In an attack interview on Paul, she attempts to get him to say that he would be in favor of allowing people on their own private property to discriminate. Paul never answers the question directly. He knows it's a trap.
Paul doesn't answer the question because he knows that, if he does, many are going to distort it to imply that he is some kind of racist--when he is, in fact, in favor of property rights because he knows it will, among other things, benefit everyone, white, black, Hispanic etc.
If he simply answers "yes", he knows that mainstream press will twist it so bad that they will make him look like the opposite of what he actually is, a decent, caring man. These trick questions, are not seeking truth, they are attempting to inflame the masses, who will not be fed the question in terms of its private property context. Great communicators know this. These type trick questions are not new. They are at least as old as the New Testament. Jesus had to put up with these kinds of trick questions also.
A group of Herodians and Pharisees, at one point, asked Jesus if he condoned paying tribute to Caesar. Rather than getting off the subject which He was most interested in, eternal salvation, He answered the question by saying,"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." That is he did not not answer, yes or no. Biblical scholars are still debating what Jesus meant by the comment.
Take a look at the Maddow-Rand Paul interview. She for the entire length of the interview attempts to force him into a yes or no answer. The way he handles himself in this tough situation is quite admirable.
Oh, there's one more thing you need to know before you view the clips. The Maddow people are distorting the transcript of the interview, as they most assuredly would have Paul's answer if he had given a yes or no answer.
Daily Paul writes:
I've noticed a few recent news articles are reporting Rand had the following exchange with Rachel Maddow.The anti-Rand Paul crowd is so desperate to get a "yes" out of the man, that they can distort, that they distort him even saying "yes". Why is it clear that the Maddow people and the others should know that Paul didn't say "Yes"? Because Maddow went on for another 10 plus minutes trying to get him to say "yes" and, at one point, pretty much says that he will have to eventually answer the question yes or no.
Maddow: Do you think that a private business has the right to say, "We don't serve black people"?
Paul: Yes. I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form...
If you go to the video however, Rand obviously never said the word "yes".
It was merely some sort of insignificant vocalization to maintain the flow of conversation that was already made difficult by the satellite delay. Now he WAS laying out what the arguments would be for "yes", but he never actually said "yes". It makes a BIG difference to insert that word there.
Here are some of the bigger media outlets misstating the quote, but there are a LOT more out there.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-is-kentuc...
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/white-house-...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9088468
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100520/ap_on_el_se/us_rand_paul...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/rand_paul...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/us/politics/21paul.html
UPDATE: Looks like MSNBC released a fraudulent transcript that may be the source of all these misquotes popping up.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37252841/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_madd...
http://i46.tinypic.com/2dhb5lv.jpg
UPDATE #2: A fill-in for Rachel Maddow acknowledged on Friday's show that their transcript was indeed misleading, but said the quote was still "technically correct" and declined to apologize for it. The host also acted like it was just the New York Times that used the misquote, when in fact there was a HUGE amount of media outlets that did, all because of their shady transcript.
what do you expect. it's a ratings war. she's trying to be that confrontational no holds bar o'reilly type. would like to see a more civil discourse from pundits from any political affiliation. we don't have to be an angry society with zealous fools.
ReplyDeleteI particularly like how Paul's big quote from his victory night speech was about how his message is "loud and clear and does not mince words" (which is a near-direct Ayn Rand ripoff anyway) yet he is now unwilling to answer a yes or no question.
ReplyDeleteHow is not answering a direct yes or no question NOT mincing words? His behavior during the Maddow interview was practically a textbook example of mincing words. Nice hypocrisy there.
If he would've answered the question directly he would've had 10 minutes to extol the virtues of private property. In the time he spent avoiding the right answer he could have appealed to the reason of the viewers by denouncing the war on drugs, the draft, and the income tax with that same property rights argument.
ReplyDeleteI don't blame Maddow at all for pushing for an answer, in fact, I bet she was expecting the same Locke and Bastiat quotes that I was. Rand just needs to cut loose and say what he feels.
Paul's mistake was in appearing on Rachel Maddow's show in the first place. Nothing good could have come out of that appearance. Ms. Maddow had no intention of engaging in some socratic dialogue about the role of government in a free society. Her mission was to make Paul look bad. Her show attracts pathetically few viewers, so there was nothing for Paul to gain by accepting her invitation to appear. He simply walked into a trap, as you say.
ReplyDeleteRight now his job is to win the election, not to try and score debating points with the likes of Maddow.
Entering politics was his mistake. It is about power and everyone who participates believes literally in might makes right. The only debate is about who has the most special interest groups, the biggest gang of voters, and supporters who are most willing to threaten violence. This is so you can say to your competing looters: I can trump you on that (as Prez O was quoted).
ReplyDeleteThis is not an effective strategy to promote the free market. Don't vote, it only encourages them.