[Video] Rand interviewed on CNN, news anchor keeps talking over him

This host is a condescending piece of shit who didn't even once address Rand as senator and instead called him freshman in the beginning of the interview. Freshman what? And I love it how he pretends to speak for Americans because the people I know irrespective of their party want a balanced budget. I have had democrats tell me in the past few weeks that they have to balance their family's budgets so why shouldn't the US government? This puppet just raised my blood pressure but it is a good reminder of why I canceled my cable during the last election cycle. Imo, best decision I ever made. I apologize for the rant.
 
Go look at the video I posted. And see how an ass clown journalist needs to be handled.

Is this some type of cult where we cant even offer constructive critique of the Pauls?...Sorry, but nice guys will get stomped on by the national press.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlE5cTcYZbs

Speaking so easily to say someone is weak that is taking on the most corrupt and powerful organizations on the planet and succeeding...

Strong is weak in the empire of lies
 
If you pretend to not be a Rand supporter and watch it from the most unbiased way possible, it doesn't look like Rand did that great. The host led the discussion and tried to make Rand look bad. He tried to make him look like a typical politician who is out of touch with Americans. And I don't know if people who aren't fans of Rand would be able to look beyond that.

How about the average person who isn't a fan of Rand but isn't a fan of raising the debt ceiling either? The host was doing his job as a paid shill and journalistic hatchet man. He wanted to corner Rand into a soundbite. Rand has learned now how not to get caught in soundbite hatchet journalism after dealing with Maddow. The key is to stay on the offensive and that's what he did. All of this "With all due respect" crap the host was throwing around was just a cover for an obvious agenda.

Also I reject the premise that Americans in general want "compromise" on this issue and just want it "resolved". I looked up polling on the question. The media is spinning anger at congress into a lie that its anger at partisanship. Look at this story from the LA Times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-debt-ceiling-pew-poll-20110801,0,5434954.story
People may disagree about the value of the pending debt-ceiling compromise, but the one thing that seems to unite just about everyone, regardless of their political leanings, is that the recent negotiations were a low point in the political process, according to a poll released Monday by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and the Washington Post.

While the Washington political world seemed sharply divided in the partisan deadlock of democracy, the rest of the country found unity in seeing the misery. A staggering 72% had nothing but derision in describing the process, using terms such as a "ridiculous," "disgusting," "stupid" and "frustrating." Other frequently used terms included "terrible," "disappointing," "childish" and "a joke," the survey found.


But check this out!

But all was not completely bleak: 2% found something nice to say about the process and 11% said they were neutral despite the wave of media coverage on the issue. Democrats were more likely than Republicans to have a positive view, but it was still just 4%.

Need further convincing that the media is lying about this issue?

About the only good thing in the poll was that the battle seems to have brought people together, but perhaps not in the way politicians would most like. The survey, conducted July 28-31 among 1,001 adults, finds that negativity reigned across the usual lines of political demarcation. According to the poll, 75% of Republicans, 72% of Democrats and 72% of independents gave similar views. Republicans seeing themselves as part of the “tea party” movement were particularly negative at 83%.

So tea party disgust at the deal is being spun by the liberal media as disgust over the "tone" in Washington and the "lack of getting anything done"? Really?
 
In Rand's interview on AC360 Anderson brought up the fact that journalists have about as low an approval rating as politicians.

Maybe Rand should bring that up next time an obnoxious host tries to get on his high horse and say "we the American people are fed up with you guys" -- Rand should turn that around and say "excuse me, but you're not an average citizen, you're a journalist, and the polls show the American people are just as fed up with you as they are with us. The only difference is, millions of Americans voted to select me to represent them, whereas the only person who selected you to supposedly 'speak' on behalf of the American people is your boss at CNN. Big difference there."

Rand could have then gone on a rant about how "we the American people" are fed up with journalists parroting the false narratives from Washington and enabling politics-as-usual instead of properly executing their duty as the fourth estate.

Then again, I guess it's not so great if Rand doesn't get invited back to TV because he trashes the hosts too much. :)
 
Last edited:
Lemon was disrespectful until the very end. I love the way he ended the interview by telling Senator Paul to get back to work because "we" want compromise and progress on a "deal."
 
Rand really handled that well, considering the circumstances. The anchor was trying to goad him into an emotional outburst that would cost Rand and the whole movement dearly in terms of the credibility we have earned over the past 4 years. Instead Rand kept his cool, stuck to his guns, and buried the attack.

I think we can expect to see these types of sucker punch tactics continue to escalate as we continue to gain mainstream popularity and credibility. Ron and Rand need to watch whose interview requests they accept. The Rachel Maddows and Keith Olbermans are in the obvious "avoid" category (unless they can keep the discussions in foreign policy and civil liberties territory), but I'd say now you've got to start watching out for the more moderate John King and Wolf Blitzer types...
 
First of all, I never wanted compromise on the debt ceiling. I would have preferred the Republicans to vote against raising the debt ceiling and let the Democrats be seen as the party of reckless debt, but of course they are both the party of debt and out of control spending.

I respect people who stand on principle far more than i respect those who compromise.

I think Rand did a good job of responding to this douche bag.
 
"The Tea Party". Rand Paul....

And to think, the partisan establishment hated eachother yesterday, but they finally achieve common ground in their hatred of the Tea Party today. They're drawing back the pendulum for another swing, lets have a repeat of 2010. Lets keep chipping away at this until we regain control. How this "Super Congress" is even acceptable in anyone's eyes is beyond me. This should just fuel the fire for 2012.
 
More coverage:
http://minx.cc/?post=319576
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=27963

The post at Verum Serum completely exposes Lemon as a shill. He's so hypocritical when "interviewing" Progressive Caucus co-chair Rep. Raul Grijalva compared to the "questions" for Rand Paul:

Here are the questions this time:

1) Thank you very much Congressman, you doing okay tonight?
2) Clearly the President caved, why?
3) What would you have like to have seen the President do? Because even Mitch McConnell said on Saturday, he said listen, the President is the one who decides this. If he agrees with us then most of the Democrats will fall in line. What would you have liked to have seen from the President?
4) Congressman I want to ask you this. Really it’s about the President’s political future, whether or not it has helped him, but let me read this first and then you can answer. Your colleague in New York Gary Ackerman said the Republicans invited the President “to negotiate as a strip poker table and he showed up half naked.” And then liberal columnist Paul Krugman calls the deal “an abject surrender.” Would the President be better off running as a conservative in 2012?
5) It’s not that he’s too conservative, but do you feel he is strong enough when it comes to these issues, fighting for what Democrats want.
6) You think this won’t matter by 2012, that he’s not going to be hurt by this politically?
7) There is this chart that has been going around showing that Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to want their representative to compromise. Democrats twice as likely as Republicans to want their representatives to compromise, all right to get things done. And then that Republicans are twice as likely to want the representatives to stick to their principles. Would it be better for the country if Democrats were more like Republicans or perhaps if Republicans were more like Democrats?
8) It’s not done until it’s done. You know how that is. There are still more votes to be taken.

Quite a contrast isn’t it? When interviewing Sen. Paul, Don Lemon spoke for Democrats and for the “frustrated” American people about the need to compromise. When interviewing Rep. Grijalva, he seemed to be speaking for frustrated Democrats who want the President to fight harder and compromise less.

The framing of the entire Rand Paul interview is why won’t you intransigent Tea Partiers compromise now that you’ve made your point. On the other hand, the interview with Rep. Grijalva is about not giving in so easily.

It’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that Don Lemon has a horse in this race or, more precisely, a jackass.

Wow.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top