Sorry, TOO LATE: Rand Paul Regrets Rachel Maddow Appearance: ' POOR POLITICAL DECISION '

Oh oh, Rand Paul thinks " THEY have unleashed the LOONY LEFT " on him....:crazy:



Rand Paul On Civil Rights Controversy:" I SHOULDN'T HAVE TALKED TO RACHEL MADDOW ":cry:


The morning after he declined to endorse the totality of the Civil Rights Act in his much-discussed appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show, Dr. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) copped to feeling regret -- not over his comments, but rather his decision to be interviewed by Maddow in the first place.


"It was a poor political decision and probably won't be happening anytime in the near future," the Tea Party endorsed Senate candidate said on the Laura Ingraham show on Thursday morning. "Because, yeah, they can play things and want to say, 'Oh you believed in beating up people that were trying to sit in restaurants in the 1960s.' And that is such a ridiculous notion and something that no rational person is in favor of. she went on and on about that."


Blaming the messenger is a tactic often used by politicians when the message itself is to blame. And Paul's appearance on the Maddow show on Wednesday night was anything but bland. For 15 minutes, he and the host went back and forth in debating where there should be limits to government efforts to desegregate private institutions (Paul was skeptical that the government should play any role at all). But the notion that the MSNBC host was somehow unloading liberal hostilities on him doesn't jibe with the fact that Paul got the same type of treatment during an NPR interview earlier that morning -- or, for that matter, that a conservative voice on MSNBC, Joe Scarborough, seemed aghast at his answers. "He needs to come up with an answer today, or Kentucky will be Arizona: a battleground for ugly, racial politics," Scarborough said. "He has 24 hours."


(Paul, in fact, chose Maddow's show to initially launch his Senate candidacy a year prior to last night's appearance.)


Paul did seem to draw back (or tighten) his discussion of the Civil Rights Act during his interview with Ingraham.


"These are settled issues in the Civil Rights Act," he said. "I have no intention of bringing up anything related to the Civil Rights Act... I think is sort of a stain and blight on our history -- so, no, I have never really favored any change in the Civil Rights Act or any of that. But they have seemed to unleash the loony left on me."


<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-civil-rights-rachel-maddow_n_583292.html>

:rofl:

If I were running NBC News, it'd be announced TODAY. And somehow I'd have (hopefully) talked her into keeping her M-F show, too. And David Gregory can go back to general assignment reporting, or be sent overseas or somewhere else, where he can't fawn over the GOP anymore.

She needs to be on AS PROMINENTLY AND AS BROADLY AS POSSIBLE, and featured on NBC-proper, the big leagues and the bigtime, not kept just on their shadow network with its poor cable penetration.

She was WUNNNNNNNNderful last night!!! Someone who actually held one of these assholes' feet to the fire, and wouldn't let them squirm out of it, but kept going back and probing, rather than - "okay, thank you for your statement there! Moving on..." She DIDN'T move on. She KEPT on. You don't just let the talking point be spewed and figure - "okay! I've done my journalistic duty! They had their say so it's covered! And now for an eye on Hollywood..."

We need her there, too. But we need her MORE than just there. AND once I'd have elevated her, I'd be launching a coast-to-coast search for MORE Rachel Maddow types. We'd have a whole network full of a new kind of journalism - one that DOESN'T believe you simply MUST give both sides equal time, when one of those sides is the Flat Earth Society.

Her Monday-through-Friday vehicle is even more essential now than ever before. This makes her a frickin' break-out star! She's setting up a new template and a new role model for up-and-coming journalists. I hope MSNBC submits last night's show for a lot of awards! And I hope Rachel gets a raise as big as rand paul's ego!!!!

"And I hope Rachel gets a raise as big as rand paul's ego!!!!"

They don't have the guts to face someone who won't hand them softballs.

Gregory is a flop on Meet the Press. He doesn't know he's being lied to. Rachel would expose any liar on the show.

You think GE is gonna let someone host Meet the Press who will lose access to 3/4 of the politicians in this country? Not gonna happen...

I know NBC only cares about access and high profile figures being on their show, and couldn't care less about truth or facts. It's obvious the way they let people deliberately lie when any competent host would confront their blatant lies. Gregory is completely inept. But he came from the White House Press Corp which is just an exclusive club, not a fact or truth seeking organization. The WHPC is made up of people who never once asked Bush a tough question. If they did we would not have gone to war against Iraq. Hell, not one member of the WHPC even asked "How could Iraq attack the US within 45 minutes in the form of a mushroom cloud" when they have no navy, no real air force, and a missile system that only has a range of 500 miles, and with horrible accuracy. But no one asked and because of idiots like Gregory 5,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed.

Meet the Press is a ridiculous spectacle where insiders are paraded through who are incapable of being honest. The fake correspondents on The Daily Show are a thousand times better 'journalists' than anyone in the WHPC or the host of Meet the Press.

Lastly, so what if someone didn't show up? I would rather see a cardboard cutout of someone who refused to appear and then skewer him by listing all of the lies he told, using video as the Daily Show does so well to show their hypocrisy and dishonesty. It's sad when the Daily Show's 'correspondents' are closer to people like Walter Chronkite than anyone in the WHPC or the talking heads on those Sunday morning political shows.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

right? :eyes:

Personal responsibility my ass.

mastered.

have no clue what unfair victimization is all about.

If Rachel is the "loony left" as defined by the RW loons, we're going to be in power for a long time.

Rand Paul and most of America's politicians are simply not used to journalists that are informed and willing to challenge them. Maddow showed clearly that Paul's ideas are extremists and more importantly she used real world examples that had Paul stuttering and stammering a ridiculous defense.

Bravo to Rachel!

Poor, poor, Rand...:eyes:

Don't go toe to toe with Rachel. She will kick your ass. Drink your milkshake. Burn your fields and sow them with salt. She will make your press secretary gnash her teeth, tear at her garments and consider suicide.

She will expose you for the intellectual frotterist that you really are.

He misunderestimated her - she only wants the facts and the truth, as unspun as possible. And she's not above poking pins into blowhards' balloons, either.

I LOVE-LOVE-LOVE how she digs into the wrong-wing media machinery, the concocted websites that turn truth on its ass, all those high-sounding "Hardworking Taxpayers For America" and "Freedom-Loving Americans For Liberty"-type organizations that want to put their thumbs on the scales of justice and equality and fair play everywhere. When I was in radio, I always wanted to do an ongoing feature on that - the fancy-ass cosmetic titles for these organizations that are nothing more than big-business covers. I LOVE how she's singlehandedly dug into C Street and the vile vermin that use it for cover. And I LOVE how she confronted that little weasel rand paul. LOVE IT!!!! FORCED him to "try" to explain his addled world view that only works in the most elitist pie-in-the-sky utopia of the imagination.

Where's anybody else on these scams? ANYBODY? Oh, sure, "60 Minutes," SOMETIMES. Occasionally. Not like it used to, though.

I wish we had 100-THOUSAND Rachel Maddows at work out there. Sure glad she's on OUR side!

Once again -

WE have Hillary Clinton. The best they've got is sarah palin.

WE have Barack Obama. All they can come up with is michael steele.

WE have Rachel Maddow. All they got is gretchen carlson and that megyn creature and the newsmodels and other blow-up dolls with the big shiny lips that you find on Pox Noise.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit, I guess. Glad WE are on the side of the brilliance.

Or should I say the second - the first was running as a teabag.

Keep 'em coming!

should have stuck with clowns like David Gregory and Chuck Todd.

:patriot:

MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?

PAUL: Yes

:shrug:

most media....

I'm supposed to believe it was purely by chance that your national TV debut as a candidate was in a liberal "lion's den?" You knew exactly what you were doing, and you did it to show your base how "courageous" you are. But having been on Maddow's show before, you must have known WHO you were dealing with. Why weren't you better prepared?

No, Rand, the lunacy is all yours, and you've shown how poorly qualified you are to be ANY kind of a politician!

:headbang:
rocktivity

P.S. And when will you have his opponent Jack Conway on your show, Rachel? He and Blanche Lincoln's opponent Bill Halter could sure use some national exposure.

P.P.S. Here's where you can donate to Conway and Halter (even if you live out of state):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8368023&mesg_id=8368023

I'll get out the world's tiniest violin: :nopity:

Libertarians are more closely aligned with anarchists that any other political movement. For the most part they believe we are all on are own to do as we see fit. It is laughable that Obama is called socialist by the Paul crowd so maybe we should call them anarchists. They are closer to anarchy than Obama is to socialism. This Paul campaign will be fun.

:rofl: What'd he want, Rachael to kiss his fucking ass?

Who in their right mind would think they could get over on Maddow.

Boo hoo, what a wimp. Keep digging that grave Randbot. The politically astute thing to do would be to have courage in your convictions and stand by your own words and the meanings they imply.

Its his own damn fault.

Rachel takes no prisoners!

(sorry no cat picture available.)

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

as they want to have the complete freedom to be the greedy, selfish bastards the vast majority of them ARE, all cloaked in free market and individual liberty BS. They spout the words of morality and build pedestals onto which they stand and preach, but eventually their hypocritical actions get them knocked off that pedestal. It's merely a matter of time in this day and age.

Most authentic progressives and liberals strive toward morally legislating for the Common Good.


IMHO.

it's DADT, DOMA, ENDA, creating constitutional amendments to "protect marriage" (while schtupping their staffers or "luggage carriers") or any way they can poke their nasty noses into someone else's life. The instant they get hoist on their own petards, then they're all about "please respect our privacy" and squalling for Jeebus on camera.

Hypocritical fucks.

where you are not surrounded by Tea Party nuts kissing your behind.

.....because he ain't seen nothin' yet.

nor will other news channels. lol.

I fucked up badly and I demand a "do over". Fox never asks me real questions that I might trip all over. It isn't fair.

As he should.

twisted, ill-informed, divider on the rest of the country.

Alaska and Kentucky are dead to me.

But I'm sure that it won't happen AGAIN. ;-)

i hope so.

He just should have had positions and thoughts that are acceptable to most people.

It was not talking to her that was the problem, it is the thoughts behind the ideology that creates the way he looks when he does get asked those questions.

Then he's already setup to fall - "It was a poor political decision and probably won't be happening anytime in the near future" is another way for Rand Paul to admit he was caught trifling into public view the gibberish he's been hearing round the Ron & Rand Paul Family dinner table his whole life

Good mistake to make, IMO.

Usually. Unless your real self is vile and indefensible.

... about his views on the Civil Rights Act.

(Sigh)

...and possibly gain any legislative influence in the tiniest degree show how fucked up this system and culture really are.

This is the "best" "democracy" can offer up? Give me a fucking break.

It was only on Rachel's show that people started paying attention.

Oops.

All this would have come out before the general election. I'm glad Rachel gets the credit.

edited for spelling

And he's misrepresenting her questions to him. She didn't ask if he supported beating up people at lunch counters, she asked if he thought private business owners should be allowed to refuse service to people on the basis of race. He never answered the question. He's a lying little weasel and a stone racist. What the fuck kind of doctor is he, anyway?

Rachel had a very simple question that, if he really believed his own libertarian ideology, he could have answered very simply in words something like this:

"I believe the rights of private business owners are sacrosanct and ought not to be subject to any government influence, no matter how well-intentioned (or for that matter, no matter how positive the results of the intervention; rights are "trump cards" that must prevail over utilitarian calculations). I agree that segregation was wrong, but I believe it is even more wrong to use the power of the state to impose a solution on private citizens. The reach of government must be limited, even if sometimes with unfortunate consequences, if we are to enjoy true freedom."

It's not that there isn't a coherent and even principled, non-racist position he could take. But as he well knows, the problem is that it's an extreme view, with support (as it should) running at levels comparable to the fraction of the vote Libertarian candidates usually garner in national elections. So he tried to have it both ways by pretending Rachel's questions were impugning his attitudes about race rather than exposing his extremism about the role of government.

His question about whether a business owner should have the right to prohibit firearms in their establishment could have served as the basis for a good discussion of rights in conflict, but he tried to play it as a "gotcha" card by presuming what the "liberal" response and taking imagined response to reveal a double-standard. It was also weird how he kept bringing up the 1st Amendment, when the issue was never whether a business owner could express abhorrent views in speech or writing.

(a) awareness of how much in the minority his views are (most people like him have a narcissistic inflation of how prevalent their views are, or how superior their views are to others', and that these others will gasp with awe once their eyes have been opened; and
(b) cleverness in trying to have it both ways.

Didn't Palin blame Couric's interview for her incredibly vacuous answers?

If a goddamn politician can't answer questions they have no business running government.

Ok Randy boy...over to Hannity for an interview or 12.

of a private business exercising its right to discriminate based on color of skin. We do not need to hypothesize; the discussion is about those sit-ins. The question is, "Do you support the black protesters or the stores?"