Friday, June 15, 2012

Rand Paul Blows Off Ambush Luke Rudkowski Interview

This is a strange one.

Luke Rudkowski launched an ambush interview of Rand Paul and asked questions relating to his endorsement of Mitt Romney and Romney ties to Bilderberg. Senator Paul ignored Rudkowski's questions. He wouldn't even diss the Bilderberg group.

The clip jumps to Abby Martin who tries to asks questions about Romney positions. He ignores her.

If Rand is going to endorse Romney as enthusiastically as he did, he better have some sound bites in response to questions about Romney's positions.

Or does Rand deep down believe that many of Romney's positions are udefendable and that's why Rand refused to answer Rudowski's questions?


36 comments:

  1. Rand will learn that the gulf between his father and the establishment is far too wide to straddle. He will lose his Ron Paul constituency, their support and their money unless he does a mea maxima culpa very quickly.

    He will also never be fully accepted by the establishment until he repudiates his father. Will we see him go full Warren Buffet (relative to Howard)? Sadly, the answer might be yes for Darth Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is not that hard to give some simple honest answers about the Bilderberg...he coul easily say something like "it is amazing how the MSM does such a poor job of covering the Bilderberg group, that doesn't neccesarily mean Romney is evil for attending"...instead Rand comes off as a complete phony.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tom Bernhardt is absolutely right and the Warren vs Howard analogy is very apropos.

    Still, I'm hopeful for two reasons.

    1) We have an internet now, and I don't think they will ever be able to shut it down, no matter how they try.

    2) We have people like those two doing the interview. People who figured out what's going on and are spreading the word. I put my faith in them and not in any politician.

    The downside is we still have a whole bunch of sheeple and zombies who seem to believe whatever they are told by the MSM. But more and more of them will wake up.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rand Paul appears to have a near full blown case of 'Washingtonitis.' He has his little 'security group' complete with attractive yes-woman aide(a lot of attractive women on the Hill in recent years, the money and power attracts them).
    The coal mines of Kentucky are but a fleeting memory.
    The intoxicating power sucks in most all Noob 'legislators' that come to DC.
    His recent endorsement of Mitt Romney, tepid explanation on shows like Peter Schiff, and now validated by this attempted on the scene no-answer interview, make it appear he is no exception.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Add Rand to the long list of sellouts!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Alas, Rand Paul is just another typical statist politician. He either agrees deep down with some of Romney's neocon socialist views, and/or he is concerned about his own political future, 2016 especially.

    I do not have any hope that Rand will ever be like his father, as that is an impossible task for an ambitious statist politician. People who have hoped that Rand is the next Ron Paul should let go of such unrealistic fantasizing. Remember, denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rand is a step in the right direction, whereas Ron is a giant leap.

      the establishment will never accept Ron, but they will accept Rand.

      So it comes down to a choice: do you want to back a guy who is ideologically pure, but can never have the backing of the power establishment, or do you want a guy who plays the political game while still scoring a few points for the liberty movement?

      It takes both kinds, folks.

      Delete
    2. "Playing the political game" is further kicking the can down the road to total ruin. The people need to withdraw their support and consent of the statist quo. The federal government needs to be totally dismantled.

      And Ron Paul is NOT "ideologically pure," not if he supports a collectivist-State ownership of the entire territory (in the immigration issue).

      Delete
    3. @ Scott,

      How are you going to do that non-violently? I'd love to hear.

      Delete
    4. Rob, you're right. The reason why liberty is in such a sad state is because every time a guy who may have a reasonable chance of taking something back, winding something down, et al; makes it, the movement turns on him.

      I don't think there is as much wrong with Rand as there is with the suckers who sit behind computers and think they're going to bluff there way to freedom by taking cheap shots.

      If they want to throw away legit opportunities to succeed in favor of a 'chip on the shoulder' showdown with law enforcement it's their unnecessary funeral.

      Delete
    5. None of you (Rob & Anonymous) can morally justify Rand Paul endorsing a man he KNOWS will end up bombing innocent people, keeping the passenger-molestation alive, continuing the drug war and all the other completely anti-libertarian policies.
      Rand just endorsed the OPPOSITE of freedom, and yet we are to believe his endorsement of Romney is the way to precisely the opposite of what he's just endorsed. What warped logic.

      All the opponents of liberty will say that Rand and his followers hypocritically bleat about freedom, when he endorsed the opposite out of political expediency, and they'd be RIGHT.

      Rand Paul's hands are now by definition covered in blood, no matter how lofty his own intentions would be *IF* he would ever reach the white house, and because of his endorsement of Romney those lofty intentions can actually be questioned too.

      This is what those complaining about libertarian "purity" are overlooking. The rivers of blood and constitutional rights suppressions that Rand just gave his OK to, just for the unfounded blind belief that he will be better than all the other snake oil salesmen once he will get his shot at the center of power.

      We're not the extremists because WE are not the ones endorsing bloodshed, empire, theft, and TSA molestation (to name a few), the way Rand Paul has now done.
      It takes a warped view of morality to think that rejecting those things makes us "purists" in any negative sense.

      Hey, here's an idea. Let's endorse Hitler. He wasn't a Democrat either. And anything is better than Obama, right?
      The point being that Rand obviously sees a difference there between Romney and Obama, or pretends to see one, that WE don't.

      Rand's endorsement of Romney is based on his own ambitions and tribal Republican loyalty. Nothing more, nothing less.

      Delete
  7. Bob, I presume you saw the interview that Rand did with Peter Schiff explaining why he has taken his position? What did you think of that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A softball interview if ever there was.

      Delete
    2. I'm sure Rand is getting tired of answering the same questions 1,000,000,000 times.

      Delete
    3. After I saw the interview I don't know if the capitulation that everyone accuses him of is necessarily as black and white as purported. I'd like to hear other people's take on it.

      Delete
    4. Softball interview?? Did you listen to it? Schiff asked many direct questions and Rand answered them all. You guys calling him a "sellout" don't know what you are doing. Please just go be irrelevant for the next 20 years in the liberitarian party, while those like Rand actually try to change the country for the good.

      Delete
  8. You guys are jumping to conclusions way too early on Rand. Watch his voting record. He's 99% Ron Paul, which is pretty darn good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except that whole Iran bit, but hey, that's a small 1%.

      Delete
    2. I don't like the Iran sanctions vote, but I equate that to voting to attack Iran militarily. I respect the notion that sanctions are an act of war, though I haven't made up my mind on it.

      Delete
    3. "I respect the notion that sanctions are an act of war, though I haven't made up my mind on it."

      Well, some of us have.
      So don't accuse us of jumping to conclusions.

      And besides, AGAIN, he just endorsed someone that is virtually the polar opposite of Ron Paul. To speak in percentages, Romney could be 1% Ron Paul, and Rand endorsed him.
      That is not a factoid you can conveniently dismiss as irrelevant for consideration.

      Delete
  9. It's just way way too early to count Rand out.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Demonizing Rand too much, however deeply felt, plays right into the hands of statist operatives hoping to defuse all elements of libertarian support the "Rand Brand" carries, thereby removing that attention and influence from his status as a Senator.

    Remember that.

    Be as pissed as you want. But don't act like he's just another Republican, or you'll do precisely what is hoped you will do.
    What's occurring before your eyes is an orchestrated character assassination on all things Rand.

    It is overblown and counter-productive. I don't believe it is co-incidental.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Even if there was this giant conspiracy, this is stupid way to get people to talk about it. You just end up sounding like a kook. I'm gonna side with Rand on this one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, I was so wrong. You guys were right on this one.

      Delete
  12. God what a stupid, counter-productive interview.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I never realized Rand Paul was a coward.

    The non-answers to the questions are damning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If someone you don't know ran up to you with a mic in your face and stated asking you questions, you would stop everything you were doing to speak? I doubt it. This guy just wants youtube hits and people like Bob are giving them to him. What a shame this fraction is occuring in the liberity movement.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, I've made up my mind that Bob's website is more of a Liberty Tabloid rather than a relevant news source.

      Delete
    3. Hey Wenzel,

      The Rand Paul camp must be really scared of you. They aren't addressing Rand's failure to give an answer but attacking you instead.

      That's fear that you are having an impact.

      Keep it up, don't let us down like Rand.

      Delete
  14. Love Luke and Abby. I wonder how the New World Order will treat real journalists like them in the future. My guess is not very well. Right now they are ignored and ducked, but what if patriots like them start getting very terrible attention they weren't looking for. Luke himself has been arrested/detained quite a few times. What's next?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Self-correction: Luke was arrested once while trying to interview Michael Bloomberg.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ok Rand is now just giving me the hellish creeps. This guy is acting just like the other sociopaths in Washington. Rand, you have lost a supporter forever. I think the liberty movement should do everything in its power to kick this punk out of office.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Right. Work within the system, incremental change, reform. Right. The growth in the police state has been limited? The wars and occupation are ending? Right. We have more liberty than 15 or 20 years ago? Yeah right! Who are you people kidding?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Entering or supporting people in national politics is a complete waste of time. Ron Paul is far more successful through his didactic, bully pulpit mission. Citizen journalists are carrying on that mission, educating the boobs who haven't figured out that our corporate-state has been hurting the country since Lincoln. Failure is success for citizen journalists, for when important people don't answer their questions, they at least display their unwillingness to address genuine citizen concerns. As long as people continue to accept welfare checks, they will never withdraw their consent from the system. It is going to have to go bankrupt completely for souless adults to act like adults again; to be pious, responsible and loving toward the real people that matter in their lives. If I were Rand, I'd try to have a good time acting as his father did, collect my Senate pay and go back to practicing medicine after one term if I couldn't stand it. But I think Rand enjoys politics.

    ReplyDelete
  19. He doesn't have to answer these questions if he doesn't want to. These interviewers are harassing him endlessly. If I were him, I would act the same way. Any questions about Bilderberg are loaded questions (for a politician especially).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course he doesn't HAVE to.
      If he wants to piss off all the people who once trusted him, i'd advise him to not answer any questions and to act like an aloof, annoyed shithead.

      It's not as if he just endorsed someone that craps all over everything that his father stands for, or anything.
      Screw answering questions. Rude sheeple. Just vote and shut up.

      Delete