[tubez] Rand Paul talks about Ron and Newt on Hannity Radio (12/08/11)

[deadfish]

I disagree with you guys. I think he was unprepared and I think overall he lost. A couple of examples.

1. He said that the wars has never been declared by the Congress. Hannity said that the Constitution doesn't require exact language and the Congress authorization was actual declaration of war. I've heard the same argument from Mark Levine and others. It's a major point of attack on Ron Paul. Rand SAID NOTHING. He turned the conversation to Obama, that now the Congress doesn't do even that. And they both giggled.
2. About Ron's foreign policy. Rand said that What Ron Paul advocates is just smaller more flexible military, not necessarily 100 thousands here and 100 thousands there. It sounded as if Ron Paul just advocates a different military tactics. Rand sounded like it's a small disagreement, a subject of compromise if needed. This is a major misrepresentation of RP foreign policy. If Rand is not able to defend it, he shouldn't pretend that it's something else.
3. I also have problem with Rand pretending and not denying that he pretended that he had a major breaking news announcement. He didn't look good. He looked sneaky. And so did the Good Doctor.

I don't know about you, but I'll never vote for Rand - I don't see much difference between him and others.

One unrelated comment. Hannity said that it's hard to get Ron Paul on his show. Why? Ron Paul knows all Hannity's argument. He should come, come often, come prepared and make his case.

The recent Ron/Rand interviews on Hannity have been "game-changing", for lack of a better term.

The issues have been debated to death. A heated debate about Iran is abrasive, passionate, and generally carries negative sentiment to the audience when Ron and Sean argue back and forth. When you put people on the defensive, it is harder to sway opinion.

You win the heart and the mind follows. This interview is very positive. Rand is a charming guy, his laughter is unique in that he sounds like he is always laughing with Sean, not laughing at him. Did not sound like Sean was hostile or defensive; even sounded sincere in applauding Rand for his well-played move.

edit: Furthermore, anyone else feel that Hannity is at a huge disadvantage when he uses "your dad" or "your father". It does not sound so bad when Sean says "you know I strongly disagree with your dad on this...."

 

[gls]

Has anyone heard of the Equal Time Rule? Radio stations are required to give equal amounts of time to political candidates at their request. I can't tell you how many times I've heard Gingrich on hamburg, not to mention people like Ann Coulter shilling for various neocons. It's about time Ron got some fair coverage.

I don't see the campaign making that request since it goes against pretty much everything RP believes in. Yes they are obviously biased against him but do we really want to support further government intervention in the arena of political speech?

 

[wgadget]

As for number three on your list, Rand told hannity that they told him and his crew what it was about and even sent them a copy of his article. What more did he need to do? Sheesh.

 

[CUnknown]

Ironic that Rand is far more skilled as a politician than his father. I only hope that underneath it all he has the same sterling character.

In any case, I didn't like hearing that he wasn't going to be in Iowa until January. Did I misunderstand? Shouldn't he be doing some serious time in Iowa as his Congressional schedule allows?

Yes, Rand is basically a genius at politics.

But let's not forget that Rand has benefited greatly from the political space Ron has bravely fought for over the years. If it weren't for Ron's "poor" politicking, this political space would not exist in America, and Rand wouldn't be a Senator.

But yeah, Rand is making use of this space amazingly well.

 

[gls]

Ron can be a very shrewd pol as well. How do you think he managed to get elected to Congress so many times with the entire establishment fighting against him?

 

[CUnknown]

I disagree with you guys. I think he was unprepared and I think overall he lost. A couple of examples.

1. He said that the wars has never been declared by the Congress. Hannity said that the Constitution doesn't require exact language and the Congress authorization was actual declaration of war. I've heard the same argument from Mark Levine and others. It's a major point of attack on Ron Paul. Rand SAID NOTHING. He turned the conversation to Obama, that now the Congress doesn't do even that. And they both giggled.

But the words "and now Congress doesn't even do that" assumes that an authorization for use of force is a lesser standard than declaration of war. His defense of Ron was hidden but it's still there. I'd prefer than Rand come right out and be combative, but he's calculated that it's in the best interests of liberty to slightly hide, and only come out guns blazing on things that really matter like the Patriot Act.

2. About Ron's foreign policy. Rand said that What Ron Paul advocates is just smaller more flexible military, not necessarily 100 thousands here and 100 thousands there. It sounded as if Ron Paul just advocates a different military tactics. Rand sounded like it's a small disagreement, a subject of compromise if needed. This is a major misrepresentation of RP foreign policy. If Rand is not able to defend it, he shouldn't pretend that it's something else.

Ron would still go after terrorists! It's just that there wouldn't be any if he was President. Are you saying that if there -was- a 9/11-type event during Paul's term, that he wouldn't go after them? I think you're wrong on that. I think Rand has this one right.

3. I also have problem with Rand pretending and not denying that he pretended that he had a major breaking news announcement. He didn't look good. He looked sneaky. And so did the Good Doctor.

We don't know who was lying on that, him or Rand. My money is that Rand was telling the truth. I don't trust Hannity any further than I can throw him.

I don't know about you, but I'll never vote for Rand - I don't see much difference between him and others.

One unrelated comment. Hannity said that it's hard to get Ron Paul on his show. Why? Ron Paul knows all Hannity's argument. He should come, come often, come prepared and make his case.

Again, I don't trust Hannity. I think that "it's hard to get Ron on my show" is another lie to make Ron look bad. Why would he refuse? Every TV host is hostile to him these days, what's the difference.

As far as not voting for Rand, wow really? Even after he's proven himself by almost blocking the Patriot Act extension and the speaking out against the American Citizen detention in gitmo bill? And like a hundred other small ways?

 

[JoshS]

Rand's too weak and a panderer.

He's not 'supporting his dad', he's informing the country on who these candidates really are, WHY WON'T HE SHUT HANNITY UP. Dear lord Rand's weak, I can't stand dude.

Everyone praising Rand's oration, listen to his dad at that age. Rand can't hold a flame to his dad.

 

[kylejack]

Closing line from Sean: "Breaking News: I hate the other guys and I like my Dad."

ahahaha

 

[Publicani]

CUunkown:

About not voting for him, I take it back. He's no Ron, but I would probably vote for him. But I would probably vote for Palin also.

About lying for the reason to come on the show. During conversation, Hannity asked a woman (an assistant?) whether Rand told them what the breaking news. She said no, and Rand didn't correct her.

Now why are you building a straw man? I didn't say Ron wouldn't go after terrorists. But he would close the bases around the world, get us out of NATO, bring the troops home, reduce military budget, ii's not just tactical disagreement with Hannity.

And about war declaration - Rand could have at least said that Ron Paul called for Congressional declaration of war with Iraq - and it never happened.

 

[AuH20]

Ron can be a very shrewd pol as well. How do you think he managed to get elected to Congress so many times with the entire establishment fighting against him?

Earmarks certainly don't hurt in currying favor among the locals. Granted, those earmarks pale in comparison to the formidable movement he's created, so it's a small blemish.

 

[JoshS]

Earmarks certainly don't hurt in currying favor among the locals. Granted, those earmarks pale in comparison to the formidable movement he's created, so it's a small blemish.

I don't think you understand earmarks...

The Randites coming out of the woodwork ITT

 

[AuH20]

I don't think you understand earmarks...

The Randites coming out of the woodwork ITT

No, I understand earmarks quite well. Money is appropriated for earmarks the year prior. No one is putting a gun to anyone's head to put in a request for them. Earmarks are slimy and the rationalization that somehow it's a communal fund that will be spent anyway simply doesn't pass the ethics test. Either is the ludicrous notion that you're stealing back tax dollars for an entity like the local shrimp industry. I wish I could steal back my tax dollars as well, but then again I have no motive for being re-elected. Look, Ron had to do what he had to do, especially with the establishment hellbent with destroying him. He's a good guy as shown by his willingness to discard his congressional pension.

 

[Dave39168]

Gingrich/Romney have taken "different and varying positions"

this is hannity-speak for massive flip flop

 

[Publicani]

"t’s astonishing that the authorization passed by the committee mentions the United Nations dozens of times, yet does not mention the Constitution once. Congress has allowed itself to be bypassed completely, even though much is made of the President’s generosity in "consulting" legislators about the war. The real negotiations took place between the Bush administration and the UN, replacing debate in the people’s house. By transferring its authority to declare war to the President and ultimately the UN, Congress not only violates the Constitution, but also disenfranchises the American electorate.
I don’t believe in resolutions that cite the UN as authority for our military actions."
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul50.html

Rand should have said something about citing U.N. as authority in those resolutions.

 

[Publicani]

I don't think you understand earmarks...

The Randites coming out of the woodwork ITT

Ditto.

 

[BIG_J]

What a fucking slime ball. I would counteract Hannity's BS by being even more fucking slimy and dirty then he is:

For example:

Hannity:"Your dad doesn't even want to come on this show, he wants you to come on because he knows, I like you better!"
Rand Paul: " Oh, you know Sean, he really loves your show, but he was busy at a rally with over 1000+ supporters in Iowa City today, he really loves your show though, if you would only agree with him on foreign policy more often, maybe he would stop by more. Oh, and why don't you like hanging out with me?!"

Fucking Douchebag.

 

[LibertyEagle]

"t’s astonishing that the authorization passed by the committee mentions the United Nations dozens of times, yet does not mention the Constitution once. Congress has allowed itself to be bypassed completely, even though much is made of the President’s generosity in "consulting" legislators about the war. The real negotiations took place between the Bush administration and the UN, replacing debate in the people’s house. By transferring its authority to declare war to the President and ultimately the UN, Congress not only violates the Constitution, but also disenfranchises the American electorate.
I don’t believe in resolutions that cite the UN as authority for our military actions."
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul50.html

Rand should have said something about citing U.N. as authority in those resolutions.

You're right. That would have been better. So, he doesn't always have the perfect rebuttal at his fingertips. So what? Could you be doing better than Rand? If so, get out there and do it. But, what the heck is with running down one of the only people in our government who is fighting for our liberty?

 

[JCF]

I love how Hannity says "I don't want to hear about Newt Gingrich's issues, or Romneycare, this is about defeating Obama!" But anytime, ANYTIME Ron is brought up by ANYONE, he always has to mention that he doesn't like his foreign policy, he always has to bash Paul slyly, just to remind his audience about "crazy uncle Ron." Why do we have to ignore all of their issues but Ron's "issue" (in his mind) always has to be brought up?

It pisses me off, but also helps me feel liberated.
---

Never was a huge fan of Rand, he did okay, but... I don't like the pandering. I've always supported a peaceful approach, but not to the point where you're almost sleeping with the dogs, because even with one eye open, it's dangerous.

 

[gls]

No, I understand earmarks quite well. Money is appropriated for earmarks the year prior. No one is putting a gun to anyone's head to put in a request for them. Earmarks are slimy and the rationalization that somehow it's a communal fund that will be spent anyway simply doesn't pass the ethics test. Either is the ludicrous notion that you're stealing back tax dollars for an entity like the local shrimp industry. I wish I could steal back my tax dollars as well, but then again I have no motive for being re-elected. Look, Ron had to do what he had to do, especially with the establishment hellbent with destroying him. He's a good guy as shown by his willingness to discard his congressional pension.

But its reality that "it's a communal fund that will be spent anyway". And why shouldn't some of those tax dollars go 'back home'. It's at least better than it just getting sucked up into the money pit that is Washington D.C.. I'm sure most taxpayers would agree.

Besides, we are talking about literally 0.05% of the Federal budget. It is a complete non-issue; a talking-point for media manipulation artists.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Please clean up your language

People, please remember that those brochures that were mailed out, listed this place as a resource for people to find out more about Ron Paul. That means that this very minute, there could be Iowa Christian conservatives reading on this site.

Please clean up your language, lest you run them away from here screaming and away from Ron Paul too.