Rand Paul’s Education in Media Bias Earned the Hard Way
As we saw last month, Rand Paul was victorious in Kentucky’s Republican Senate primary. Hurrah! This was fantastic news for supporters of liberty but horrendous news for leftists. The last thing our antagonists need in the Senate is for another die-hard freedom-promoter to assist Jim DeMint in his unwavering battle against statism. Given the obvious failings of the Obama administration, the mood of the country, and the demographics of the Bluegrass State it is quite likely that Paul will win in the general election. Regardless of this eventuality, the left is out to destroy him as assessing odds, percentages, and the possibility of unforeseen consequence are distinctly conservative habits. Utopians with enormous political libidos will never allow reality to interfere with dogmatics.
Enter Rand Paul, to whom the media now affixes the unique and clever moniker of “Racist!” This invective is illustrative of the left’s perennial stance on both intellectual diversity and criticism of their positions.
Anybody who questions them is branded with some kind of “ism.” Ah, the only things that never change are the avant-garde and the nefarious tactics of pseudo-liberals.
In light of Paul’s sterling pedigree — he is the son of libertarian and constitutional conservative hero Dr. Ron Paul (Rand is a doctor as well) — his is a candidacy that must be derailed because, to our foes, the ends always justify the means.
Thus, Rachel Maddow, who is a polymorphous radical and talk show host over at MSLSD, brought the soon-to-be Kentucky senator onto her program in the hopes of stringing him up. She partially succeeded by manufacturing a controversy regarding race out of dense air.
I first heard of the event the following morning when the lead story on my internet browser announced: “How Rand Paul’s civil-rights views escaped media scrutiny.” Well, no bias there.
All I wanted to do by opening up the page was to check my mail. Had I wanted to hear a drone spout off about politics I could have watched the Today Show. Unfortunately, sneak attacks like this are precisely the way indoctrination works in 2010.
The most prominent search engines reach millions of viewers. Their editors are fully aware that polemics disguised as reports will sway the undecided in a sound-byte culture wherein titles are sometimes the only words that many folks digest.
By this fashion, the neo-socialist perspective is injected into countless educational and entertainment materials and forms conventional wisdom thereafter.
The Yahoo.com journalist did not waste time in getting to his theme. He cited another source who denounced Paul the Younger as being “repulsive to people in the mainstream” and as having “an unacceptable view of civil rights.”
The pressman moved on to Maddow, but only after referencing a NPR Q & A in which the activist/host posited the fallacious question, “Just how conservative, how radical, how extremist are you?”
To the coat-and-tie radical, such a query is the essence of fairness, but Paul should have retorted, “Not at all. I believe in liberty and have never met or promoted Van Jones.”
>MSNBC is a political operation first and a news source never second. Rand Paul went to Maddow expecting an interview.
If they’re a political operation why was he so naive to think that he should expect an interview?
No individual thinker could possibly take the tripe that MSNBC and the MSM trot out on a daily basis, particularly when it comes from Rachel Maddow. the good people of KY are perfectly capable of picking a leader that stands for their beliefs.
what I am mad as hell about is that Snitch McConnell turned on Paul in an instant because he wasn’t ‘his guy’.
McConnell has served his purpose and his style of leadership that folds to the MSM is not what this country needs.
Ron Paul is a conservative “hero” ??
How do you figure?
Great article. I agree completely.
I’m not a huge fan of either of the Pauls. Ron got a pass from the media because of his opposition to the invasion of Iraq and the U.S. presence in the mid-east. Without that credential he would have been pigeonholed as a “populist crank.” Rand just learned a valuable lesson. When you run for office with an (R) after your name you are always in the enemy’s camp when dealing with the MSM.
Rachel kept asking Rand the same question over again for twenty minutes. He gave her his consistent answer for twenty minutes. Because he did not give her the answer she wanted she says he ran from her. Obviously, to her way of thinking consistency is running. That’s a lefty for you.
“Just how conservative, how radical, how extremist are you?”
From now on, all conservative interview subjects confronted with idiotic questions like this should answer the interviewer with the following:
“So, when did you stop beating your spouse?”
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
[For a light hearted take on our present peril]
The rub for many of us lies not in extending civil rights, but the method in which it was done. Slavery, for example, a far worse evil than jim crow, was eradicated by constitutional amendment after 4 years of war. No one wants a war, but one does want such respect for the Constitution. Jim Crow should have been ended by a constitutional amendment. Instead, Congress was given the power to endlessly expand its reach, and it has done so.
Paul should propose a civil rights amendment.
Rand made a big mistake in not being prepared for the MSM as the enemy.
I think he should have gone on the Meet The Press and been prepared to
a) describe in simple terms the over reach of gov’t that he opposed,
b) remind the voters that Jim Crow laws were enacted by the Dem Party,
c) define racism as treating people differently based on their skin color — and invoke MLK to define the Dream of non-racism — treating his children and all children based on their character, not skin color,
d) ask whoever is interviewing him whether THEY are a racist? whether they want to have policies that treat people differently based on skin color?
Optional (e) say that Affirmative Action treats different races differently, and should be more honestly called Affirmative Racism — and be against Affirmative Racism.
So where’s he been — why didn’t Rand know the nature of the beast?
Nobody should go into politics if he or she has this kind of naivete. It is unforgivable. If elected, he’ll be like a babe in the woods in Washington. And they wonder why it’s called the Stupid Party.
I would rather have a politician who is honest, consistent, and places good of the country over good of the party, but does bad interviews than one who interviews well, but is a lying, vacillating, party hack. We already elected Obama.
If Rand Paul can’t handle a left wing interviewer like Rachel Maddow, he deserves to lose. Even if he wins in November, he will forever be branded as a racist, and by implication, all Republicans. David Duke was eagerly booked on all the talk shows because they could put his name up on the screen with an (R) next to his name.
Wow, to be honest I don’t truly know what to say. I have only read the very first chapter so far and it has been really fascinating and has definitely caught my attention. I will absolutely be reading extra, I promise. I feel it has been Incredibly good so far. I love it! Maintain up the wonderful perform!