Sunday, May 23, 2010

Palin Does Little To Help Rand Paul's Case


By: Les Carpenter III
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?

5 comments:

  1. As usual, we are completely simpatico on this one. We need more politicians like Ron and Rand Paul. I was just as dissappointed as you. You especially nailed it here:

    "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"

    I didn't know about Palin chiming in, but her "pity poor me" statements just make it worse. I also am with you in that I wished ALL reporters grilled ALL politicians like this.

    I also lament the fact that it is generally dangerous for politicians to stray beyond canned talking points.

    I'm posting about this Monday, trying to make the case Rand failed to make.

    ReplyDelete
  2. RN, you don't think discriminating against blacks, making them feel like dogs, doesn't threaten their pursuit of happiness?? Hmmmmmm...

    Except for that, and for the comments about liberal bias media and our very intelligent Rachel, you make some valid points. Is this why conservative candidates usually stick to Fox for interviews? Hannity is so soft on the righties he melts....

    Maybe Rand Paul realized how damaging his remarks were to his credibility and as hard as he tried, he could not repair the damage. This is why he cancelled MTP, which makes him look even worse. If he can't handle a little Rachel how is he gonna survive? Palin was the same way and looked where she is today, a TV personality with zero credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Sue: "you don't think discriminating against blacks, making them feel like dogs, doesn't threaten their pursuit of happiness?? Hmmmmmm..."

    You've muddled three distinct issues. You're at a conservative site. We use reason and logic here, so stick with me:

    Making someone "feel like a dog" is a little ambiguous and not really addressed by any law.

    Discrimination? Natural law says you are free to be a despicable human being on your own property.

    This does not threaten one's pursuit of happiness as envisioned by the founders, since true happiness in not predicated on someone else complying with their private property.

    The true and great good that the Civil Rights act did was finally, as our constitution states, give everyone equal standing under the law and in all federal arenas.

    ReplyDelete
  4. >you don't think discriminating against blacks, making them feel like dogs, doesn't threaten their pursuit of happiness

    Personally, I DO think that "discriminating against blacks, making them feel like dogs, DOESN'T threaten their pursuit of happiness," but I think what you meant to write was "don't you think discriminating against blacks, making them feel like dogs, threatens their pursuit of happiness."

    Now, to get away from the internal grammatical inconsistencies and to the actual content (or what I interpret as the intended content), Silverfiddle is correct. Discriminating against blacks, or any other person, in the operation of a private enterprise, does NOT threaten the "pursuit of happiness" (by which the Founding Fathers very clearly meant the acquisition or creation of property through voluntary exchange or production) any more than a business charging for goods and services threatens my "pursuit of happiness."

    The only legitimate function of government and/or law is to prevent and/or punish the violation of the right of the individual to his or her life, liberty, and property. Such rights end at the precise point at which they come in contact with the corresponding rights of others. In other words, your right to property (goods and services, for example) does not include my property unless we both enter in to a voluntary agreement (contract) for exchange of such property. I have the right to deny you my goods or services, for any reason or no reason at all. The same goes for the owner of any type of private business.

    We certainly do want "'progress', not 'oppression.'" We want to progress toward more liberty and less oppression of the iron fist of government--Big Mother--dictating to us what we can or can't do with our own life and liberty (in other words, the fruits of our labor).

    Choose the totalitarian collectivism if you will. Personally, I have chosen liberty.

    In other words, do what you want. Just do it away from me. That's freedom. That's real progress.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As I am pressed for time I will just say thank you for these comments and a couple of brief ones.

    It seems there was some common ground found out of Rand Paul's relatively inept handling of an issue that should have not been that difficult.

    It is clear however that libertarians and progressives will likely forever find themselves on the opposite side of most issues.

    And the world turns.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.