Video update: Rand Paul on Hannity Fox News show 1/26/12

[goldpants]

If anyone is interested


update:


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

 

[bluesc]

It won't be related to Ron, so doesn't really belong in GRC.

 

[Wren]

..

 

[bluesc]

Hannity assumes that Rand is different, not as 'kooky', and thinks it's okay to cheapshot his dad in front of him. Rand just takes it sometimes and it pisses me of to hear this slimy weasel insult RP without any response from his own son.

Rand is naive. He thinks if he lets Hannity say whatever he wants and goes along with it, that Hannity won't screw him in 2016. Rand is already distancing himself from Ron, so don't expect him to stick up for him.

 

[jtbraine]

mnmnmm

 

[Wren]

//

 

[The Gold Standard]

They will both be on there panicked about Iran's "belligerence" and trashing his daddy's foreign policy.

 

[cajuncocoa]

WHY? Come on, Rand....get a clue!!

 

[Pisces]

Rand is naive. He thinks if he lets Hannity say whatever he wants and goes along with it, that Hannity won't screw him in 2016. Rand is already distancing himself from Ron, so don't expect him to stick up for him.

This isn't true. He has defended Ron's foreign policy when he's been campaigning for him. For example, this article http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/rand-paul-calls-rick-santorum-a-war-mongering-moderate.php , which calls Rand a "walking daisy ad on behalf of his Dad". You don't think this made a lot of Levin fans and Republican neocons mad?

Also, in the following interview with Hannity, he again defends Ron and his foreign policy. He gets a subtle dig in at Sean near the beginning of the interview. But no, he's not going to punch him on air. In business and politics it never looks good to lose your temper.

 

[bluesc]

This isn't true. He has defended Ron's foreign policy when he's been campaigning for him. For example, this article http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/rand-paul-calls-rick-santorum-a-war-mongering-moderate.php , which calls Rand a "walking daisy ad on behalf of his Dad". You don't think this made a lot of Levin fans and Republican neocons mad?

Also, in the following interview with Hannity, he again defends Ron and his foreign policy. He gets a subtle dig in at Sean near the beginning of the interview. But no, he's not going to punch him on air. In business and politics it never looks good to lose your temper.

Notice how I say he is beginning to distance himself? I'm not saying he hasn't done a great job and a great service to Ron on the campaign trail. He has. But I expect it to end now judging by the direction he's been moving over the last few days.

 

[Pisces]

Notice how I say he is beginning to distance himself? I'm not saying he hasn't done a great job and a great service to Ron on the campaign trail. He has. But I expect it to end now judging by the direction he's been moving over the last few days.

What do you mean? He hasn't been campaigning (and he's not the only one) and as far as I know no one has asked him about Ron's foreign policy lately. Can you point to a specific incidence where he "distanced himself" from his Dad? Are you basing this on the fact that everyone on the forums is disappointed in him cause he doesn't understand that the body scanners are dangerous?

 

[bluesc]

What do you mean? He hasn't been campaigning (and he's not the only one) and as far as I know no one has asked him about Ron's foreign policy lately. Can you point to a specific incidence where he "distanced himself" from his Dad? Are you basing this on the fact that everyone on the forums is disappointed in him cause he doesn't understand that the body scanners are dangerous?

He was on the campaign trail with Ron in Iowa and NH.

I say he is distancing himself because he goes along with Hannity's bashing of Ron, and distanced himself from Ron's comments on the TSA. He is starting to sound more like a "traditional" Republican as he prepares for 2016.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Rand is naive. He thinks if he lets Hannity say whatever he wants and goes along with it, that Hannity won't screw him in 2016. Rand is already distancing himself from Ron, so don't expect him to stick up for him.

Oh, give me a break.

Man, with friends like some of you guys, who the hell needs enemies.

 

[bluesc]

Oh, give me a break.

Man, with friends like some of you guys, who the hell needs enemies.

I wasn't bashing Rand at all.

 

[jmdrake]

What do you mean? He hasn't been campaigning (and he's not the only one) and as far as I know no one has asked him about Ron's foreign policy lately. Can you point to a specific incidence where he "distanced himself" from his Dad? Are you basing this on the fact that everyone on the forums is disappointed in him cause he doesn't understand that the body scanners are dangerous?

I don't for a minute think that Rand lacks understanding about the dangers of body scanners. He can't be that naive. And I'm certain this is a subject that's come up around the dinner table so he can't be ignorant of it. That said he's talking a stealth approach on this and other issues. His episode with the TSA shows that even when you're trying to cooperate with them, they still push the envelope to far. I could see him getting support on a bill to radically change or dismantle the TSA precisely because he doesn't make claims that certain people are still to "head in the sand" to deal with. That said, his endorsement of the "trusted traveler program" bothers me. The only way we'll beat this thing is if people think "This can happen to me".

 

[Pisces]

He was on the campaign trail with Ron in Iowa and NH.

I say he is distancing himself because he goes along with Hannity's bashing of Ron, and distanced himself from Ron's comments on the TSA. He is starting to sound more like a "traditional" Republican as he prepares for 2016.

I disagree. I heard that interview and he wasnt going along with Hannity's bashing of his Dad. Did you listen to the interview? Also, where do you get that he distanced himself from Ron on the TSA? I remember the interviewer asked him if he agreed with Ron's statement and Rand answered like he always does - that is, he said what he wanted to say instead of directly answering the question. Rand always does this. It can be annoying sometimes and I'm sure it irritates the interviewers. But its not some new "distancing".

Rand has been sounding like a "traditional" Republican for quite some time now. At least in economics and in throwing out the partisan red meat. It's nothing new.

I think you're reading too much into things. If Rand wanted to distance himself from his Dad, he would of done it months ago. He's already made a lot of "mainstream" Republicans mad which you'll see if you lurk on the big neocon websites like FreeRepublic.

 

[seawolf]

Anyway his appearance might help the End the TSA Mini Money Bomb which still needs another $49,000 to meet the Campaign's $250,000 Goal.

 

[Brett85]

I wasn't bashing Rand at all.

You could've fooled me.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I don't for a minute think that Rand lacks understanding about the dangers of body scanners. He can't be that naive. And I'm certain this is a subject that's come up around the dinner table so he can't be ignorant of it. That said he's talking a stealth approach on this and other issues. His episode with the TSA shows that even when you're trying to cooperate with them, they still push the envelope to far. I could see him getting support on a bill to radically change or dismantle the TSA precisely because he doesn't make claims that certain people are still to "head in the sand" to deal with. That said, his endorsement of the "trusted traveler program" bothers me. The only way we'll beat this thing is if people think "This can happen to me".

RON Paul has also suggested something like this.

 

[Brett85]

The fact that Rand didn't call for abolishing the TSA in his recent interviews doesn't mean that he doesn't want to abolish the TSA. I believe that his budget proposal which cut 500 billion from the budget called for abolishing the TSA and allowing private companies to handle security. But he just isn't going to advocate abolishing the TSA if he isn't asked about it, because he likes to frame the issues in a way in which the maximum number of people will agree with him.