Rational Nation USA
Before I start first let me reiterate I am a solid believer in the principals Rand Paul was addressing after his primary win last Tuesday in Kentucky.
The principal of private property, whether it be individual or business, and the inherent right to do with it as one pleases in so long as it does not threaten the life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness of another is a valid ethical and moral principal. Period. Government has no ethical basis on which to interfere.
At the same time Let me say Maddow's questioning was not unreasonable When a politician knowingly makes controversial statements they better be d*mn well ready and able to back their statements up with reasoned arguments. Rand Paul failed miserably in this arena. Not because the principals he was discussing were invalid, rather because he was not prepared for the obvious onslaught of questioning he received by Maddow, or the criticizes he has received by the compliant government media complex.
Now we have the poster girl of the Republican arm of the Tea Party movement claiming Maddow's questioning of Rand was prejudicial. Hello already. Isn't that what the media is supposed to do? Question the veracity of a candidates position? Isn't that what the conservatives wanted from the media during the 2008 campaign? Admittedly the media was soft on El Presidente Obama, but that isn't the point. Either you stand on principal (which cuts both ways) or don't stand at all.
Sarah Palin in here critique of Maddow's question had this:
"One thing we can learn in this lesson that I have learned and Rand Paul is learning now is don't assume that you can engage in a hypothetical discussion about constitutional impacts with a reporter or a media personality who has an agenda, who may be prejudiced before they even get into the interview in regards to what your answer may be," Palin said. "You know, they are looking for the gotcha moment. And that evidently appears to be what they did with Rand Paul, and I'm thankful he clarified his answer about his support for the Civil Rights Act."
Let's get one thing straight, Maddow is a horses arse when it comes to her positions on issues (of course this is my opinion and I am sure there are some who disagree) but she was being no more prejudiced in her questioning of Rand Paul than conservative commentator Glen Beck would be in his questioning of a leftist candidate.
If the principal is correct, and followed up by consistent and reasoned argument then the principal will eventually win the day. Rand Paul failed to stick to his underlying principal and began back pedaling almost immediately. In doing so he gave credibility to the to the liberal leftist argument.
Personally I believe... excuse me, know Maddow is a hack of the political left. However, Palin did little to help Rand Paul's case and in fact if I were of the left I would have asked the same questions. Frankly Paul has the more persuasive and compelling argument. He just did a lousy job of supporting it and his back pedaling will if anything hurt his credibility.
Just my opinion. What's yours?