being out of power for 7 of those and hysterically making up whatever they have to to get boots on the ground in another middle eastern country once again

 

[randomname]

explaining the libertarian position can be tricky, we see how that turned out for Ron, it is extremely controversial and will only appeal to 10% of listeners, where a much larger left-leaning part will completely tune out and have a gut level extreme negative reaction...

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Iran comments were 8 years ago, a lot can change in 8 years.

I don't know what actually changed in Iran that could plausibly justify that change of opinion. I suppose he could say that he changed his mind because he learned more about the situation, that he didn't have all the facts back then...but that opens the door to the question "O, so your father was wrong about Iran in 2012 and 2008?" ....Which you know they'd love to ask to drive a wedge between him and us. Not to mention that it calls into question his foreign policy credentials in general (he's just now forming his view of Iran!? ..."out of his depth," blah blah blah). Gotta be a better answer....

He obviously won't do that. The media would just generate another fire storm and would just talk about that 24/7. With the way the media is today you simply can't run on a hardcore libertarian platform and become President. Rand understands that and has adjusted his views accordingly. The flip flopper label is less damaging than being labeled a racist.

In general, I agree with that. One has to moderate to get elected. In this particular case, however, I think that sticking to principle is actually the pragmatic move. I'm not saying that Rand should go out of his way to make an issue of it, let alone making it a plank of his platform(!). Hell no. He should try to evade the question as much as possible. But if and when the media pins him down and he has to give a clear answer, I say stick to your guns rather than flip-flopping.

If the Maddow interview had never happened, it would be a different matter. But it did, so here we are.

explaining the libertarian position can be tricky, we see how that turned out for Ron, it is extremely controversial and will only appeal to 10% of listeners, where a much larger left-leaning part will completely tune out and have a gut level extreme negative reaction...

The media would have a much harder time painting Rand as a racist than it did Ron. Ther5e's Rand's black outreach and - perhaps more importantly - the fact that he's better known among the general public. A "racist" is like some kind of a monster in the popular mind. It's harder to pin it on the guy you see regularly on the evening news than on some unknown character you've never seen that the media tells you is from some kind of "fringe." Played carefully, I think Rand could reiterate his true position of the Civil Rights Act and related property rights issues (Indiana) without getting labelled a racist - i.e. (some of) the media will throw that but it won't stick.

In fact, this is the perfect time. If you successfully connect it to Indiana, you've got 95% of the Republican party ready to listen.