Rand Paul will be on Maddow tonight

[Matt Collins]

I think we should understand here that the problem lies in the way Rand handled the question.

Of course, but chalk it up to no sleep. Also it was kind of an ambush.

 

[Matt Collins]

David Adams better be ready to go nuclear to dismantle this bomb.

There is a lot of irony in that statement

 

[tremendoustie]

If he's going to take controversial stands, how about one on foreign policy?

Is he playing politics, or not?

 

[Flirple]

Take a fucking stand for god's sake. These weasely, political answers are what infuriate me about watching Rand Paul. He wants to be everything to everybody. He wants to be an Israel-first, Iran hater to the neocons, he wants to be a liberty candidate to his dad's supporters, he wants to be an independent to the left-wingers, he wants to be a tea-partier to that group.

People respect honesty, whether you agree with them or not. People do no respect wishy-washy, weasely bullshit.

Exactly. What Justinjj1 said.

The key difference between Ron and Rand should be crystal clear by now. Ron is an educator first. Rand is a politician first. Ron uses every single second of every opportunity to explain and educate. This was a golden opportunity to teach the viewer about property rights and the non-aggression principle. Rand wasted it because his political answers only reduced his credibility with people hearing these ideas for the first time. Rachel gave Rand plenty of time to speak and she did not talk over him.

I remember on Meet the press back in the campaign when Tim Russet tried the same thing on Ron by out of the blue bringing up the civil war and that Ron was on record saying it shouldn't have happened. But Ron did not flinch and responded "Absolutely". Ron then explained how slavery was ended everywhere else without a bloody war and that the primary motives of the civil war were not slavery. Tim knew he was outmatched and quickly moved on while any open minded viewer watching had to be at least intrigued at this new take on "conventional wisdom".

But this Maddow interview never went beyond this one issue because she couldn't get a straight answer out of him.

I wish you well Rand. But I won't lie. I don't trust you.

 

[Anti Federalist]

She has to be careful when dealing with the Paul's because there's so much overlap between us. It's hard to launch an attack when you stand a good chance of hitting your own people with friendly fire.

Hah, Danger Close is right.

 

[TER]

This is going to be a war of philosophies. We always new it would come down to this. I just wish he wasn't working on less than one hour of sleep on his way to battle!

 

[tremendoustie]

This is going to be a war of philosophies. We always new it would come down to this. I just wish he wasn't working on less than one hour of sleep on his way to battle!

I don't want him to be the one representing freedom if that's what it's going to be .. he's too waffly. I want Ron, or Tom Woods, or any one of a number of others.

It is what it is. I hope he finds a way to communicate principles effectively and fearlessly, like his father.

 

[Imaginos]

How about this:

"I do not support racism or discrimination of any kind. The Constitution has been amended to make sure that it doesn't happen, and I support the Constitution."

+1.
Rand should use your argument and shut down any future attack from now on.
Average voters are so dumb and they just need a short answer.
They can't digest any answer that is more than few sentences.
Anybody here communicate with Rand Paul or his advisor?
If so, please inform this to Rand Paul, ASAP.
He has to be prepared on this issue.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Proves once again, neither the "left" nor the "right" wing of the MSM will treat any "outsider" with any kind of respect and cannot be trusted.

Look for Glenn Beck to sandbag him close to election day as well.

Word to the wise, approach every one of these "journalists" as a hostile prosecutor.

 

[AuH20]

Exactly. What Justinjj1 said.

The key difference between Ron and Rand should be crystal clear by now. Ron is an educator first. Rand is a politician first. Ron uses every single second of every opportunity to explain and educate. This was a golden opportunity to teach the viewer about property rights and the non-aggression principle. Rand wasted it because his political answers only reduced his credibility with people hearing these ideas for the first time. Rachel gave Rand plenty of time to speak and she did not talk over him.

I remember on Meet the press back in the campaign when Tim Russet tried the same thing on Ron by out of the blue bringing up the civil war and that Ron was on record saying it shouldn't have happened. But Ron did not flinch and responded "Absolutely". Ron then explained how slavery was ended everywhere else without a bloody war and that the primary motives of the civil war were not slavery. Tim knew he was outmatched and quickly moved on while any open minded viewer watching had to be at least intrigued at this new take on "conventional wisdom".

But this Maddow interview never went beyond this one issue because she couldn't get a straight answer out of him.

I wish you well Rand. But I won't lie. I don't trust you.

In defense of Rand, he has the entire democratic machine trying to foment some controversy. He's running for Senate after he just called out the President. He's under a ridiculous microscope.

 

[JoshLowry]

If he's going to take controversial stands, how about one on foreign policy?

Is he playing politics, or not?

He didn't pick the issue, it came up and he defended it.

 

[Sentient Void]

He and we all know exactly what she was trying to do. She was not only trying to conflate the issue, but also trying to find some way to get a quote out of him so the liberal left could take it out of context, run with it and paint him as a racist, which we all know he isn't.

As a libertarian, I know exactly what he's saying (I'm sure you all do too), which is essentially the belief that the federal government should not be able to force private individuals nor businesses who they can or can't do business with. This is a violation of free speech and property.

In the end, someone who decides to be racist or bigoted will simply lose business. And someone down the street who does serve anyone will get more business and be more successful. The market handles all problems appropriately.

Although I would have preferred a 'Ron Paul answer', as Ron somehow magically finds a way to present the 'risky truths' simply, eloquently and in a way to educate and present it in a way that would be more 'palatable' to non-libertarians... we have to understand that not everyone can present things the way Ron Paul does. Rand Paul is an effective politician - backed by pure principle... he understands that such things get twisted into what they're not and are risky business in debate with todays politically correct society, etc...

I know if it were me (and I'm pretty well spoken about libertarian issues) I would not have been able to find a way to present the issue discussed in a palatable way - especially to a liberal audience.

At the same time... Maddow was right - this issue will *not* go away... the MSM (left AND right) will try to find a way to turn it into an issue to attack him, marginalize him and discredit him by.

It's truly ridiculous how anti-freedom some people are. Either that or they just really DON'T understand how freedom works. Ugh...

 

[Son of Liberty 2]

Rand Paul is a very courageous and a very principled man.

 

[Fr3shjive]

The way I see it, Rand needs to make this argument.

"I do not support private business allowing segregation, though I feel that they have the right to. But at the same time, people have the right to not go there, boycott their establishment, and either force them to desegregate or to close down."

Correct. Instead he just looked like he was afraid to let people know where he stood on the issue and now it seems like he has something to hide.

I hope he learns from this interview and gets a few pointers from his father.

 

[RM918]

I'm really sick of these random torpedo interviews, but until they stop working I guess they'll keep doing them. I'm far too much of a cynic these days to think they won't.

 

[Uriel999]

We should have paratrooped in Toady to bitchslap Maddow during the interview.

 

[Bman]

Correct. Instead he just looked like he was afraid to let people know where he stood on the issue and now it seems like he has something to hide.

I hope he learns from this interview and gets a few pointers from his father.

I didn't see it that way at all. He answered the question. He just didn't give the answer using the words Rachel wanted.

He doesn't need to learn anything, Handled it perfectly IMHO, and if the Dems want to continue down this path I think we can expect Grayson's loss to look like quite a respectful showing.

 

[CasualApathy]

Rand was too defensive, but he finished off strong at least.

Racism is evil, but private property isn't.

 

[BillyDkid]

And, of course, Morning Joe did all they could to stir the pot, saying that Rand has until the end of the day to "take it back". Rand needs to take this head on. The worst thing he can do is back down on this. He needs to articulate his views forcefully, emphasizing the importance of equality under the law as well as the sanctity of property rights. Things may well fall apart in this country by the end of the year, so it may all be a moot point. Maybe when people have something real to worry about, like where their next meal is coming from and how to clothe their kids, they won't get hysterical over a lack of political correctness.

 

[YumYum]

This is going to be a war of philosophies. We always new it would come down to this. I just wish he wasn't working on less than one hour of sleep on his way to battle!

When Howard Dean was running and started screaming, he too was working on less than an hour of sleep. The press didn't care, and they murdered him. Rand's position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will be his undoing. It will be his "Dean Scream".