After having a good cry over their preferred
candidates’ epic losses yesterday, MSNBC’s Election Night hosts
decided to cheer each other up by turning to a favorite activity:
bashing Republicans. There’s nothing wrong with that—lots of
Republicans deserve a good bashing—but when the conversation
strayed from “McCarthy-esque” (Chris Mathews’ word) Sen. Ted Cruz
to “know-nothing” (Rachel Maddow’s word) Sen. Rand Paul, things got
ugly.
First, the hosts noted that Paul actually experienced
something of a setback last night in his likely quest for the
presidency. Kentucky law bars candidates from running in two
different elections at the same time, which means that Paul would
not be able to run for both the Republican presidential nomination
and his Senate seat in 2016. A Republican state legislature could
have changed the law to make things easier for Paul, but the
Democrats retained control.
Matthews insisted that Paul would run for president no matter
what. He defended the libertarian-leaning Congressman as a person
of vision and ideas. Paul offers a completely unique perspective,
and his libertarian brand has earned him the title of Most
Interesting Man in Politics, according to Matthews. The host
lamented that no one on the left possessed Paul’s flare for bold
ideas relating to foreign policy and civil liberties.
Maddow, on the other hand, derided Paul as nothing more than an
opportunist who took advantage of his father’s acclaim. More
odiously, she insisted that Paul had no good ideas and was actually
clueless on foreign policy, civil liberties, and monetary policy.
Here is a transcript of her simpering remarks, which seem
specifically designed to inflame libertarians:
“I don’t believe that Rand Paul has ideas. Did you listen to his
filibuster when he was talking about drones? He’s talking about how
much he cares about this drone policy? He has no idea what the
drone policy is. He says he cares about the Fed? He has no idea
what monetary policy is. He says he cares about criminal justice
reform? He has no idea what he’s talking about.
Matthews disagreed vehemently, but nobody else on the panel came
to Paul’s defense.
If Maddow truly thinks Paul has “no ideas,” I would like her to
name someone she does consider to be informed about these matters.
I would also like to see her square her tirade with Paul’s
undeniably productive efforts to
eliminate mandatory minimum sentencing,
lawsuit against the NSA, support for demilitarizing
the police in the wake of Ferguson, legislation to
restore voting rights to felons,
insistence that Congress should vote on war authorization, and
moderate position on drug legalization.
I find it more plausible that Maddow is perfectly aware of
Paul’s relatively progressive positions on these issues. But since
admitting that would shatter the left-right prism in which she
lives, she must pretend that everyone with an R next to his name
represents everything she despises. And she has to keep her
audience from learning more about libertarian-leaning Republicans
and discovering that they aren’t so bad after all.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/13GCNZS
via IFTTT