Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs There A Method To Rand Paul’s TEMPER TANTRUMS?
".....Its the libertarian thing: Paul gets fussy and starts throwing his pacifiers any time someone prods him over what exactly he means by this libertarian thing....."
~snip~
In other words, Paul wants his libertarianism to be a cipher. He wants you to believe hes a freedom-loving freedom freedomer, but doesnt want you to actually know what he means by that, but instead to just assume that whatever his views are, they must align exactly with yours. As a strategy, its actually pretty smart. Paul wants younger, more independent voters to think hes a different kind of Republican but he also wants older, more religious voters to think hes the same kind of gay-hating, woman-suppressing Republican they prefer to vote for. Since libertarian is a meaningless garbage word, hes hoping that both camps just assume that his definition of it aligns with their views. But to keep that strategy going, he needs a conspiracy of silence: No questions on abortion/gay rights, since that might rob younger voters of the illusion that Pauls libertarianism means he believes the government should butt out of peoples sex lives. No questions on foreign policy, because hes trying to convince Team Youth that hes anti-interventionist while simultaneously trying to convince Team Christian Right that he cannot wait to start killing Muslims. No questions on drug policy, anti-discrimination legislation, immigration, anything where a genuinely libertarian view would turn off older voters, but where admitting hes actually a conservative would turn off younger voters.
Looking at it from that perspective, its arguable that Pauls tendency to fly off the handle, quit interviews, or demand imperiously that reporters act like stenographers instead of like, you know, reporters is all about trying to train the press to join his conspiracy of silence around all these issues. I mean, he may also just be a jackass, but the fact that this is targeted jackassery makes me wonder if this isnt just a deliberate strategy, with the hope that once reporters key into the fact that certain kinds of issues reliably cause a blow-up, that they will stop pressing those buttons for fear of inciting conflict.
If so, hes not just a jackass, but also a dumb ass. Nothing gets views and page clicks more than a candidate losing his temper. If anything, teaching the press that you can reliably get a tantrum by prodding him about hypocrisy or libertarian weirdness will encourage them to do it more. Of course, like Chris Christie, he may be banking on conservative enthusiasm for the idea that they are victimized by the meanie press refusing to be Republican propaganda corps. That might help him for a time, but at the end of the day, Republicans arent so nuts that theyll try to win a national election on the false victimhood tip. They always end nominating someone who at least can act like a grown-up in public and Paul just aint it.
cont'
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/is-there-a-method-to-rand-pauls-temper-tantrums/
In other words, Paul wants his libertarianism to be a cipher. He wants you to believe hes a freedom-loving freedom freedomer, but doesnt want you to actually know what he means by that, but instead to just assume that whatever his views are, they must align exactly with yours. As a strategy, its actually pretty smart. Paul wants younger, more independent voters to think hes a different kind of Republican but he also wants older, more religious voters to think hes the same kind of gay-hating, woman-suppressing Republican they prefer to vote for. Since libertarian is a meaningless garbage word, hes hoping that both camps just assume that his definition of it aligns with their views. But to keep that strategy going, he needs a conspiracy of silence: No questions on abortion/gay rights, since that might rob younger voters of the illusion that Pauls libertarianism means he believes the government should butt out of peoples sex lives. No questions on foreign policy, because hes trying to convince Team Youth that hes anti-interventionist while simultaneously trying to convince Team Christian Right that he cannot wait to start killing Muslims. No questions on drug policy, anti-discrimination legislation, immigration, anything where a genuinely libertarian view would turn off older voters, but where admitting hes actually a conservative would turn off younger voters.
Looking at it from that perspective, its arguable that Pauls tendency to fly off the handle, quit interviews, or demand imperiously that reporters act like stenographers instead of like, you know, reporters is all about trying to train the press to join his conspiracy of silence around all these issues. I mean, he may also just be a jackass, but the fact that this is targeted jackassery makes me wonder if this isnt just a deliberate strategy, with the hope that once reporters key into the fact that certain kinds of issues reliably cause a blow-up, that they will stop pressing those buttons for fear of inciting conflict.
If so, hes not just a jackass, but also a dumb ass. Nothing gets views and page clicks more than a candidate losing his temper. If anything, teaching the press that you can reliably get a tantrum by prodding him about hypocrisy or libertarian weirdness will encourage them to do it more. Of course, like Chris Christie, he may be banking on conservative enthusiasm for the idea that they are victimized by the meanie press refusing to be Republican propaganda corps. That might help him for a time, but at the end of the day, Republicans arent so nuts that theyll try to win a national election on the false victimhood tip. They always end nominating someone who at least can act like a grown-up in public and Paul just aint it.
cont'
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/is-there-a-method-to-rand-pauls-temper-tantrums/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 627 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Is There A Method To Rand Paul’s TEMPER TANTRUMS? (Original Post)
Segami
Apr 2015
OP
hatrack
(59,592 posts)1. Sure - he's not serious about running for president
He just wants to be on the tee-vee. Too bad about that temper of his . . . .
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)2. Throw in a pinch of "I'm the real victim here."
That evil mainstream-media asking him gotcha-questions as if he were supposed to be prepared for all kinds of questions about all of his past!
Segami
(14,923 posts)3. It's obvious....
...this boy politician hasn't mastered the art of remaining cool while being pressed. Maybe he can call Obama up for a few pointers.....
Segami
(14,923 posts)4. "...Paul's first big media feud was sparked...
"...when he appeared on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show" as a Senate candidate in 2010. Maddow questioned Paul about the Civil Rights Act, which he said should not prevent private businesses from being able to exercise their "free speech" -- which meant freedom to discriminate. Paul accused Maddow of throwing a "red herring" into the discussion...."
Lets see how many times Rand shows up on Rachel's show........
Gothmog
(145,595 posts)5. Rand Paul is not suited to be POTUS