About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

Say what?
Author: Raine    Date: 05/24/2010 13:27:03

I didn't want to talk about her, but I have to. Sarah. She gives me a twitch in my eye. She appeared yesterday on Fox & Friends and said the following:
PALIN: Yeah, absolutely. So you know, one thing that 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 — and then the opportunity that they seize to get you.

You know, they’re looking for that gotcha moment. And that’s what it evidently appears to be that they did with Rand Paul, but I’m thankful that he was able to clarify his answer about his support for the Civil Rights Act.
Think Progress has the video.

Hello Pot, meet Kettle. I am going to go one step further here, and commend Rand Paul for initially being honest despite my personal opposition to what he believes in. What has since happened is he, well -- he Flip-Flopped. Think Progress also points out that Rand Paul willingly went on the Rachel Maddow show, and by now we all know that she gave him 15 minutes to clarify his comments. Those Comments were ones that he made a few times before this national interview. Somehow this is being spun into 'Gotcha Journalism'? When someone like John Cornyn become sthe voice of reason in a debate like the one being raised at Fox, I think we are entering an alternate reality that not even the TV show 'Lost' can rival. Cornyn Appeared on Meet the Press yesterday (after Rand Paul backed out)
GREGORY: Don’t you think this is fair game? Questions about his views about the limit and scope of government?

CORNYN: Well, I do think that’s a fair topic, and I’m sure you’ll be hearing extensively from him and all the other candidates over the next six months.
He's right. People deserve to know where a candidate stands on any issue. For Palin and others to suggest that candidates shouldn't answer questions unless the media is fully vetted by the candidate is dangerous. It's antithetical to our free press and what the fourth estate is supposed to be about.

And -- for the record, the so called hypothetical discussion Ms. Palin said Mr. Paul was having? Of course it was hypothetical -- this is how you find out about candidates and their views. It's a basic tenant of campaigning and politics.

In the mean time, RNC Chairperson Michale Steele appeared on This week yesterday morning and refused to condemn Rand Paul's views regarding the Civil Rights act of 1964
TAPPER: But do you condemn that view?

STEELE: I can’t condemn a person’s view. That’s like, you know, you believe something and I’m going to say, well, you know, I’m going to condemn your view of it. It’s the people of Kentucky will judge whether or not that’s a view that they would like to send–
Steele went onto say he was not comfortable with Paul's view, but refused to make it clear that it was not the view of the Republican Party.

So, if we are to get this correct, the media should basically be spoon-fed questions that the candidate wants to answer and not be asked the hard questions. They should also never be held accountable for the things they say. They can say anything they want because it's all hypothetical.

This appears to only apply if said candidate is a Republican -- or a Libertarian in Republican clothes. Or a former half-term Governor who doesn't give interviews.

For those that think Rand Paul may have been taken out of context, or misspoke, check this out. It starts at about 4:50 in:


Like Father, Like Son.

Gotcha!

and
Raine


 

25 comments (Latest Comment: 05/25/2010 03:45:41 by Raine)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati