Skip to comments.Rand Paul Should Stop Dodging And Rambling
Posted on 05/23/2010 11:36:16 AM PDT by CaroleL
wanted to watch Kentucky's Republican Senate Candidate Rand Paul on Meet The Press today. After a week of sound byte from and about Dr. Paul and his confrontational appearance on Rachel Maddow's program, I was hoping an interview on the more mainstream Sunday morning staple would allow the candidate to give a clearer impression of his views on civil rights and, specifically, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Unfortunately, he refused to show up.
As a strong believer in smaller government and less government interference in the lives of American citizens, I consider myself part of the Tea Party movement and have been interested and intrigued by the candidacy of Dr. Paul. Many of his positions resonate with my own ideals and, though I haven't agreed with everything he has said, I did believe his opinions on the issues should be part of our national discussion. Then , the day after winning the Republican primary, he made his infamous statement
(Excerpt) Read more at talkingsides.com ...
He appears to be too smart.
Why excerpt from your blog?
It isn’t on the list of sources that must be excerpted:
boston.com (www.boston.com The Boston Globe)
feer.com (Far Eastern Economic Review)
The Guardian (UK)
jacksonville.com (Florida-Times Union)
Or are you simply trolling for blog hits?
While I would personally love to bash Ms. Maddow for taking things out of context or asking unfair hypothetical questions, her interview was generally fair and Dr. Paul seemed hapless and unable to clearly state his positions on civil rights and discrimination in the brief exchange.(emphasis added)
He needs to get his act together, PDQ.
Okay, how’s this. Just as soon as the MSM stops glossing over Jupiter-sized gaffes on the part of Democrats, we’ll start caring about moon-of-Pluto-sized gaffes on the part of our candidates. Deal?
While I certainly agree that the MSM glosses over (or outright ignores) Democrats’ gaffes, I expect better from “our candidates” regardless of what the media does.
Maybe I’m out of the loop. What did Paul say that was so horrific? [And no, I don’t buy the ‘we’re better than that’ argument. Either we’re competing on a level playing field, or we’re playing into their hands. Take your pick, but if the standards are good enough for us, they’re good enough for them, imho.]
She knows, but she won’t tell us (unless you venture to blogoland and give the secret handshake and click on their sponsors). The life of a blogger is very hard and they can’t convey information without first making a sale.
It may be hard for him to admit he is a kook.
We are not even remotely close to being a libertarian nation. I’d have been far more comfortable with Rand as a libertarian leaning conservative were it not for the fact that his father is Ron Paul who is a certified nutcase.
It is just far too likely that Rand believes pretty much the same sorts of things his Dad does whether he admits it or not. There are going to be all manner of skeletons pouring out of this closet, and were liable to find out Rand associated with Truthers, anti-war moonbats, etc, etc.
Republicans should run conservative Republican candidates, not libertarians and certainly no one from the Paul family.
And yes, of course I’d vote for Rand over the Democrat. My point is this just wasn’t one of the better candidates we could have put forward. An unconventional candidate is fine, but a Paul?
Not horrific per se but he did speak out against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and wasn't very clear about exactly what he opposed or would do differently.
And cut yourself off in mid sentence.
This is called a teaser.
There is also a term for folks who practice this.
Do you know what it is?
I think most conservatives and libertarians should study the enemy more closely, as they always set traps to confirm their stereotypes. The one that Rand Paul got into trouble with was the Civil Rights amendment which began to grow the huge government entitlement complex. Of course the institutional segregationist policies were wrong and yes, the Republicans were instrumental in passing it, but this is also where Barry Goldwater was philosophically correct, but politically on the wrong side. Doctrinaire approaches will inevitably blow up, as it did with Paul.
Agreed -- except I'd say that a lot of those skeletons are ALREADY out of the closet. See this anti-Paul piece from the David Horowitz organization:
The money quote from the article, AFAIC:
Rand and his father represent nothing less than a rejection of the Rights commitment to engaging and assessing the world as it really is, rather than as we would like it to be, and an embrace of the Lefts belief in appeasement and anti-Americanism.
Carole dearie.... you lie.
Yup, this was not a wise choice.
Nothing good will come from having nominated a Paul. If the party is going to nominate a libertarian leading candidate it had better be A) NOT a Paul, and B) an extremely good politician who can defend what is not a traditional American point of view. This is not a libertarian nation. Not even remotely close. A person with Rand’s views had better be able to handle himself and make a convincing case for his positions.
A guy like Rand will obviously infuriate the left, but he also runs the danger of pissing off the right with his libertarian foreign policy ideas. Conservatives do not want to elect Republicans who are allied with anti-war organizations. If that is what the GOP becomes it will very quickly apart.
A fuller version of the quote is ...I'm sure my experience, that you see novice candidates occasionally stumble on questions. I think he's clarified his position. But I think he's done the right thing...I think he needs to be talking to the voters back in Kentucky, the people who actually will be able to cast a ballot on whether he's elected as the next United States senator or not."
So you take the "stumbling" part of the quote, but neglect to include the part where Cornyn says that Dr. Paul has clarified his position and should be talking to the actual voters. So considerable context that would be more favorable to Paul is lost in your synopsis. Why?
Also, because Cornyn's use of the word "novice" is used mid-sentence, it should be in lower-case if you are going to use quotation marks, not capitalized as you have it. But that part doesn't affect the context; it's just sloppy journalism. After second thought, maybe a media career, perhaps at NBC or the NYT, might be a good fit for you after all.
The blog-hit-trollers are all over FR. I am really annoyed at the number of half-a**ed blogs cited here now in obviously blatant attempts to drive up their no-doubt (and well-deserved) puny readership numbers.
If a blogger wants to regale us with his brilliance, he can have the courtesy to paste the entire article on FR and give up some hits. Otherwise, I'd sooner he just leave.
I hope fellow-Freepers who feel the same will start a little push-back.
The default blog position.
If you look at the new Maine GOP Platform, you’ll see a lot of Ron Paul influences there. no “one world government” “end the fed” “austrian economics”. But the same platform has interventionisme in the middle east. You put 10 people in the room, 3 tea partiers who aren’t big Ron Paul supporters, 3 Ron Paul supporters, and 4 establishment / RINO types, and that’s likely the result you get. The Ron Paul people are able to provide a bunch of libertarian economic detail that the other tea party people agree with. The 4 establishment / RINOs would likely affiliate with the tea party on foreign policy and many social issues. “Legalize it” did not appear in the Maine GOP Platform.
People here who read the Maine GOP Platform, or read about it, were pretty happy with it.
In more accurate terms you are pimping your blog.
In the beginning full articles were always posted so one didnt have to give a hit and pick up a cookie from sites they might not ever visit. That was a big part of the draw not having to click on a site especially an expletive deleted blog that may be full of malware or viruses.
(Blog pimps suck)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.