Did anyone hear what Rachel Maddow just said on her show?

[CTRattlesnake]

People watch that show?

 

[r3volution]

People watch that show?

only socialists . they will never vote for paul anyway . she is a moot point .

 

[Brick-in-the-Wall]

^This.

We have to know that they will try to destroy him if he wins. They will drag out all the old newsletters, anything that anyone he has ever referenced like Rothbard and Spooner and say how extreme he is and how he believes everything they ever wrote. They will break out the civil rights act of 1964. They will tie him to the John Birch Society and 9-11 truthers. They will break out the 3rd party run and "not a real republican" arguments. They will say he will crash the economy... Itll make what Johnson did to Goldwater look like a polite campaign. And it will come from all sides at once.

Pretty much everything that they have said in backwards ways will come out in full force and all at once. We need to expect it and prepare for it. The machine will not just let us make our case and win.

Sadly this right here.

If you think the Left goes after "small government Republicans" badly with their "kill children with dirty air and water" and "throw grandma off the cliff" then you haven't seen what they think of Libertarian philosophy which they consider even worse.

They'll seriously say things like Ron Paul will want to bring back child labor and slavery.

 

[anaconda]

She hates him.

She has been super super nice to Ron whenever she has interviewed him (at least that I can recall). Rand...different story.

 

[Ekrub]

I think that you guys are all overthinking what she said. Ron would be a fun person to talk about as a commentator, because he has such an enormous range and depth to cover. It's rather fun to get philosophical, and Ron brings it to that level. I'm sure the attacks will come but I don't think that's what Maddow meant.

Lol, I don't think so. If you weren't here for the Rand attack you might want to YouTube it.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

She has been super super nice to Ron whenever she has interviewed him (at least that I can recall). Rand...different story.

She was nice to Rand until it was time for her to ruin him when her superiors demanded she do so.

It sickens me whenever someone posts a clip of this pig's show on here. She's enemy #1 as far as I'm concerned when it comes to media vermin.

 

[jmdrake]

Hope for the best and expect the worst. The best would be Maddow would make the same mistake she did with Rand and let Ron get through the primaries in the vain hope of derailing him in the general. The worst would be she learned from her mistake and she goes for the jugular early. There are really only two things she can attack Ron on, the newsletters and the civil rights act. Anything else she might attack him on would either help him with conservatives or help him with independents and democrats or help him with both. He should prep for such attacks. An interview might go something like this.


RM: Thanks for coming on congressman Paul. So tell me what the deal is with those newsletters.

RP: I already talked about this back in 2008. I'm not sure what I can add. Those were a mistake. I didn't write them. The writing style isn't even mine. But they did go out in my name and I regret that. I should have taken more care about what was being done in my name. I'm not sure what else I can say except I'm sorry about that. But the black community isn't being hurt today by 20 year old newsletters. They're being hurt by a bad economy and a housing bubble that was caused by speculation triggered by bad monetary policy from the fed. They're being hurt by taxpayers being put on the hook by a bailout that went to the very corporations that helped cause the mess. They're being hurt by being disproportionately arrested, convicted and put in prison by an unconstitutional federal drug war. Blacks use drugs at the same per capita rate as whites. But their arrest, conviction and incarceration rates are much much higher. They're being hurt by losing their friends and relatives in these unconstitutional and seemingly endless wars. And this president has added new wars even after receiving the Nobel Peace prize.

RM: Okay. Fair enough. So what about the civil rights act? Your son Rand said he wouldn't have voted for it. Then he seemed to backtrack. What's your stance.

RP: Well I do agree with some of the results of the civil rights movement. As I have said before, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. are two of my heroes because they adopted the libertarian principle of peaceful civil disobedience to achieve change. Some people look at the civil rights act as the end all be all of the civil rights movement, but it wasn't. Do you know that some of the lunch counters in Nashville TN and other places had already desegregated prior to the passage of the civil rights act based on the effect of the protests themselves? I support that kind of change. I also support the overturning of state laws which forced people who didn't want to be segregated to segregate. In some cases private entities were forced by state law to segregate such as the case of Berea college in Kentucky. But overturning state forced segregation was already the law of the land based on Brown v Board of education which was decided 10 years prior to the civil rights act. The problem that I have with the civil rights act is that it was based on authority that the federal government really doesn't have and shouldn't have. Have you heard of a case called Wickard v. Filburn? That was a case where the supreme court declared the federal government could tell a farmer not to grow wheat to feed his own family and livestock based on a ridiculous reading of the interstate commerce clause that anything that might have an effect on interstate commerce is somehow interstate commerce and can be regulated by the federal government. I think many blacks would be appalled to learn that a ruling which basically said the federal government could stop you from growing a garden if it wanted to was the basis of certain provisions of the civil rights act. I think they would be further appalled to learn that over time the Wickard ruling has been undercut in a way that could hurt the viability of the civil rights act. For example the 1995 U.S. v. Lopez decision severely limited the previous broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause to the point where some of the civil rights act jurisprudence could be challenged. Also the federal war on drugs, which has been so devastating to the black community, is based largely on the Wickard jurisprudence.

But enough about that. I'd rather be talking about the economy and ending the wars and rolling back foreign and domestic spending to economically sustainable levels.

 

[seyferjm]

If she goes on the attack after if/when Ron whens the primary, I think it will boost conservative support.

 

[Romulus]

I'd never give her or O'reilly the time of day..

 

[dvalukis]

The worst thing to do would be to alienate Paul supporters. They're (we're) not strictly Neo-cons, liberals, moderates... We kinda cover the whole gambit. So it makes it difficult to put the "Ron Paul" idea/support in a neat little box of ignorance, without using complete ignorance when covering him. (I just wrinkled my brain)

 

[outspoken]

Fortunately nobody watches her. She makes Obama look rational and right winged. Her negatively speaking bout RP is a plus in my book.

 

[hard@work]

The best thing that can happen for me is that I get to start talking about her. And I have waited long, patiently, and quietly. But I know my greatest joy will come from showing an entire bastion of progressives the hypocrisy and failings of Maddow and her ilk. I'm so ready for that fight.

We all play our part. I know this is going to be mine.