Ron Paul None Too Happy With Being Asked Questions About His Son
Lawrence O'Donnell interview Rep. Ron Paul, and he was none too happy with Lawrence for asking him questions about his son's positions on term limits and Medicare. Paul’s son Rand, as we all know, is running for the Senate in Kentucky. During his debate with Jack Conway, Rand Paul said this.
PAUL: I think my greatest attribute is that I’ve never held office. I think we have too many people that go and stay for a career.
When O’Donnell asked Ron Paul what he had to teach Rand about the value of his twenty years and his seniority in the Congress, Paul hedged and said that O’Donnell’s staff had told him he would not be asked questions about other candidates and I assume, namely his son.
O’Donnell explained to him that if such an agreement was made, he was not made aware of it and Paul agreed to go ahead and discuss the topic. He countered O’Donnell by saying that even if the “Tea Party” supports term limits, he’s never discussed the issue with any of his supporters from that movement.
When O’Donnell asked him if that meant he did not support term limits, he said he did and had introduced and voted for legislation that would limit politicians' terms in office earlier in his career. He then tried turning that argument around to say that where candidates stand on issues is more important than how many terms they serve in office.
O’Donnell asked him why if he thought term limits were good he didn’t “self impose term limits on himself” and Paul basically admitted he’s switched his position on them and that the voters should be the ones that impose term limits.
O’Donnell then asked him about this statement by Jack Conway during the debate on Medicare.
CONWAY: Rand Paul is against all of these various programs; all of these agencies of the government. The one thing he said that he wouldn’t eliminate is the agency that pays to doctors Medicare because he ‘wants to make a comfortable living.” Well there’s the issue. You pay more. He gets more.
O’Donnell asks Ron Paul why he couldn’t get his son to do what he did and refuse to take Medicare patients “so he could avoid this conflict of interests, this hypocrisy of being against Medicare except when he can make money from it.”
Paul’s defense was to claim that his son’s quote was not accurate and that O’Donnell should check on that. After a lot of hemming and hawing and O’Donnell telling him that the quote was accurate, Paul resorted to saying his son had been taken out of context.
These Libertarians are always long on platitudes and short on real answers when they get forced to defend their "ideals" in terms of real world situations and what some of their ideas would actually mean for everyday Americans if they were actually enacted.
In the later part of the interview, Lawrence O’Donnell asked Ron Paul about his statement that “The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom.” Ron Paul did his best to try to revise history and pretend that Martin Luther King Jr. was a libertarian and not a liberal.
Given the Pauls' history with racism and links to white supremacy, I'd say Lawrence O'Donnell took it pretty easy on him.
It was pretty obvious after this exchange that we won't see Ron Paul coming back on Lawrence O'Donnell's show again any time soon. Here's the last part of the interview.
when I see this site ripping apart Ron Paul. Why did O'Donnell feel the need to keep bringing up his son? If you wanna talk to Rand Paul, then book Rand Paul.
"O’Donnell asks Ron Paul why he couldn’t get his son to do what he did and refuse to take Medicare patients “so he could avoid this conflict of interests..."
What kind of question is that? He's already said he doesn't want to talk about his son. And why does O'Donnell seem to think Ron Paul has control over his sons views? It's very obvious Rand Paul is very different from Ron Paul in many different ways. O'Donnell did nothing but try to start a controversy by exposing some kind of rift in the Paul family, which really has nothing to do with anything. I like Ron Paul. RAND Paul is a WANKER. Why does C&L and journos like O'Donnell keep trying to make them seem like they are the same person? C'mon. You guys are above this.
To be fair, the site is called "Crooks and Liars," and Papa Doc and Baby Doc Paul would seem to qualify for both of those descriptors.
! Well played!
“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”
.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Honestly. What is it with all you so-called "Progressives" here at Crooksandliars?
Does it really rattle you so much when you hear the Republican Ron Paul saying that we need to bring the troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq (both illegal wars/occupations), and bring our troops home from Korea and from Europe? To have Congress be the only entity that can "declare war" as it is spelled out in the Constitution?
To stop secret assassinations of American citizens without due process? When Ron Paul says he is working with "liberals" like Barney Frank and Dennis Kucinich does it really irk you THAT much that you can't say, "Good for Ron Paul! He's RIGHT about cutting military spending! He's RIGHT about the fact that we spend too much and we need to live within our means! He's RIGHT that we need to audit the Federal Reserve (and he has many "progressive" Democrats co-signers on this). He's RIGHT that we need to end all the wars we are fighting! They are illegal, immoral and WE CANNOT AFFORD THEM!!!!!
Seriously people. GROW UP. When someone has a position that you know is fundamentally right, ADMIT IT ALREADY!!!
I think he's wrong about Medicare. I LOVE Medicare! I LOVE the Social Security program! God knows if I would have had to "save" money for my retirement over the past 40 years that money would have gone to my kids for college, new cars or for trips to Maui! Thank God I had an agreement with my employers to have that money slipped out of my checks for the future!
I can't wait to retire and get those checks every month!
Ron Paul is dead right about some things and dead wrong about others. This is why he is so close to Congress members like Frank and Kucinich.
Why can't posters here simply agree to agree with what is right, REGARDLESS of who the messenger is, and agree to disagree??
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Ron Paul is a fraud. His son a weak facsimile.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
That seems a bit of a logically dissonant position ... being "right" for the wrong reasons still counts as being wrong.
Ron Paul's stance on the War is due mainly to monetary/financial concerns. He has a couple of good votes, but that is about it. 99% of the time he does act, walk, and talk like a crook and a liar. The norm rules when it comes to characterize behavior, that is a common understanding I think...
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
Cons/Liebertarians/AmericanTaliban cant be asked any questions off script?
Lew
Fighting the Christian American Taliban daily.
O'Donnell didn't let Paul answer, he kept talking over him. Ron Paul is looney, but O'Donnell lots like the bigger jerk in this interview.
Hopefully O'Donnell will develop some of Maddow's skill of skewering the guest while remaining reasonably respectful.
O'Donnell didn't give Paul an opportunity to use the interview as a soap box to peddle his views. He put him on the defensive right from the start and didn't pull any punches. It seemed to be somewhat out of character for O'donnell who ususally treats his guests with more courtesy. I think Ron Paul will return to "The Last Word" the day after Rand re-appears on Rachelle Maddow's show which will be the day after hell freezes over.
If he didn't want to answer questions he shouldn't have appeared on the show. His son is running in a campaign and he should have expected questions about that and any differences he and his son might have as far as opinions. All he had to say was that he and his son didn't agree on everything but his son does have some fine qualities. Then he could have listed these fine qualities if indeed he feels there are some.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
I think it's normal to have "ground rules" for these kinds of interviews about what will and won't be discussed. I kind of like it that O'Donnell didn't worry about those agreed upon rules (according to Paul at least) but I doubt he'll get Ron back on his show again.
Gives him too many flashbacks of too many parent, teacher, principal conferences.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
In an interview you don't get to talk about what you want, you get to talk about what the interviewer asks you. Ron Paul was free to not answer the questions, that is his prerogative... but that is calling "evading the question"
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
of the Rachel Maddow/Art Robinson interview....are he and Paul cousins?
“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”
Are congressman RoPaul and his son RaPaul related to RuPaul? Will RaPaul even entertain the question?
Or Paul Reubens?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Hmmm... don't let the other O'Donnell know about that...
In the marketplace of ideas, too many people shop in the bargain basement.
-- Thunder BlueRose
Why, yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU
http://saxman.bravepages.com
couldn't give satisfactory answers to O'Donnell's questions is that the libertarian philosophy is simply that: a philosophy. An unworkable, unproven philosphy that is strictly an academic exercise. It has never succeeded anywhere and is a mass of ridiculous contradictions.
That should be "none too happy."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8mMBT62rgQ
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
WTF?
he's right about the Bush wars does not negate his totally bankrupt libertarian philosophy. The social policies for which he advocates are beyond asinine, they are dangerous. He should be questioned by ALL of the media the way O'Donnell did. A broken clock is right twice a day just as Paul is right about the wars.
Predictable double talk in the form of newspeak.
The Paul's need to start their own country or a walled off community where they can live like Somali's.
Who cares what Ron Paul says? He is a racist little kook with a kook for a son.
MEH.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Thanks Andyk √
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Chuck Baldwin Endorses Ron Paul
Ron Paul - Pastor Chuck Baldwin endorsement
Ron Paul Endorses Chuck Baldwin!
Tea Party Insanity:G. Beck / Chuck Baldwin "Burn the books!" (Video)
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Ya know, I saw this interview with O'Donnell and Ron Paul came across as a sniveling, whining, douche.. WHY is he even attractive as a candidate?? He is a liar and a non-commitment guy!!!
He did not, even ONCE, finish a thought on ANY subject Laurence wanted to ask him, so as far I as could tell Laurence spent 20 minutes talking to a toilet bowl. AND he wants to repeal parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security... F*** HIM !!!
Oh, and by the way - HIS SON IS WORSE !!! So what do you get when you have TWO douches in a single family?? Douche Bags !!!
Neither one should be elected for ANY thing... Worthless...
Ron Paul only comes across as non-committal because few interviewers have ever pushed him to answer in detail, or made him deal with follow up questions.
Once you get past his pat lines of "lower taxes", "fiscal responsibility" and "self reliance" he slips right into the weird world of Randian libertarianism where there are no government services, is no social safety net, no charity and no "rights".
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Wasn't it Ron Paul's supporters that chased Hannity back to his hotel, in New Hampshire early in 2008?
That was gutbusting funny! Hannity walking as fast as he could without running, to escape with his pitiful arse!
Red Dawg
Did I hear him correctly? He says hes voted for term limits since the 70's?
No. He said since HIS 70s.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Honestly! What is it with you Paul-o-philes?
You are aware of the immense damage this childish libertarian and his apathetic offspring would do to this country yet you rush to his defense like any good, brainless Repug.
This is the problem with our country. Voters! not Washington, not our elected officials, not even the lobbyists & their corporate overlords. You sure do love your candidate cause he is different. Never mind he says he'll kill all our safety nets, gut our government & turn us into a bunch of separate states instead of one nation but golly he sure is with us on one issue - or worse no issue at all, he's just not an 'insider' (at least not until he gets inside!). You people allow the crooks & liars to run amok.
Ron Paul & his clone are liars. They are bigots and apathetic children. You tell others to grow up, really? Really!? You state RP will take your Medicare & SS but that's superfine by you because he works with liberals. I'm sorry that's not enough reason to support this guy. He is doing what Congressmen are supposed to do. Both sides compromise until a consensus is reached. That's his job. And I will say he is fundamentally right about the war BUT he is wrong about everything else! He is not worthy of my support. So get off your high-horse & remove you goggles, Ron Paul & son are NOT good for America.
I believe term limits is the reason America is in decline. Had there been no term limits, George Bush may have had to be forcibly removed from office under indictment for war crimes. He might have actually had to pay for his crimes against humanity. By the same token, Bill Clinton might have gone on to spend wisely the huge surplus that had been acquired under his administration. The problem with American politics is that it becomes a series of unfinished stories. Eight years, and suddenly the nation is off in a different direction. No focus, no common voice.
... then they ought to be interviewing Rand Paul, not Ron Paul.
O'Donnell is right on the merits-I didn't hear a legitimate explanation of how Ron Paul would replace Medicare, or what his plan would be if he planned to work to end Medicare, but O'Donnell is a poor interviewer. He kept on (as Paul noted) putting words in his mouth and he cut him off when he was talking about the Civil Rights Act. Also, I find it hard to believe that O'Donnell didn't know about any agreement not to talk about other candidates. And even if there was no agreement, it's bizarre trying to get a man to critique the political positions of his son. If O'Donnell wanted to talk about Rand Paul, he should have had Rand Paul on the show. O'Donnell needs to go to the Rachel Maddow/Amy Goodman/Jon Stewart school of interviewing because those folks are able to get their points over quite easily without talking over their guests or seeming like bullies.
Comments are closed on this entry