Joe Scarborough says that
Ron Rand Paul’s real mistake was going on MSNBC in the first place:
I will not mention any names, but I’ll just say one of the top conservative leaders in Washington, DC, not elected, but a real opinion-shaper, had two questions. First of all, how could he have been so stupid to have walked into this type of controversy? And secondly, this is part of a news story so I’m going to say it, what the hell was he doing on MSNBC? This isn’t an anti-MSNBC situation but you don’t find a whole lot of very liberal Democrats going on Fox News election night or the night after to do their victory lap. They’re wondering whether he’s ready for prime time.
Never mind that Paul announced his intention to run on Rachel Maddow’s show a year earlier.
Similarly, Jeff Golderg thinks Peter Beinart’s real sin was writing his anti-AIPAC/TNR/Weekly Standard piece in the New York Review Of Books because only Jew-haters read NYRB.
Now, I think that Democrats should not appear on Fox News. But if they go on Fox News and say something stupid, it’s their fault, and if they go on Fox News and say something sharp and confrontational, good on them. The idea that we should blame Paul’s gaffe on Rachel Maddow or condemn Peter Beinart for writing something reasonable in NYRB is beyond stupid.
But it’s also a natural continuation: if you can’t believe anything that the liberal media writes, then it follows that you can’t believe anything said on a liberal media outlet, even if you yourself said it.
I think you mean Rand Paul, not dad Ron.
I think you mean Rand Paul.
Is Scarborough admitting that Fox isn’t exactly fair and balanced?
But given that Paul clung to his radical position repeatedly and voluntarily, the “liberal media gotcha” line is really lame, especially since Paul’s supposed to be a Rugged Individualist libertarian.
They’re just setting the stage for Paul to only appear on Fox News from now on. This is going to be a very common strategy among tea party candidates this cycle.
It’s not like Paul was caught in a trap on The Rachel Maddow Show. Those views on discrimination were already in the blogosphere certainly before that appearance-in fact, he had made a similar proclamation on NPR just hours before. Rachel Maddow was following up on what was *already* a controversy.
Of course, she went after him like a pitbull, which Hannity certainly would not have done, so good on her. That’s the *real* issue for the right, is that she made him say what he really thought.
Shorter Scarborough: we wanna be idiots and liars with impunity! Waaaahhh!
I think what Scarborough was really trying to say is “What the hell was he doing on Rachel Maddow’s show? He should have come on my show instead; I’d have given him a nice tongue bath and we’d have avoided all of this unpleasantness.”.
When Sarah Palin told Charlie Gibson she didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine was and she had foreign policy experience because planes from Russia fly over Alaska, she was on ABC. When she told Katie Couric she reads all newspapers and didn’t know of any regulations McCain has supported, she was on CBS.
It was just Maddow’s good luck that she got there first this time. Idiots might think that the problem is the liberal media, but everyone else can tell that the problem is idiots.
Yes, if only they had kept Rand in a fucking closet, or perhaps put him on an around-the-world cruise, this would never have happened.
It’s typical of political strategists (“conservative leaders”) to think that slightly better media management would have fixed everything.
When you have a shitty candidate, they say stupid things, the end.
Here’s the other thing about that: This is how Rand Paul feels, and what he believes. We may think it’s neanderthal, but at least he was trying to be honest about his positions, and got caught in a huge blowback because of it.
I actually wish more politicians were willing to take that risk.
It was George Steph…. fault for having him on Good Morning America, also, too.
Rand Paul will be on Meet The Press Sunday.
You mean, the one run by a Yeti and the Loch Ness Monster, on the Does Not Exist channel?
How is that any different from what it has been?
you know, joe’s right about this:
rand paul should just have claimed that he didn’t say any of those things he said on rachel maddow, and then when people showed him the clip, he would just say, “but that’s msnbc! that’s the liberal, lamestream media! you can’t believe anything you hear on that!”
if only he’d follow joe’s advice.
@Keith: But I thought the Tea Party/Baggers were wholly independent of the Republican party (and their news outlets)? Are you….telling me….(sob)….that this was just a huge lie? HCN?
Except that he’s backing away from his own statements like a scared little kid who just got caught by the grownups. He’s a coward, and now he’s trying to blame other people for reading his own words back at him. This is not a risk he’s taking. A real risk would be for him to clearly reiterate what he’s been saying all along, under this bright spotlight. I’d think he was nuts, but not a WATB too.
Joe Scarborough sure does earn his MSNBC paycheck doesn’t he?
Yes, his mistake was appearing on an MSNBC show. A show where he was given the first third of the show, and was treated with respect by the host.
@Bullsmith: I think Joe should refuse to cash his checks from the Comrade Stalin World Revolution Network, and sign them over to me.
Excuse me – who writes the checks that Morining Joe uses to pay his bills??
What a chump!
Damn, Citizen X beat me to it.
RE:Ron Paul’s real mistake
Hasn’t Obama been on Fox, sort of negating Joey’s “Dems don’t go on Fox” argument?
I think Rachel Maddow is making all the Villagers jealous, especially Scar. She showed them all how to do their jobs. It’s impossible to criticize her too, since she gave him all the rope he needed to hang himself, without interrupting, or editorializing. Just keep asking him to answer a simple question. Couric did the same thing with Palin, and she and Tina Fey saved the Republic. Women, FTW!
Of course, not only did Rand announce his candidacy on Rachel’s show, both he and Ron have had rather friendly interviews with Rachel before (although i bet, never again).
@thomas: This is like Mr. Peanut wondering aloud why the hell anyone buys nuts…
I wonder how MSNBC is going to rationalize keeping Joe Deadintern on the air…..
Along similar lines, Andrew and Glenn seem to be inhabiting a parallel universe today – one where people are so enlightened that the sexual orientation of public figures is irrelevant.
Sounds like a cool place. Too bad none of us get to live there.
C’mon, fellas, you know better than that.
The next TP meme will be: It is a liberal plot to destroy Rand. The liberal media did not do due diligence prior to the election, so that they could have an easy target to take down and marginalize the movement. The media knew his positions, refused to publicize them just to play gotcha later. That is some deep thinking on the media’s part. Hoocudanode?
@Lisa K.: The big surprise isn’t that a Republican yearns for the return of Jim Crow or thinks BP ought to get a handjob…they ALL feel that way.
The big surprise is that there’s a Republican dimwitted enough to say that out loud without using cute code words or hints.
Rand Paul has an ego approximately the size of Kentucky. He really believes all this libratarian bullshit, and is in no way ready to interview with a pro like Rachel Maddow in prime time. In a couple of threads yesterday the question was whether or not he was a racist. It doesn’t matter. He believes in and promotes views that encourage discrimination. If, as he claims, he was against racial discrimination he wouldn’t hold the views.
You really have to laugh at these teabagger dweebs like the Ps Palin and Paul. They’d be first to tell you they’re Jack Bauer’s tougher sister or brother, yet they’ll cry like a debutant having a bad hair day whining they were unfairly beat up by mean Katie Couric or Rachel Maddow.
To her credit, Maddow didn’t practice any “gotcha” journalism like asking Rand Paul what newspapers he reads.
He didn’t know it was a risk. It wasn’t courage, it was stupidity and a life spent inside an echo chamber.
Rand Paul’s problem, such as it is, is that Libertarians in this country reason only from A to B and never force themselves to consider the next step. Basically, Maddow simply asked him to draw a logical conclusion from his premises. He was happy to do so because he thought the logical conclusion of the premise “people who own private property should be free to discriminate” was “freedom for all within a free market” or, at any rate, freedom for people like Rand Paul and his voters. He discovered that, in fact, for other people, the logical conclusion was “continued disenfranchisment and discrimination” against outcast groups (non whites, disabled people). Once he was forced to say that he opposed the actual state of affairs–which he had to do because he wanted to appeal to people outside his base–he then had to confront the actual problem of governance. If you admit the problem (massive, state sponsored, discrimination) then you have to do something about it. Period. Sometimes you have to rank order your preferences and one thing gets undercut.
That’s not something Maddow did to him. Its called simple reasoning. Its something that my toddler can do: if you will the means you will the ends. If you will th ends you have to will the means. You don’t get to state your preferences for a perfect world and then sit back and twiddle your thumbs.
Too bad, so sad. Poor Rand was asked “what happens next” after you step aside and refuse to act on behalf of your citizenry and he found that, after all, his position was untenable. Maybe it will be a learning experience. But I doubt it.
Well, I guess the point was that it would be nice to hear the unvarnished truth about the positions of our politicians more often. While I think Rand Paul is a twit, it seems sad that he is being more maligned by Joe and others on the right for not presenting his message in a politically advantegeous way-essentially that he told the truth about his views.
I didn’t read JS’s comment as an attack on MSNBC or a criticism of Maddow. I think it’s just a criticism of Paul for being clueless.
The entire treatment of the Rand Paul story today on Morning Joke was pretty much epic fail.
First of all, they made the same mistake you guys at BJ made, setting the question around whether Paul believes that we should have the Civil Rights act. Second of all, they had to go and get Scarborough to make his idiotic comments.
The problem with Paul is that he is Rand Paul. He is a libertarian with a big mouth. That is his problem, and that problem is not going away no matter how he handles the current flap. The problem is that libertarianism won’t work in this country. The country cannot be governed by this nutty idea set, by government whose main priority is leaving everything alone. The country requires firm, fair, intelligent, competent government that is designed to serve the true needs of a huge, rambunctious country of risk takers and workers and people who just want safe food, air and water and roads and schools and medicines and hospitals and energy sources. You can’t get that with libertarians.
Therefore Paul is an idiot, he is not fit for national public office, or even local public office. He hasn’t thought any of this through and doesn’t understand the real problems.
Focussing on Civil Rights, or asking whether he is a racist, or obsessing over how he handles the morning shows today all has nothing to do with the real problem with him.
He is going to continue to be the misguided idiot that he is today, and he needs to be run to ground the way the press went after Sarah Palin in 2008, and for basically the same reasons.
Wihthout sounding like a fan club, basically the way Rachel Maddow did two nights ago.
Rachel Maddow is simply the finest (only?) journalist in the MSM. How she lures some of these goobers onto her show, and why they show up so unprepared to match wits with someone of her acumen, is a mystery.
Fox news actually does the right wing candidates a disservice by only serving them softballs. It may feel good, but does not train you to hit (or dodge) high fastballs.
The public will notice ( however slightly) the right wing candidates who get this treatment and downrate them
It also means that that the stuff Stephanopoulos pulled up from 5 months ago on Fox, will sound even worse now.
The reasons why dems should not go onto Fox News are obvious and numerous. For starters, they aren’t actually journalists.
But MSNBC is a real news network. And Rand is Peak Wingnut: he either believes his opinions are logically valid, or he believes he can convince undecideds to accept his opinions.
Maddow behaved like a true reporter: she gave the man a soapbox and, sure enough, he stood on it and said “Jim Crow isn’t so bad.” There’s a reason she’s popular, and the fact that she’s liberal is just a coincidence.
Probably before your time, but I still recall the refreshing honesty of Lester Maddox, the former governmor of Georgia 1967-1971 who had shall we say a libertarian view on private businesses and race relations sort of similar to Rand Paul, although to be fair Maddox was an overt die-hard segregationist. Maddox was famously known for owning a restaurant where he refused to serve blacks and standing out in front of his restaurant with a pick-axe handle to greet protesting demonstrators. Handing out pick-axe handles at campaign rallies became a staple of Maddox’s refreshing honesty.
Weird thing is, that other than that ugly segregationist thing about his restaurant, Maddox turned out to be a surprisingly progressive (for a supposedly neandrethal) Governor, and appointed more African Americans to state government positions than any other governor before him (although to be accurate, previous Governors of Ga weren’t very hard to top in this regard), and appointed the first African-American to head a state department (Dept of Corrections, natch), and ordered the Ga. State Highway Patrol to cease using the word “nigger” (quite impressive for back then). Also, increased the budget of higher education by a higher percentage than any other state etc etc.
Maddox was, like Rand Paul, a fountain of quirky-memorable quotes, such as when asked as Governor what could be done to improve the abysmal state of Georgia prisons, Gov. Maddox replied that what was needed was a better class of prisoner.
The difference between Maddox and Rand Paul is that Paul is a nutjob ideologue, Maddox was actually quite pragmatic (other than the segregation thing) and was accused of not being a true conservative by many of the Georgia wingnuts of that era.
Oh, I completely agree with you, actually. This isn’t really about Paul per se. The fact still remains that he has been excoriated more thoroughly for telling the truth about himself on a liberal show, instead of lying about himself on a conservative one, and that speaks volumes about what is considered important in a candidate these days.
I also wonder if these teabaggers sometimes believe their own press a little too much. I actually think Rand Paul thought the majority of Americans also held the position that it should be ok for any privately held enterprise to do whatever the hell they want, and let the chips fall where they may. I think he was truly shocked to find out that wasn’t the case, and then had to try and walk back from the cliff he’s perched himself on.
You and TNC mindmeld.
Fox has to do that, because none of what Republicans say stands up to any scrutiny – their grand experiment in controlling all 3 branches of government was epic FAIL. It’s epistemic closure, or it all falls down. Epistemic closure it is.
Mike in NC
That can’t be good news for John McCain, but it’ll be more practice for Gregory to suck up to wingers (not that he needed any).
you’re paying attention to Joe (my aide turned up mysteriously dead in my office at the same time everyone was blaming Chandra Levy going missing and speculating on her murder by another congressman) Scarborough? WHY?
That must be giving a few right wing poobahs the vapors.
kommrade reproductive vigor
Bears repeating. Again. And again…
It’s like she’s becoming the new Mike Wallace. She makes those goobers look so stupid, that other goobers watching think, “damn, I’m smarter than that, I’ll show that uppity lib,” and then they find out, nope, it ain’t that simple.
Again, why wouldn’t MSNBC suspend or fire one of its hosts who suggested it was a bad move for a politician to appear on his own network?
@Montysano: the folks like Paul that come on her show all have one thing in common…. they think they are smarter than she is, and they continue believing it through the interview right up until the time the next news cycle starts when they’ve got to start walking back the dumb-assed things they’ve said.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
@Mike in NC:
What will be patently obvious when somebody runs Paul’s MTP appearance alongside the one on Rachel’s show is which host is the actual journalist.
If anybody thinks it’ll be Gregory, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn and some compassionate conservatism I’d like to sell you.
I continue to not understand why anyone mentions Jeffrey Goldberg without referencing his pimping of the Saddam-al Qaeda link.
It might scare them Lisa if someone like Rachel was hosting, but since thats not happening they know it’ll be a nice safe environment with nice safe preprepped questions he can answer to help extricate himself.
What the fuck, lord knows that the Pauls don’t EVER say anything sincerely controversial.
Why don’t you just outright tell him to never ever appear on a network that won’t coddle him?
@El Cid: Good question, since they suspended David Schuster for doing that pilot for CNN… while it’s not as bad as what Schuster did, it’s certainly in that ballpark.
Gee, maybe because they heard Joe’s entire comment and know that that is not what he meant, at all.
What Joe meant, which is obvious to anyone who hears the whole thing, and what he said, in so many words, is that Paul should concentrate on being the candidate from Kentucky and not try to be a national figure right now. The appearance on Maddow was just an example of how not to do that.
“The spirit of non-discrimination,” said Block “ends you right up in compulsory bisexuality.”
What a load of horseshit. Rand knew exactly what he was talking about. He had discussed on NPR just before.
Very true. The other name for MTP is Softball Heaven for Wingnuts.
First, Joe isn’t a Rand Paul adviser, he’s employed as an MSNBC host, and presumably a network gaining interview time with major national political figures — and whether or not Scarboy thinks Paul was or wasn’t, he was.
Second, Scarboy only objects because it went badly. If Paul had gone on a national network and somehow improved his image, the dishonest and stupid right wing hack Scarboy would have been applauding Paul as an example of the true TeaTard revolution expressing public discomfort with more of these radical, dividing Democratic policies.
I’ve watched the ignoramus bastard plenty of times, as well as the airheaded echo chamber Mika. I don’t need someone to lecture me on what I should think Scarboy really meant.
@me: Besides the whining right’s obsession with labeling as “gotcha” questions anything beyond the soundbarks they’re comfortable emitting (“what newspapers do you read?” “what do you think of the Bush doctrine?”), I think that most politicians would find it pretty easy — even just as a political question, forget an honest response — to say that they would have voted for the Civil and/or Voting Rights Act.
I mean, really? This is some obscure law from ’40 years ago’? It ain’t like somebody walked up to Rand Paul on the street and asked him if he would have voted for some import-export tariff modification from the 1950s, or railroad legislation of the 1890s. It’s the damn Civil Rights Act. “Gotcha” question? Really?
To an ordinary politician, this (barring their having previously penned questions on whether CRA should have been passed as it was) would have been political softball.
Well, you got it wrong. You don’t even know what he said, much less what he meant. What he said is what I paraphrased, pretty much exactly, in my post: That Paul should stay home, concentrate on Kentucky and not try to be a national figure.
That was the context in which he mentioned Maddow, and his remark clearly was not about the Maddow show at all, it was about being on national tv in general.
If the clip or transcript becomes available, then anyone can read or listen and judge for themselves what Joe meant. They don’t need you to filter it for them.
As usual, you are just full of shit.
@El Cid: It’s especially stupid claiming it’s a “gotcha” question since Paul, himself has been out very publicly talking about that in other forums.
I don’t think that’s about being on national TV in general. He is specifically referencing Rand Paul’s appearance on MSNBC in a very partisan context. I don’t think you can really dispute that point.
Nope. He said what I said he said: Paul should stop trying to be a national figure and stay off national tv. Concentrate on Kentucky. Those were his words, although I might have them in a slightly different order. And what he meant was clear. He wasn’t criticizing Paul for being on Maddow’s show in particular, but for trying to go big when his real challenge is winning Kentucky.
Joe made the comments off the set, from somewhere else, I don’t know where he was speaking from. But the words were quite clear.
Not entirely. He contrasted an appearance on MSNBC with an appearance on Fox, which isn’t a regional Kentucky network.
From your mouth to FSM’s ears. Nothing would please me more than to see Morning Ho lose his podium for mocking his own network. Of course, Maddow has ticked him off before during Election Night Coverage when she called his b.s.
Jesus, AngustJBTOM, who died and made you Scarborough’s bestest fwiend? Was there some kind of craigslist ad for this job?
Nope. He said what I said he said, that Paul should stay in Kentucky and not try to be doing national tv, or be a national figure. It was clear that his entire remark set was grounded in that point of view. His blast was not at appearing on Maddow, it was on trying to be to go outside of what he needs to do, which is win Kentucky.
What kind of bullshit is that? I am simply stating what the man said, AS I SAID ABOVE anyone who hears the entire thing, including the words I paraphrased, can JUDGE FOR HIMSELF what Joe meant. That doesn’t make me Joe’s best friend, you idiot. What’s more I called Joe’s remarks IDIOTIC in a post above in this same thread, at post 35.
Equal Opportunity Cynic
What did Rand Paul say that indicate that government interference to require racism “isn’t so bad”?
He’s obviously a libertarian with little concern for the consequences of his ideas, but even so a libertarian can’t say, “Jim Crow isn’t so bad.”
Obviously you believe the appeals to libertarianism are just window dressing for plain old racism, even to the extent of using the government as an instrument of racism, but I doubt that view is borne out by any of Paul’s statements.
Apart from this matter, you have another example?
Mmm, I don’t think so. I heard a Fox reference too, but it was more along the lines of using an example of some liberal candidate appearing on Fox …. as an example of doing something that is not necessary for a candidate to do at this stage. In the same sense that for Paul to appear on MSNBC is a wrong move because it serves his campaign no purpose and only get him in trouble. Joe’s whole take was from the point of view of giving Paul campaign advice, which is why I called his remarks “idiotic” at post 35. The real story of Paul is that he is a fool, a libertarian dilettante who hasn’t thought this all through. That’s why he got himself into trouble. Not because he is a racist, or doesn’t like civil rights, but because he hasn’t taken the time to figure out how we can even have protected civil rights unless a government comes along and makes it mandatory.
Joe thinks like a politician, and not like a journalist. That’s a good reason to take him off the show, but that won’t happen.
Ah, so you are conceding this point. Sounds good to me, I’ll buy the next round.
I knew we’d find agreement.
@AngusTheGodOfMeat: How is what I said contradictory to what you said? I declared quite clearly that I don’t like Scarboy, who is a dumb right wing hack — and that’s not full of shit, it’s my opinion. I declared that Scarboy’s problem was that Paul ended up looking stupid, meaning, I don’t believe him when he says that the problem from this interview was because it was national rather than that it went badly. Scarboy asks two questions — quoting an unnamed ‘top conservative…real opinion maker from Washington DC’, one being ‘how could he have walked in to this type of controversy,’ and ‘what the hell was he doing on MSNBC? This isn’t an anti-MSNBC situation, but you don’t find a whole lot of very liberal Democrats on election night going on their victory lap on Fox News.’
There you go. Scarboy suggests this is not an ‘anti-MSNBC situation’, and I think he’s a deceitful piece of shit. Scarboy claims this is about not going on an opinionated national network the night of an election ‘victory lap’, and I’m suggesting Scarboy is full of shit and that his real concern was that Rand Paul and Republicans in KY ended up looking bad.
I just re-viewed the video & audio. Again.
Scarboy, MSNBC employee, and show host, wonders why a major political figure would go on MSNBC — not just why he was so stupid as to walk in blindly to such a topic.
I’m not “full of shit” — I’m saying what I think Scarboy means & cares about. I get to do this. This is the public sphere, not a court of criminal law, where Scarboy presumably gets a presumption of good will and innocence. I don’t think Scarboy was being ‘idiotic’, I think he knew damn well what he was saying.
I don’t like Scarboy. I think he’s a right wing hack and dishonest piece of shit. To whom do I have to prove that — you? Then you’re full of shit.
Of course, this wasn’t Scarboy, but an unnamed Washington DC conservative opinion maker, which is totally different.
Maybe somebody else can conceive of a Bill O’Reilly or Fox & Friends nitwit asking ‘what the hell is a Senatorial candidate doing coming on a national network like Fox News and then getting embarrassed by the views he/she espouses in response to questions.’ I don’t really see it.
As usual, you’re full of shit about me being full of shit.
@AngusTheGodOfMeat: You’re a fucking prick. You prove no point on your topic, and then you announce that ‘as usual I’m full of shit’ with no relevant quote, as if I know who the fuck you are or what you normally say or even give the slightest shit.
Are you another one of these BJ commenter maniacs who think they’re important and should be well known because of what they imagine their commentary reputation to be?
Are you another one of these maniac pricks who think that this is a high school debate team where any behavior you don’t like means ‘you win’?
@MikeJ: “The spirit of non-discrimination,” said Block “ends you right up in compulsory bisexuality.” – Epic! I want marching songs á la Marseillaise for our progression (more of a slippery slide no doubt) toward our new promised land of entropy and compulsory bisexuality! And I don’t know if you can combine more red flags in a single descriptor than “Walter Block, a libertarian professor of economics at Loyola University”
He also called Aimai an idiot in #68. Aimai.
So, you know, consider the source.
“I continue to not understand why anyone mentions Jeffrey Goldberg without referencing his pimping of the Saddam-al Qaeda link.”
I continue to not understand why anyone mentions Brien Jackson without referencing idiotic things he said a long time ago that are, at best, tangentially relevant to whether what he is saying now has any merit.
No. These were his words, as referenced at the top of this post and as I quote in my previous comment:
Those are the words that he actually he said.
Now that’s your interpretation of Scarborough’s words versus what he actually said.
I’m not sure why you’re being such a confident and obnoxious ponce about this, since the reality of the situation belies your entire position.
It’s easy. Hang your whole argument on a mythical off-air comment that cannot be linked…
He said he wasn’t sure we should have the Civil Rights act. I think that’s important. Why am I wrong?
This comment makes no sense to me. It’s bad to talk about how Rand Paul did on a morning show, but we should form a fan club to talk about how he did on Rachel Maddow. It’s bad when morning show people and bloggers talk about Ron Paul’s position on Civil Rights, but it’s great when Rachel Maddow asks him about it.
I’m not trying to be a jerk here, but what are you trying to say? I’ve read your comment three times now and I still can’t figure it out.
Leave it to Politico to say that Rand’s biggest failing was going on those stupid lib shows and spouting all his crazy-assed ideas: