Rand Paul Bails on Meet the Press, National Media ‘Tough to Take’

May 22, 2010

(ChattahBox)—Rand Paul has had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week. And he is no doubt, taking cover in his Kentucky private country club, where he is safe from the “lamestream” media and the “looney left” whom had the audacity to question Paul on his fringe extremist views for America, as he seeks to become a U.S. Senator. After his embarrassing appearance on MSNBC’s the Rachel Maddow Show, in which he questioned the Civil Rights Act, by supporting the rights of private property owners to operate segregated lunch counters, Rand appeared on Good Morning America to attack President Obama as anti-American for holding BP accountable for the Gulf oil spill disaster. And on Friday, Paul canceled his scheduled appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, claiming he was “exhausted.”

News of Paul’s MTP cancellation, first leaked out over Twitter, when both host David Gregory and executive producer Betsy Fischer tweeted that Paul was bailing on his commitment. According to the Courier Journal, Gregory and Fischer tried to convince Paul to reconsider to no avail, reminding him that only two people have ever refused to show up in the show’s 62-year history:

“The Washington Post reported that “Meet the Press” executive producer Betsy Fischer said they tried to get Paul to reconsider but hadn’t heard back from him. “We tried to impress upon them that this is a big deal,” Fischer told the Post. “The only other two people to cancel have been Louis Farrakhan and Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia.”‘

Paul, the tea party darling, told the Courier, that he felt besieged by the media’s “dishonest” response to his libertarian views. “For people to be dishonest about you is tough to take,” he told the paper.

But, Paul’s handlers have realized their candidate’s extreme views on the role of the federal government are “tough to take” for most sensible people living in the 21st century. Paul’s warped 19th century libertarian utopia, where private business owners reign supreme, has no place in modern political discourse.

Paul’s spokesman is now restricting Paul to local media and Fox News. Like his female counterpart, Sarah Palin, he will no doubt start issuing his campaign statements on Facebook, free from media scrutiny.

“Rand did Good Morning America today, set the record straight, and now we are done talking about it,” said campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. “No more national interviews on the topic.”

Benton wants to ensure that a national media outlet would not ask Paul a tough question, such as “What magazines do you read?”


Comments

6 Responses to “Rand Paul Bails on Meet the Press, National Media ‘Tough to Take’”

  1. Fazsha on May 22nd, 2010 12:57 pm

    “Paul’s warped 19th century libertarian utopia, where private business owners reign supreme, has no place in modern political discourse.”

    Are you out of your ever lovin’ mind? Private business owners are in a voluntary business – you don’t have to buy their product. Government, which you love and slobber over, confiscates your money and spends it any way they want, and furthermore could not even exist WITHOUT private enterprise and the taxes therefrom.

    Give me private enterprise any day of the week.

  2. gabriel on May 22nd, 2010 1:09 pm

    Sue:

    You’re a hypocrite: You believe the same way Paul does when it comes to “private business owners reign[ing] supreme.” Just look at your “Disclaimer” message above the comments section. It says, in essence, that this is your website and you will permit or deny the publication of comments at your discretion. Paul believes the same way. He says that if you own property—being it a blog or a restaurant—that you should be able to control it as you see fit. Sure, that means allowing bigots to deny black people in some cases. But it also means that you can deny Neo-nazis and KKK members from spewing their nonsense on your website. It’s a two-way street, Sue. Open your eyes and start using your “21st Century” brain. I’m so embarrassed that you couldn’t even think this thing through. So embarrassing.

    gabriel

  3. Protesters decry Paul's views on civil rights on May 22nd, 2010 2:02 pm

    […] Rand Paul Bails on Meet the Press, National Media 'Tough to Take' ChattahBox – May 22nd – 12:34 […]

  4. Mitchell Kramb on May 22nd, 2010 4:52 pm

    Really, this is absolutely ludicrous! Why the Courier-Journal ever brought up Rand’s stand on the CRA of 1964 is way beyond me! Those issues have been settled; since that historic time period, we as a people have moved on and continued marching forward. Even though it would have been out of style for Dr Rand Paul to say something like, ‘I won’t comment on that,’ I am GLAD he told the truth when asked ‘Do you agree with the Civil Rights Act of 64?’, as tough a pill as it is for some to swallow!

    I wish people would just use their common sense. Both Dr Ron Paul as well as son, Dr Rand Paul, have been on record for years in saying that both of their lifetime heroes are individuals like Dr Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. The Paul’s are republican libertarians who strictly adhere to the Constitution. Private property rights granted in the Constitution are perhaps, one of the most important rights that we as individuals are given, following closely after our First Amendment rights of course (these go hand in hand). What we do on our own property, so long as we are not harming another physically in *any* way, and no matter how abhhorent the behavior may be, is protected to us by the Constitution. Private property goes for our homes, private business, etc.

    Why is it ‘not okay’ for Rand to simply and logically explain his philosophical belief, that is presently irrelivent since, as I said, these issues were resolved decades ago?

    Cliff notes version: Rand Paul – I find racism in ANY form to be abhhorent. I do not associate with anyone who holds racist views or partakes in racist behaviors/belongs to racist groups. I am absolutely opposed to purchasing a good or service from an individual who has a *private*, segregated workplace, and am also opposed to working for one. I am absolutely opposed to any and all forms of institutionalized racism, the main issue that the CRA of 64′ dealt with. Take the First Amendment for example – in a truly free society, it MUST be protected, no matter how disgusting, degrading, disgraceful, and abhhorent the content an individual expresses may be – the government is restricted by the law of the land in prohibiting any individual the right to their right of free speech. In a truly free society, the same goes for private property rights/ownership. If a private business owner decides to make such a foolish and immoral decision to put up a sign that says ‘Only blacks served,’ or ‘Only whites served,’ than that decision must be protected under the law of the land/private property rights (this is the one out of the ten subtitles to the CRA of 64′ he would have had a philosophical debate with his fellow congressmen on). This is completely apart from me somehow being a racist, bigot, or condoning the behavior in ANY of the private/public sectors, and I would be the first one there boycotting and protesting. Not only would that be an immoral decision made by the private business owner, it would be an absolutely foolish economic/business decision. Can you imagine the amount of lost revenue? Most likely, places like that that pop up would go right out of business! Who in their right mind, in today’s predominantly tolerant society would do business with/apply to work at such a place?

    Dr Rand Paul actually has an almost identical stance to that of Dr Martin Luther King, who civilly disobeyed *government laws* (institutionalized, legislated racism). King dealt with public, legislative racism, and worked to repeal LAWS on the government’s books, not with tampering in and trampling on the right of another individual’s private property/right to free speech.

    In essence, Dr King, and both Dr Ron & Rand Paul are one in the same. Afterall, Dr Rand Paul has often said, “I would’ve been alongside Dr King, marching right along with him.” Both Rand and father are huge believers in strong civil disobedience.

  5. Btok on May 22nd, 2010 5:57 pm

    Steve Watson
    Prisonplanet.com
    Friday, May 21st, 2010

    Leading Libertarians have lauded Ron Paul, noting that his stance is at the core of Libertarian philosophy. True liberty requires a society in which all people can live and thrive without coercion from controlling forces such as the federal government.

    Such core principles the are at the foundation of the U.S. Constitution.

    George Washington said “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

    Should racial discrimination be overcome by reason or by force?

    This notion is at the heart of Rand Paul’s stance on civil rights. Those who equate this notion with racist beliefs are either intellectually incapable of grasping it or are purposefully seeking to defame those who embrace it.

    Instead of running to the federal government for protection from and a quick fix to everything that is socially reprehensible, it is time for all of the afore mentioned detractors – from Maddow, through all her minions at MSNBC and their zombie choir – to look at the bigger picture, to wake up, grow up, break out of their pre programmed political paradigm.

    Without such an awakening, discrimination and divisions will always exist and will always be taken advantage of by those who seek to control our society.

  6. Villa Merkle on May 22nd, 2010 6:07 pm

    Historian Tom Woods, who has contributed to Ron Paul’s best-selling books, addresses the smear campaign using concise and eloquent language:

    The Left is going after Rand Paul over the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Why, Rand Paul secretly wants to repeal it, they say, which means we’d have segregated restaurants all over again. Now any non-hysteric knows a segregated restaurant would be boycotted and picketed out of existence within ten seconds, but we’re supposed to fret about fictional outcomes from the repeal of a law that will never be repealed. And certainly we cannot question the 1964 Act, since our betters have decided the matter is closed.

    Of course, someone might have objected to that Act on the grounds that it would of course lead to affirmative action, since racially proportionate hiring is the only practical way to prove one has not been “discriminating.” One might also object to the law on constitutional grounds, or on the grounds that (as has indeed happened) it would lead to legally protected classes whose members simply cannot be fired, since their employers know they will be hit with groundless but costly and time-consuming litigation. (Incidentally, black employment statistics saw far more progress in the one year before the 1964 Act than in the two years after it.)

    As the Left sees it, none of these reasonable concerns can be the “real reason” for opposition to the 1964 Act. The real motivation is (what else?) a sinister and arbitrary desire to oppress blacks and other minorities for no good reason. The Left’s opponents are always and everywhere wicked and twisted people, who spend their time wondering how they can cause gratuitous harm to black people they have never met. Don’t believe me? Read the comments to this Politico article. These people have never in their lives deviated from what Official Opinion has demanded they believe. Without federal guns, we’d be back in the Dark Ages. The Left has its bogeymen and the neocons have theirs. The outcome is always the same: more power to the monopolists with the guns, and the unshakeable conviction that peaceful remedies are impossible.
    Historian Tom Woods

Got something to say? **Please Note** - Comments may be edited for clarity or obscenity, and all comments are published at the discretion of ChattahBox.com - Comments are the opinions of the individuals leaving them, and not of ChattahBox.com or its partners. - Please do not spam or submit comments that use copyright materials, hearsay or are based on reports where the supposed fact or quote is not a matter of public knowledge are also not permitted.