Rachel Maddow piece on Paul -- Mostly correct!

[anaconda]

I am no fan of Rand Paul, even though he aligns mostly with his dad, but sounds like a neocon pandering to conservatives.

A pretty unusual neocon...stumping for defense budget reductions, military action only when authorized by a Congressional declaration of war, demanding warrants for wiretaps, railing against executive branch overreach (indefinite detention, assassinations, executive orders), the police state (TSA, Patriot Act), and foreign aid (including Israel). He's quite the "stealth" neocon!

 

[RonPaulRevolution!]

Calling Rand Paul a neocon can only be out of pure ignorance.

 

[KingRobbStark]

Rachel Maddow makes my pants go a little bit crazy. Just sayin...

She's a girl.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

She "appeared" to have hijacked Rand Paul with a question regarding his position on Civil Rights Act. I am no fan of Rand Paul, even though he aligns mostly with his dad, but sounds like a neocon pandering to conservatives.

Never heard a neocon that sounded like this.

 

[papitosabe]

She's a girl.

a handsome girl... ::/:

 

[jmdrake]

This is the price she pays for her treatment of Rand in May 2010. Sorry Rachael, hope you didn't expect a pass on that one...

LOL. She did sound a bit like a jilted lover towards the end of the video.

 

[unknown]

Rachel Maddow makes my pants go a little bit crazy. Just sayin...

You straight?

 

[unknown]

Now I'm TOTALLY confused. I thought we won OK.

Can someone address this?

 

[V3n]

Can someone address this?

The media LIES. Write it down. Tattoo that to your chest. DO NOT BELIEVE THEM. Clear enough?

 

[V3n]

Can someone address this?

The media LIES. Write it down. Tattoo that to your chest. DO NOT BELIEVE THEM. Clear enough?

(double post, but read it twice so it sinks in)

 

[speciallyblend]

ron paulin, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Problem!!-Brian-Doherty&p=4426361#post4426361

 

[89five.o]

I enjoy watching Rachel Maddow's interviews to be honest. I would like to see Dr. Paul on her show. On the topic she discussed with Rand Paul, I can see it from both sides and I usually find myself stuck somewhere in the middle with my beliefs. I just have a hard time allowing a business to discriminate against a minority group of any kind because the lack of business from those individuals will probably not hurt their bottom line very much. Then again you have to protect people's right to be idiots as long as they don't hurt anybody as well. It's a tough subject and I believe worth some debate.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

Videos

Wow. That's what people are up in arms about?

Rand clearly didn't understand where Rachel was coming from - and that's the key issue there. She wasn't trying to paint him as anything. He was unnecessarily defensive.

Rachel's point was that there are many people who do want private businesses to be able to do as they please. She was seeing the GOP becoming increasingly ready to question rights issues, and anticipated Rand's answer becoming very important in the future. She didn't try to accuse Rand of being racist or careless. She said clearly that she strongly disagrees with what seems to be his position - that any private operation should be able to do whatever it likes.

The only reasons that she didn't let it go were (1) that Rand wasn't giving a clear answer, and then (2) that when he did give an answer, he was acting as though the issue isn't relevant to today's politics or what might happen in the future if the issue was brought up for debate.

These videos are another example of Rachel's fair and sound approach to interviewing.


As for the recent video, she can't really be blamed for using the GOP figures rather than what Paul supporters want to be the case. She has to go by whatever the authoritative source says. Notice that she didn't say that people booed Josh Romney off stage, just that they were booing speakers' responses.

She's as fair as it gets with the information that she has.

 

[Jamesiv1]

You straight?

Yeah, yeah... I know. I still think she's a cutie though

 

[jmdrake]

Didn't let it go? She made it the focus of the entire interview. It would be one thing if she talked about his recent victory and then went into the controversy, but she made it clear that's all she wanted to talk about. And yeah, Rand could have answered better, but she could have listened better. Rand brought up the "commerce clause" issue. Maybe Maddow is as uninformed about the constitution as most of her listeners, but the point Rand was making there is that the commerce clause doesn't give the federal government the authority to reach actions by individual in-state businesses. Then again, it would have helped if Rand had spelled that out.

Wow. That's what people are up in arms about?

Rand clearly didn't understand where Rachel was coming from - and that's the key issue there. She wasn't trying to paint him as anything. He was unnecessarily defensive.

Rachel's point was that there are many people who do want private businesses to be able to do as they please. She was seeing the GOP becoming increasingly ready to question rights issues, and anticipated Rand's answer becoming very important in the future. She didn't try to accuse Rand of being racist or careless. She said clearly that she strongly disagrees with what seems to be his position - that any private operation should be able to do whatever it likes.

The only reasons that she didn't let it go were (1) that Rand wasn't giving a clear answer, and then (2) that when he did give an answer, he was acting as though the issue isn't relevant to today's politics or what might happen in the future if the issue was brought up for debate.

These videos are another example of Rachel's fair and sound approach to interviewing.


As for the recent video, she can't really be blamed for using the GOP figures rather than what Paul supporters want to be the case. She has to go by whatever the authoritative source says. Notice that she didn't say that people booed Josh Romney off stage, just that they were booing speakers' responses.

She's as fair as it gets with the information that she has.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

Didn't let it go? She made it the focus of the entire interview. It would be one thing if she talked about his recent victory and then went into the controversy, but she made it clear that's all she wanted to talk about. And yeah, Rand could have answered better, but she could have listened better. Rand brought up the "commerce clause" issue. Maybe Maddow is as uninformed about the constitution as most of her listeners, but the point Rand was making there is that the commerce clause doesn't give the federal government the authority to reach actions by individual in-state businesses. Then again, it would have helped if Rand had spelled that out.

She didn't make it the focus of the whole interview. She had limited time for the interview - just like every other one. At one point she says (paraphrased) "I'd like to move on to the other things I have scheduled to talk with you about, but I need some clarity about your position on this."

Paul was the big success of the TEA Party vs the establishment in 2010. She was trying to get a feel for the direction that the TEA Party candidates were going to go. Were they going to challenge past legislation? Were they going to vote against laws that in any way regulated the private sector? These were the background questions behind her line of questioning.

You said it correctly when you stated "it would have helped if Rand had spelled that out". That's what Rachel was asking him to do. Instead, he kept saying things like "People are trying to imply x". Rachel would then say "I'm not accusing you of x." Rand would then give a vague response and go back to "People are trying to imply x."

Remember, Rachel didn't bring the issue up out of nowhere. Rand got into it on NPR and Rachel said she wanted to get clarity on Rand's response.

 

[Keith and stuff]

I do wonder about the "respect and decorum" part of the segment. Im not sure why anybody, Ron included, thinks the party deserves any respect at all after how he and his supporters have been treated throughout this entire campaign. Oh well, doesn't matter. Nothing has changed.

Deserves respect? That isn't related at all to the issue. Ron Paul wants what is happening in New Hampshire to happen in the rest of the US. In NH, the establishment Republicans are very welcoming to the liberty Republicans. They have welcomed us into the party, train us for free, encourage us to run for office and give us their money.

If the Ron Paul supporters in other states would act with more respect and decorum, Ron Paul thinks that a similar situation may occur in the rest of the US. I don't know if it is possible in some states. Establishment Republicans and liberty Republicans aren't that different from each other politically in NH. In states like OK and in the South, there tends to be a huge difference.

 

[anaconda]

She wasn't trying to paint him as anything. He was unnecessarily defensive.

She was trying to trick Rand into giving up an answer that could have been parsed and spun and misquoted in the media to his great detriment. That was her goal. She wanted nothing more than for the headlines for the next 6 weeks to be "Rand Paul Wants Segregated Lunch Counters." The right to use your private property as you choose, without government intervention, extends infinitely beyond racial discrimination, as Rand tried to point out (firearms in your place of business, for example). But Rachael couldn't wrap her mind around that theory nor was she interested in anything other than trying to ruin the "Tea Party" senator's candidacy. Pure and simple. IMHO.

 

[smartguy911]

Rachel Maddow makes my pants go a little bit crazy. Just sayin...

r u male or female?

 

[LimitedGovernment]

She was trying to trick Rand into giving up an answer that could have been parsed and spun and misquoted in the media to his great detriment. That was her goal. She wanted nothing more than for the headlines for the next 6 weeks to be "Rand Paul Wants Segregated Lunch Counters." The right to use your private property as you choose, without government intervention, extends infinitely beyond racial discrimination, as Rand tried to point out (firearms in your place of business, for example). But Rachael couldn't wrap her mind around that theory nor was she interested in anything other than trying to ruin the "Tea Party" senator's candidacy. Pure and simple. IMHO.

The problem with your opinion is that it clashes with Rachel's history of journalistic integrity. The only way I can see someone thinking she was trying to trap him is if they lump her in with people like Keith Olbermann just because she's on MSNBC.

r u male or female?

She's pretty attractive when she's on TV, regardless of who you are.