Disheartening Lawrence O'Donnell Interview

[Nathan Hale]

I admire Ron Paul's positions, but after that O'Donnell interview I am in serious doubt about his ability to articulate the message during another primary season. His verbiage was messy enough four years ago - and we're going to put him up again? A better speaker could have shut down O'Donnell in half as many words - Paul barely treaded water and that's disheartening to me.

 

[wormyguy]

I think it shows that Dr. Paul isn't all that great at coming up with an argument off the cuff - he needs to prepare talking points beforehand. A lot of what he was saying only worked as an argument if you already believed in his positions, which didn't work out so hot.

 

[low preference guy]

the interview went fine from my POV.

side note: could the title be changed to Lawrence O'Donnell? i thought the thread was about an interview with Christine O'Donnell, Lawrence's cousin. i don't pay attention to the thread folder in new posts.

 

[Agorism]

Ron Paul is the only one on the entire planet who could have articulated those viewpoints and sounded like he ended with the upper hand or at least a draw.

LO had the interview rigged with the most controversial subjects imaginable. That's what MSNBC does to all non-communists that it invites on its shows.

 

[Jeremy]

He (and Rand) should have been more clear about opposing segregation. I am strongly opposed to segregation, as is Ron. That doesn't mean you are for government control of property.

 

[Agorism]

All republican should quit going on MSNBC period. Low ratings, no audience watching so it's not worthwhile, and if Paul does do them a favor by granting an interview, all LO or maddow will ever do is throw their feces at their guest. Did you see LO's video montage of Paul as an extremist he had running before he even interviewed Paul, and then LO went on to violate the interview agreement he had with Ron beforehand as well.

They do it every time with every single republican who falls for their invitation.

 

[William R]

I don't know why he agrees to go on any of MSNBCs evening shows. They're nothing but hatchet programs. Ron should stick to morning Joe and CNBC. O'Donnell , Olberman, Maddow, and Ed Shultz are about as low as they go.

 

[William R]

He (and Rand) should have been more clear about opposing segregation. I am strongly opposed to segregation, as is Ron. That doesn't mean you are for government control of property.

O'Donnell wouldn't let him answer the question. Back when Rand blew it on Maddow's show he could have destroyed her with this simple question. Rachel, back when you were a regular in lesbian bars while in college if men started to come in and hit on the women with the intention of just starting trouble do you think the bars should have the right to ban men???

 

[Bergie Bergeron]

Easy to think about it after though...

 

[Nathan Hale]

Ron Paul is the only one on the entire planet who could have articulated those viewpoints and sounded like he ended with the upper hand or at least a draw.

LO had the interview rigged with the most controversial subjects imaginable. That's what MSNBC does to all non-communists that it invites on its shows.

I totally disagree. Schiff, Rand, Gary Johnson, any of the other liberty movement candidates could have better articulated those positions.

 

[wormyguy]

Gary Johnson came out and said he supports CRA 1964 after the Rand thing (which is a good idea on his part - it keeps him electable nationally, and there's no chance in hell that there would be any serious chance of repealing the relevant portions of that act).

 

[phesoge]

I would prefer Johnson in 2012 as our focus point, but I do love our good dctor and would fully support him.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Don't get me wrong, I would support him too. I just think that he's not up for the task.

 

[dean.engelhardt]

I love Gary Johnson's politics, but he can't hold a candle to Ron Paul in electability. I have no problem on how well RP handled O'Donnell. He inspires in every appearance.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Paul is the figure who has the national grassroots brand already built up for him to run again in '12, while Johnson would have to be built from the ground up. A better solution would be for the two to team up in a Paul-Johnson '12 ticket, so Johnson gets the branding exposure to run nationally in '16 if Paul loses.

 

[Eric21ND]

O'Donnell never gives a good interview to anybody....he's not being paid to interview he's there to act douchy.

 

[jmdrake]

I think Ron did alright, but perhaps I'm biased. If anything Ron (and Rand) should simply what they say. Key talking points:

Q: Why don't you "self term limit".
A: That's like unilateral disarmament. If only the good folks self limit, then only the bad politicians are left. It's an all or nothing deal.

Q: Are you trying to abolish medicare?
A: For people already dependent on it? No. But I want to work to a society where new people don't become dependent on it. Then it can phase itself out. Right now we face it simply going bankrupt while people are still depending on it. That's like making someone get of heroin cold turkey.

Q: Are you against the civil rights act?
A: Two sections of the civil rights act depend on a dubious interpretation of the commerce clause from the Filburn case and has been undercut by the Morrison and Lopez cases. The fact is that the constitution never gave the federal government the authority to regulate intrastate commerce. As for laws requiring segregation, those laws were struck down by Brown v. Board of Education which was a decade before the 1964 civil rights act. Brown was correct both from a constitutional and a libertarian point of view. Government should never been used to force people apart. As for the lunch counters, many of the Woolworth's lunch counters had been desegregated before the civil rights act by the actions of the boycotters themselves. People shouldn't think that the only way to achieve an end is through the government and especially through the federal government.

 

[jmdrake]

All republican should quit going on MSNBC period. Low ratings, no audience watching so it's not worthwhile, and if Paul does do them a favor by granting an interview, all LO or maddow will ever do is throw their feces at their guest. Did you see LO's video montage of Paul as an extremist he had running before he even interviewed Paul, and then LO went on to violate the interview agreement he had with Ron beforehand as well.

They do it every time with every single republican who falls for their invitation.

You don't get it. Ron and Rand got great interviews on MSNBC when they were largely seen as a threat to the GOP establishment and they were ATTACKED by Fox News. When Palin backed Rand the Fox attacks largely stopped. Then after the defeat of Trey Grayson, Ron and Rand became a threat to the democratic establishment. So of course they'll get good treatment from Fox now and horrible treatment from MSNBC. Let them be seen as a threat to the GOP establishment again and you'll see MSNBC and Fox flip again. If Ron and Rand quit going on any network where they've never been attacked, the only network left will be Russia Today.

 

[jmdrake]

Something else Ron should have pointed out. O'Donnell had Linda McMahon in is "extremist tea party backed candidate". Ron should have said that his support and the tea party's support went to Peter Schiff, a candidate that he (O'Donnell) largely ignored.