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.”
Initially, Maddow pretended to value Paul’s presence and thanked him for announcing his candidacy on her show the year before. Yet then she preceded to spew a series of questions that can be easily summed up in five words: “Why are you a racist?”
The plastique hullaballoo originally arose from a discussion Paul had with the Louisville Courier-Journal’s editorial board. There the candidate revealed a libertarian worldview that many of us share but that no lamestream media member has any interest in processing or appreciating.
Maddow hijacked him and admitted: “I know this must feel like frying pan and into the fire.” Paul repeated that he did not believe in segregation, racism, “discrimination in any form,” or anything else that Maddow was trying to frame him with.
Specifically, Paul’s position was that while he believed in civil rights and abhorred segregation, he was uneasy with the end result.
Largely thanks to civil rights legislation (that absolutely had to be passed) the federal government can now stick its rhinocarian horns into the affairs of private businesses whenever the fancy strikes a bored or porn addicted bureaucrat.
Obviously, federal intervention was necessary and effective in regards to the south. It is unfortunate though that leftists continue to use that unusual example to forever de-legitimize the concept of federalism.
Local rule, as a rule, is best. This is something that is lost in the present day as the Democrats seek to shift all power and authority to their Washington, D.C., federocracy.
Ultimately, centralization spells death for individual liberty. That is the essence of what Rand Paul believes and sought to explain.
Much is made by pseudo-liberals of their nuanced minds, but Maddow morphed a sophisticated constitutional objection into lowbrow farce.
Paul’s failure to convince her was entirely predictable as you cannot “shake hands with a clenched fist.” Self-righteous ideologues high on emotion are not good candidates for an education.
Of course there was nothing inflammatory about what Paul said or even thought. He’s no Senator Bilbo, but the same cannot be said of those Democrats who want to doom large subsections of America to a life spent on the dole.
Some of Maddow’s leftist conspecifics were aware that Paul was no strawman so they downgraded his utterances to the misdemeanor charge of “extremist” or racial echoer, while Newsweek hoped the affair would serve as proof that all members of the tea parties were racist.
Who is primarily to blame for this charade? Regrettably, it is Rand Paul. Naïveté on his part produced this result. Otter in Animal House said words that could easily have been mouthed by Rachel Maddow: “You f***** up … you trusted us!”
Yes, Ms. Maddow is conniving, manipulative, and dim, but that is who she is; a radical’s radical. Blaming her for toxic traits is like castigating a grizzly bear for excessive hunger.
Had Paul the Younger made the logical choice of refusing to appear on the nation’s most politically corrupt network he could have side-stepped this fracas. Why Republicans continue to sabotage themselves by courting the opinion of their enemies is unknown.
Other GOP candidates must learn from the Paul flare-up and comprehend that there is no honor or good faith among leftists. Conservative pols should avoid their television networks and publications altogether.
Radicals have organized a boycott of Glenn Beck, but what our side must do is initiate a boycott of Big Journalism. Atop the verboten list should be the statist likes of Newsweek, Time, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSPMS, CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, PBS, etcetera and etcetera.
Nothing can be gained by debating Alinskyites who are so unscrupulous that they refuse to acknowledge their ideological orientation and feign objectivity while advancing a hard left political agenda.
Appearing alongside them is worse than pointless. It’s disastrous and akin to accepting a Mako shark’s invitation for a Sunday morning swim.
Republican presence on their outlets provides them with an authenticity they do not deserve. An absence of rightists is beneficial as it alerts independents that mainstream media reports and depictions of events are about as rigged as a WWE matchup.
Rand Paul stated that he now realizes this and labeled his appearance in the belly of the Olbermann “a poor political decision.” He also had the backbone to reiterate that “the federal government has far overreached in its power grabs” and he canceled an appearance for Meet the Press shortly thereafter. Going forward, hopefully his campaign advisers will help him better choose which national media outlets are best suited to reaching voters in Kentucky. As Ed Morrissey wrote at Hot Air:
Paul blamed Jack Conway for the controversy over the Civil Rights Act, accusing his Democratic opponent of starting the rumor that Paul wanted it repealed, which then prompted Maddow to ask about it. Left unexplained, though, was the decision to go on MS-NBC in the first place, especially with a large double-digit lead in a red state. Republican candidates running in blue or purple states may have good reason to seek guest slots on liberal talk shows in order to reach their constituencies, but how many more Kentucky voters would Paul reach on MS-NBC? Ten?
That’s the kind of strategic thinking that experienced campaign professionals bring to candidates, especially inexperienced candidates like Paul, running in his first election. Primary campaigns are much different than general election campaigns, at least in most circumstances, in both tenor of the debate and in coverage by the media. That’s doubly true in this case; Paul was treated generously by the Left in the past because Paul spent a great deal of time criticizing Republicans as well as Democrats. Now that Paul is a Republican candidate, he should have expected that to end — and shouldn’t have put himself in the position he did last week.
Let us all profit from Paul’s education. Defeating the left can only be done if we reveal the full extent of their phoniness to the American public.
MSNBC is a political operation first and a news source never second. Rand Paul went to Maddow expecting an interview. Instead he found himself cast as the main character in a passion play penned by Harper Lee.
Maddow’s anti-intellectual brain filters out any facts that are politically incorrect. This means that she is ignorant about 95 percent of what goes on in this world. She used the would-be senator’s innocence as a means to appeal to the Cheapest Emotional Denominator. Her machinations worked but only in the short-term.
In the long-term, Rand Paul will win in November. After that, he would be wise to remember the nature of our enemies and make them suffer with each and every vote he casts in the Senate.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member