NY Times article on Ron and Rand - June 5 (Unintentional humor)

[sailingaway]

Must read NY Times article on Ron and Rand - June 5 (Unintentional humor)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/us/politics/06paul.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=all

A bunch of it is tripe, they are trying to spin things like requiring the kids to work to earn pocket money as free spirited hippy-ism; when compared to who the Pauls actually are, it is hilarious.

And note this caption at the end: " A version of this article appeared in print on June 6, 2010, on page A1 of the National edition. "

 

[Chieftain1776]

I'll put money on my theory. This is just a prelude to an all out smear campaign against Rand. They will point to this piece and say "See, we're being even handed" Expect this in the coming months from NYT in addition to other leftist echo chambers: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-f...implies-tea-party-seeks-violent-overthrow-gov

 

[BlackTerrel]

Are you guys reading a different article than me?

I thought it was a fantastic read.

 

[sailingaway]

I'll put money on my theory. This is just a prelude to an all out smear campaign against Rand. They will point to this piece and say "See, we're being even handed" Expect this in the coming months from NYT in addition to other leftist echo chambers: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-f...implies-tea-party-seeks-violent-overthrow-gov

I think this is instead of a retraction about misquoting him and having that story picked up all over the world. It seems they are deciding it was MSDNC's transcript that was wrong, not their reporting (despite their posting the actual video on their web page -- apparently without watching it.) They and the LA Times both have now put out more neutral pieces. I think they are trying to say they will be more balanced if he 'comes out and plays'. We know what they want to trip him into, but I think there is a backlash of people saying the coverage of Rand was contrived as to subject matter and altogether biased (no where did they report his overall views on the issues, only on the issues they chose which aren't even up for review.) So now, seeing the poll results they figure they have swayed the few they are going to sway to think he is racist and now they want to 'engage in a debate' to prove he is wrong, instead.

While still letting the spin offs of their prior misreporting echo through the blogosphere.

 

[sailingaway]

Are you guys reading a different article than me?

I thought it was a fantastic read.

It is a good article and will be page one of section A, whatever that is. We are just cynical about the reasoning behind the article.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Brilliant ending. I loved this article:

At the outset of an interview on Capitol Hill, Mr. Paul placed the controversy — “the agitation,” he called it — off limits. But then he immediately referred to a recent column supportive of his son in the Congressional newspaper, The Hill, and volunteered that he had just telephoned the column’s author, Lanny Davis, a Clinton White House aide, to thank him.

Mr. Davis said, “I heard a father’s concern more than I did any political concern,” and described the conversation as emotional.

Mr. Paul conceded that it is easier to be the candidate under attack than to be a family member of one. “No matter how well you arm yourself, no matter how well you know the system,” he said in the interview, “it really hurts when it’s your son.”

 

[No1ButPaul08]

It is a good article and will be page one of section A, whatever that is. We are just cynical about the reasoning behind the article.

If its like any other paper its the front page

 

[No1ButPaul08]

It is a good article and will be page one of section A, whatever that is. We are just cynical about the reasoning behind the article.

If its like any other paper its the front page.

Front page that is of the most widely read Sunday newspaper in the country, I believe.

 

[sailingaway]

If its like any other paper its the front page.

Front page that is of the most widely read Sunday newspaper in the country, I believe.

I think some papers have another section wrapping the paper. I hope its' the front page, even if it does make it sound like they lived in a commune. I just didn't want to say 'front page' when I don't know for sure.

And I am PRETTY sure they are trying to define Rand as the epitome of libertarianism so they can color him with any strange thing any person calling themselves libertarian ever said. Even though Ron is considered non-doctrinaire himself, as a constitutional conservative, and Rand is 'libertarian leaning' really, rather than purist.

 

[AminCad]

Wow, the Democrats are really attacking him in the comments section.

 

[No1ButPaul08]

 

[itshappening]

I'm shocked they put him on the front page but his story is compelling and something tells me it wont be the last time he's headline news and especially when gets to the Senate as the father/son thing serving is historical.

we will have to get used to the national attention as the media have definitely latched on to Rand Paul even though he won't talk to them and editors are featuring him prominently

The exciting thing is there is much more to come in this story and beyond November but he has to be a senator so lets stay focused on the prize !

 

[Bman]

Reading some of the comments. I can truly say that people who comment on their site only do so because in the real world if someone could respond to their idiocy, well they'd really look the fool.

Like this one. I had to laugh.

I don't get it. If you don't believe in the government on any level, why run to be part of it? Just do your own thing, mind your own business, and don't try to impose your nonsense on the rest of us.

This person thinks that Paul's shouldn't run? As if they are trying to use government to impose their nonsense on others?

It amazes me that after about 3 years of getting this message out there that some people are so damn stupid and lack comprehension on even the most basic levels that they cannot understand that the Paul's try to get the government not to impose other people's ideas on other people.

 

[MRoCkEd]

Nice!

 

[No1ButPaul08]

I know the Sunday New York Times has a lot of extras. But $5?? That's a little steep don't you think

 

[sailingaway]

I know the Sunday New York Times has a lot of extras. But $5?? That's a little steep don't you think

Wow, hadn't picked up on that. So few buy the hardcopy now, I guess. I only get the Sunday version of the LA Times myself, the paper is too limited, bulky etc to get my news from now that I've really become interested in what is going on.

 

[llepard]

I know the Sunday New York Times has a lot of extras. But $5?? That's a little steep don't you think

Hey, that is nothing. They charge $8 for it at the C stores in some of the smaller towns around New England.

It is not worth a fraction of the price. Can find most of what you need on line for free.

 

[MRoCkEd]

It was also in Kentucky's Lexington Herald-Leader,and I'm sure it was picked up elsewhere:

 

[BlackTerrel]

Reading some of the comments. I can truly say that people who comment on their site only do so because in the real world if someone could respond to their idiocy, well they'd really look the fool.

That's half the internet for you. People like to say shit they can't say in real life.

Internet comments is the worst way to get a feeling for what people are really thinking, because they are very under representative. If a thousand people read the column, 2 will comment - if even that.

I used to get really annoyed when I'd look at NBA highlights on YouTube and they were spammed with racist comments - that's before I realized they do it because they are a tiny minority with no outlet in the real world. Now it just makes me laugh that this is how they waste their time.

I doubt the average NYTimes reader is very sympathetic to Ron and Rand - but I doubt they're so anti either.

 

[ItsTime]

He needs to win this so he can run in 2016