AP Pulls Story Egregiously Misquoting Rand Paul on Immigration Reform

If you recently read anything about Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) calling for the rounding of Mexicans, you read an egregiously misreported story by the AP, which has pulled it.

From the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Associated Press has withdrawn its story about Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., saying he sees some in the his party favoring a 2016 presidential candidate with an immigration policy that would "round up people ... and send them back to Mexico." That quote was in the transcript of "Fox News Sunday" that was distributed after Paul's interview on the show. A subsequent Associated Press review of an audio recording of the show determined that the transcript had dropped the word "don't" from that quote, and Paul actually said, "They don't want somebody who wants to round people up, put them in camps and send them back to Mexico."

Related: If you want to back a politician who is very much in favor of rounding up illegals and deporting them, you should back Barack Obama, who has set records for deporting immigrants and harassing the workplaces that employ them. Read more here.

Here's the Fox News transcript (also corrected; emphasis added) in which Paul makes his general statement of a 2016 presidential platform, which looks pretty damn good from a libertarian point of view:

I think the country really is ready for the narrative coming, libertarian Republican narrative, also because we have been losing as a national party. We are doing fine in congressional seats but we're becoming less and less of a national party because we don't win on the West Coast, we don't win in New England. We really struggle around the Great Lakes.

I think people want a party that's a little bit less aggressive on foreign policy, still believes in a strong national defense but less aggressive. They want -- the young people want politicians who don't want them in jail for 20 years for a nonviolent drug position charge. So, they want a little bit different phase. I think people want a little different phase on immigration frankly. They don’t want someone somebody who wants to round people up, put in camps and send them back to Mexico.

Read more here.

Paul is, of course, strong on core economic issues and government spending as well. The platform he outlines above is indeed the coming narrative of both parties, as they chase after independent voters who have consistently said that government is doing too much:

Gallup.comGallup.com

It may come as news to folks at Reason, but Matt Welch and I wrote a book about much of this. Go here to buy the paperback edition of The Declaration of Independents (available as an e-book), featuring a new (circa July 2012) introduction.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Rand Paul (R-Ky.) calling for the rounding of Mexicans"

    Later to be rolled out to create some SWestern style pizza.

  • Brett L||

    I think he wants the skinny ones to go back to Mexico. We'll keep the mamasitas, even though they grow up into mamasotos.

  • Almanian!||

    WISE mamasotos.

  • John||

    Funny how the mistakes always go one way. They never misquote a Democrat in a bad way.

  • ||

    To the AP it was funny-ha ha, not funny-strange.

  • Sevo||

    And the correction will be 6pt type on pg20.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Don't be paranoid - if a Fox News transcript had Obama talking about rounding up Mexicans, the AP would have run with that, too-without checking it against the original program.

    Why do you doubt this?

  • John||

    But that mistake never seems to be made. So, yes I don't think they would run with it since I can't think of a single example of such a mistake being made about a Dem politician.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I should have posted the sarcasm signal.

  • John||

    Sorry. I was just being dense.

  • AuH2O||

    It got me too. My sarcasm detector needs to go into the shop for recalibration again, I guess.

  • T o n y||

    You're obviously in a position to objectively judge this.

  • Almanian!||

    You're looking in a mirror again. Yet you never, ever learn from that.

  • sarcasmic||

    Someone once said to me "The wise man learns from the mistakes of others, the smart man learns from his own mistakes, and the stupid man doesn't learn."

  • Hopfiend||

    Did T O N Y use the word "objective?"

    hahahahahahaha

  • ||

    Let's not lose our heads when thinking about Rand Paul. He's an unregenerate federalist, and, in case you have forgotten, it was federalism that gave birth to the imperialistic, commerce-rigging creature on the Potomac.

  • Counterfly Guard||

    Yeah, remember that when you're pulling the lever for Santorum.

  • R C Dean||

    pulling the lever for Santorum

    I'm thinking this must be one of them euphemism thingies.

  • ||

    Perhaps a "dog whistle" thingy? I don't know what the means but I've heard it before from my sources at MSNBC.

  • ||

    Ooops, almost forgot: IT'S SARCASM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Cytotoxic||

    it was federalism that gave birth to the imperialistic, commerce-rigging creature on the Potomac.

    No it wasn't.

  • ||

    Say what now?

  • Brandybuck||

    Did you get that from DiLorenzo's new book, "Alexander Hamilton: The Unregenerate Federalist Devil of the North"?

  • sarcasmic||

    It may come as news to folks at Reason, but Matt Welch and I wrote a book about much of this.

    Oh.... My.... God.... You guys wrote a book?!?

  • Brett L||

    If you make a donation, they'll send you a couple copies. (Thanks guys. I read one and passed the other one on to some friends with repressed libertarian tendancies.)

  • $park¥||

    passed the other one on to some friends with repressed libertarian tendancies

    Are they still your friends?

  • Brett L||

    Yes. However,they have never brought up the book, nor returned it.

  • Way Of The Crane||

    However,they have never brought up the book, nor returned it.

    It's probably propping up an uneven leg on their IKEA coffee table.

  • Brett L||

    Hey now. I don't hang with people who shop at Swedish Walmart. Well... I did go with a gf once. But I was young and I didn't know. I thought the appreciation sex would be worth it! I was young, dammit!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    FAKE BUT ACCURATE.

  • T o n y||

    Rand Paul has the intellect of a 14-year-old. Who cares what he says?

  • Almanian!||

    Again, Choney - you're looking in a mirror. And you continue not to learn.

  • $park¥||

    All your trolling experience and you fall back on a fourth grade taunt?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    He's a physician. You're saying he's Doogie Howser?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Well, Mr. Jones, I fixed your cataracts. Now you can go back to ogling the babes, huh huh!

    "As for your payment, just give me the cheat codes to *Resident Evil XVII."

  • AuH2O||

    Your right- the CW should do a modern day reboot of Doogie Howser.

  • T o n y||

    I'm saying I really hope he runs for president.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    You said he's an eye doctor with the intellect of a 14 year old.

  • John||

    Our President has the intellect of a ten year old, and a mean spirited slow one at that. People still pay attention to him.

  • SugarFree||

    Fuck off, sockpuppet.

  • sarcasmic||

    Intellect envy.

  • Jordan||

    Ad hominems: the hallmark of an intellectual giant.

  • sarcasmic||

    In the world of the leftist, ideas are judged by the source instead of the content. Often this is because the person is too stupid to actually judge the content of the idea, so they instead judge it by the person who said it.

    So they view ad hominems as a legitimate way to win an argument.

    After all, if an idea came from a poo-poo head, it couldn't have any merit now could it?

  • SugarFree||

    I'm fine judging some argument solely on an ad hominem basis.

    Tony and Sockpuppet Tony have been griefing this place for years. It's proved itself a troll, a shill, a griefer, and a total fake thousands of times. I wouldn't believe it if it argued the sky was blue.

    Not all arguments even should be judged solely on their merits. Integrity matters. If you've gone out of your way to systematically dismantle your integrity with bad faith argumentation and flat-lies, then I'm going to ad hom you until the flesh falls from your diseased bones.

    (Not you you, of course.)

  • sarcasmic||

    There is a difference between "You are a moron, therefore your idea is bunk" and "Your idea is bunk, therefore you are a moron."

    The latter is an observation, while the former is ad hominem.

    I don't think you engage in ad hominems. You simply make accurate observations.

  • ||

    No, it's "Everything you have ever said has been dishonest and insulting, therefore fuck you." I don't need to punch myself in the face every morning to know that getting punched in the face sucks, and I don't need to read any Tony posts to know he's full of shit.

  • SugarFree||

    I can see that. Of course there is also a long and disturbing history developing here of trying to redefine personal insults as ad hominem attacks, a phenomena which needs to be fought.

    I don't call, say dunphy, a lying piece of shit in order to refute his arguments (he doesn't make arguments, he makes assertions, as is). I call him a lying piece of shit because I think he has proven over and over again in his owns words that he is a lying piece of shit.

  • ||

    trying to redefine personal insults as ad hominem attacks

    TULPICAL

  • SugarFree||

    Whereas I have a developing tenacity to make things improperly plural today.

  • DarrenM||

    But "ad hominem" sounds so much more eddycated.

  • AuH2O||

    That does explain how Obama's policies can be almost carbon copies of Bush's, but liberals don't have a problem with them.

    Bush was just an icky Texan who practiced a weird and off-putting brand of Christianity and didn't believe the right things despite going to the right schools.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "who practiced a weird and off-putting brand of Christianity"

    Methodists are weird and off-putting? I thought the left had saved that for Baptists, observant Catholics and Mormons?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    And of course the nature of the source is determined by ???. So, someone's dumb or not, not because of the validity of their claims, but because of ???. And therefore, we can judge their pronouncements as smart of dumb based on their status.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    We always hear from the likes of Tony that the President is an intellectual and Rand Paul is an idiot. Yet, when we actually listen to their speeches, one prattles vapid platitudes about hope, change, or fairness, while the other constructs arguments making comfortable references to the writings of the founding fathers, Orwell, or Moliere.

  • SIV||

    "Tony" shows up for a Nick Gillespie post. Coincidence? Not if you've been paying attention.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 2.19.13 @ 10:57AM |#
    "Rand Paul has the intellect of a 14-year-old."

    So you have a hard time keeping up, scheisskopf?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I suspect that journalists will do a somewhat more sophisticated version of Tony's narrative. Without being quite as idiotic as Tony (which would be extremely difficult), they will hint that, after leaving the practice of medicine for politics, good ol' Dr. Rand was in over his head and began spouting Tea Party cliches.

    Just as they *knew* that Bush II was dumber than John Kerry (despite earning higher college grades), just as they *knew* that Goldwater thought fraternities were bulwarks against Communism (he actually made a joke about Ivy League schools and *Keynsianism*), they will *know* that Rand just is ignorant about public affairs.

    As John suggests, they have only begun the game of taking quotes/misquotes to make the Senator look like an idiot. They will simply find a quote, assume it's dumb and spin it that way. Then, as John says, Rand will then evolve into a gaffe-prone figure of controversy and divisiveness.

  • T o n y||

    If politicians can't hold their own with American journalists then how are they supposed to handle North Korea?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I didn't say the journalists would automatically succeed. They themselves fear their narrative won't always work.

  • Hopfiend||

    This is even a new intellectual low for you Tony.

  • ||

    "Rand will then evolve into a gaffe-prone figure of controversy and divisiveness"

    Say, he might be presidential after-all.

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    Yep....the guy that went to Baylor and Medical school is a dumbass.

    /sarc

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Actually, more than that. Duke Medical School admitted him before graduating from Baylor because of the scores he got on his MCATs.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    You know, I consistently seem to find liberals like Tony making these sorts of denunciations However, just as consistently I fail to find much substance to these denunciations beyond calling the man a "poopyhead". I suspect this is a case of denunciations becoming all the more vehement for their LACK of substance.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Funny, I don’t know any 14 year olds who made it through medical school. You must have extremely intelligent friends. Please, regale us with tales of your accomplishments.

    -jcr

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Check out this *Guardian* columnist:

    "Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky Dumber Than I Thought"

    http://guardianlv.com/2013/02/.....i-thought/

    "Mr. Paul, you obviously do not read the papers, or look at the polls. You are entirely out of touch with the American people.

    "Is it your assumption that if these 11 or 12 million people were deported you might win the election in 2016?"

    etc.

  • John||

    The truth doesn't matter. It is the narrative. Look even if Ron Paul didn't actually say this, he clearly would say something like this. And that is good enough. Kind of like Sarah Palin thinking she can Russia from her house. Don't bore me with your Bourgeois "facts".

  • Cytotoxic||

    Facts are racist donchaknow.

  • Sevo||

    John| 2.19.13 @ 11:01AM |#
    "The truth doesn't matter. It is the narrative. Look even if Ron Paul didn't actually say this, he clearly would say something like this"

    And if he wouldn't say something like this we know he thinks it!

  • Brandon||

    The comments are awesome.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It gets better - the Guardian still has the story up, but there's a post from the author (linked only in the comments to the original article) in which the author says:

    "I was quoting an AP source who has since recanted his statement. [quotes original story with the error in it]...

    "But he does favor eliminating programs for women, such as planned parenthood. He does not support women’s rights.

    "And he also said a couple of years ago that the “civil rights laws went too far”. He claimed they take away rights from proprietors to run their business as they see fit."

    How infuriating that this story isn't, technically, true. But the Higher Truth is still there!

  • Sevo||

    "How infuriating that this story isn't, technically, true. But the Higher Truth is still there!"

    You're too kind:
    'The story is based on a lie, but I'm still going to flog it'

  • crashland||

    Right because if we rounded them up, who would mow the lawn at my country club? Seriously do you really think any of those lazy, give me give me give me, 20 somethings still living at home would actually do work that causes them to sweat?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Come on, you guys. It was one little word.

  • ||

    "What difference does it make!?"

  • ||

    Wow, they're already starting the smear campaign. Good for you Rand, you must have really gotten under their skin with your SOTU response.

  • John||

    The moment they think he is a threat, they will give him the full Palin treatment. And don't console yourself by thinking "but Paul isn't Palin". It doesn't matter. If he doesn't say something stupid, they will just pretend he did and do so multiple times. And then they will change the subject from the "gaffes" to Paul being "gaffe" prone. It won't matter that all of the alleged "gaffes" didn't really happen because they won't be talking about them anymore. They will be talking about how "gaffe prone" Paul is.

    That is what they did to Palin and what they are going to do to Paul, Cruz, Rubio and anyone else they think is a threat. Too bad Reason cheered them on when they did it to Palin thus helping to embolden them to do it to everyone one else they view as a threat.

  • Sudden||

    John, while I have no doubt that they'll make significant attempts to discredit Rand through such tactics, you really have to be deaf to think that Palin was not a juicier target for such tactics.

    Rand is smart and a shrewd communicator. Palin had a certain charm about her, but she wasn't exactly the type of person you could have a detailed political philosophy discussion with.

  • John||

    but she wasn't exactly the type of person you could have a detailed political philosophy discussion with.

    She is exactly that kind of person. She is very smart. Go read her book sometime. There is nothing stupid about Palin. But it didn't matter. When you can edit the interview to make the person look stupid, it doesn't matter how smart they are or are not. Once it is out there, you can't disprove it.

    If you think Paul being a smart and engaging guy is going to save him from the media mob, you are kidding yourself. These are the people who convinced America that Mitt Romney was launching a war on women. These are the people who convinced America that FEMA was responsible for New Orleans flooding during Katrina.

    And make no mistake about it, they will get together and convince the low information voters of America Paul is either nuts, stupid or both and certainly prone to saying inappropriate and stupid things.

  • T o n y||

    Sarah Palin is a slogan spewing incompetent. The entire rest of the country, those who don't inhabit the right-wing bubble, is aware of this, and were horrified at the thought of her being a geriatric's heartbeat away from the nuclear football. Put up or shut up with these "edited interview" claims. My god is there no end to your whiny victimhood.

  • John||

    The Couric interview as edited to make her look bad you nitwit.

    The media depends upon people like you Tony. People with low IQs, people who depend upon the media for most of their information, and who make most decisions based on prejudice, anger and emotion. This allows them to create a narrative based on those prejudices and emotions. And since you and others like you tend to have lower IQs and little interest in alternative sources of news, whatever lie they tell you is likely to stick, especially if it plays into your fears and prejudices.

    Your attitude towards Palin is exactly what they meant to create.

  • T o n y||

    I watched Palin plenty on her home turf at FOX and never had cause to change my estimation of her intellectual abilities. Surely they didn't edit her to look stupid.

  • T o n y||

    And let's talk about your attitude for a minute and how actually dangerous it is. You never have to judge your team's politicians on their merits, because if they ever come across as, say, more ignorant than a semi-retarded toaster, you just blame the librul media. Then anyone can be whatever you want them to be, and in turn they can convince you of whatever they want. I can't imagine what it's like living in such a rudderless way with respect to objective judgment.

  • John||

    Yeah lets talk about that attitude Tony. Joe Biden has a 100 IQ and people take him seriously. Meanwhile anyone on the other side so much as takes a drink of water and they are immediately written off as the crazy.

    Holding one political side to one standard while holding the other to no standard. That is great for politics. Just great. But it works since there is such a huge supply of low IQ low information voters such as yourself.

    Go look it up Tony. The group that Obama won by the biggest margin other than blacks in 2012, was low information voters. That is by design.

  • T o n y||

    Yeah it's called the design of winning an election. Obama won all demographics except white men. That of course will include some LIVs. It also includes people with advanced degrees. We're a big tent.

    You'll get no argument from me that the media focuses far too much on "gaffes" such as Rubio's water lunge. That incident has no relevance on a judgment of his intelligence. The bullshit slogans he parrots are what do that.

  • Whahappan?||

    Seriously? I'm no Rubio fan, but what else does Obama do except parrot bullshit slogans and platitudes?

  • Hopfiend||

    you flatter yourself that you apply reason to your politics. You truly lead an unexamined existence.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 2.19.13 @ 11:55AM |#
    "Sarah Palin is a slogan spewing incompetent"

    That mirror is really obnoxious, right scheisskopf?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "...slogan spewing incompetent".

    Slogans like "Hope and Change" or "We are the Ones we've been waiting for"?

  • fish||

    Sarah Palin is a slogan spewing incompetent.

    Kettle meet p o t.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Sarah Palin is a slogan spewing incompetent.

    Project much?

    -jcr

  • Killazontherun||

    The press so muddied the waters with Palin, I would have to meet the woman and speak with her personally to really have any idea of her acumen. Her performance in the Katie Couric interview was awful. To an extent I can emphasize with her as I once bombed in a play, but at that level and being a member of the demonized party, their was no room for mistakes on her part. Republicans do have to work twice as hard to be counted as half as smart as the Democrats. That is just the way it is.

  • ||

    I think Palin brought a lot of it onto herself by not being prepared for the media shitstorm that was headed towards her. They HATE conservative women, especially if they are moderately attractive.

  • AuH2O||

    Palin left the plantation, and that always pisses the left off more than a white guy.

    So, Rubio is going to get it BAD. Because if our first Hispanic president was a Republican, that would complicate the narrative. But a conservative white guy with libertarianish rhetoric- they've dealt with THAT before.

    I mean, that's what Reagan was in 1979-1980. And yeah, they HATED Reagan. But his very existence didn't offend them in the same way that gay or black or female republicans offend them.

  • John||

    They tried to claim Rubio drinking water during a speech meant he no longer had a political future. They will grab onto anything. The merits of any particular "gaffe" doesn't matter. You just need a lot of them and that will enable you to claim they are "gaffe prone" and not serious. Once you can say that it doesn't matter what they say or do. The image is set.

  • T o n y||

    If you spent less time whining about media conspiracies and more time searching for actually talented politicians with some intellectual rigor, you might not be in the electoral doomsday scenario you're in.

    The heart of the problem is not a giant conspiracy. It's that your party lacks any depth and believes deeply in its own slogans.

  • John||

    And the low information low IQ voter known as Tony, once again proves the power of the media.

  • T o n y||

    And all your information about Sarah Palin came from what? Thorough independent research?

  • John||

    I actually read her book Tony and bothered to listen to her beyond what Jon Stewart and SNL said. At this point, I doubt that would do you any good. The have managed to make you so emotional and so emotionally invested in the hatred of the "other", it really wouldn't matter if you bothered to learn something. You wouldn't believe the facts even if they were presented to you. You are a good example of how propaganda can really do a number on someone.

  • T o n y||

    My goodness you've really piled on with the appropriated lefty insults. Low-information voters and "the other." You're a like mini-Frank Luntz. What's next? I don't like Marco Rubio because I'm racist?

  • John||

    IT only hurts because it is true Tony.

  • T o n y||

    You're typing words, but all I'm picturing is a toddler crying about how Katie Couric was mean to your friend.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 2.19.13 @ 12:27PM |#
    "My goodness you've really piled on with the appropriated lefty insults."

    Not a tenth of what shitheads like you deserve.

  • John C. Randolph||

    What they did to Palin is basically the same thing they did to Dan Quayle. I know people who know him, and they tell me that he has a bad case of stage fright. In person, one-on-one, he’s pretty sharp.

    -jcr

  • T o n y||

    I know, someone like Joe Biden's a rich target for being labeled as gaffe-prone, and I've never heard that said about him.

    It's not a conspiracy John. Sometimes Republicans are just idiots. Actually it happens a little too often for comfort.

  • John||

    Joe Biden is the dumbest person in political life and has said more stupid and offensive things than any politician in history. Yet, he is a serious contender to win the Presidency in 2016. Thanks for proving my point.

  • T o n y||

    Well now that Sarah Palin's no longer in politics...

  • John||

    Yeah Tony. Palin thinks she can see her house from Russia. Thanks for proving yet again, you are a nasty idiotic sock puppet.

  • T o n y||

    I realize that's not exactly what she said, but she did claim she has relevant foreign policy experience because she can see Russia from parts of her home state. I get that it was her best possible attempt at answering the question given that she actually had no relevant experience, but the fact that she was made the object of satire is not a liberal conspiracy.

    For the most part all Tina Fey had to do was repeat what Palin said verbatim and it would get a laugh as if it were exaggerated satire. Come on man. I'm detecting some soft bigotry of low expectations here. Picture a man saying the stuff she says.

  • John||

    Her home state also shares a huge border with this country known as Canada. Yes, border state governors dabble in foreign policy. And fishing rights are a huge deal in Alaska, especially as they relate to Russia.

    But you wouldn't know any of that Tony. That is because you are a low IQ, low information voter, exactly the person the media is trying to reach and persuade. And it worked.

  • T o n y||

    I get it, really. It was the best answer she could possibly have come up with to the foreign policy experience question. The real problem was not Sarah Palin (unless you lived in Alaska). The problem was John McCain choosing her to be on the presidential ticket.

    And it's hilarious that John McCain's own staff came away knowing, in horror, that she was a moron, but you don't.

  • John||

    Low information, low IQ. You think exactly the way the major media wants you to think Tony.

  • T o n y||

    I think what most Americans and the entire rest of the planet thinks with respect to Sarah Palin's intelligence and the propriety of her being second in line to the US presidency. Maybe we're all under the media's spell and only you know the truth. It's possible.

  • John||

    I never said the propaganda wasn't effective, only that it was propaganda. A majority of Germans in 1935 hated Jews. But that didn't make race theory true.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 2.19.13 @ 12:17PM |#
    "I think what most Americans and the entire rest of the planet thinks with respect to Sarah Palin's intelligence and the propriety of her being second in line to the US presidency"

    Shithead, you have no way of knowing or proving what 'most Americans or the rest of the planet thinks'; you're an ignorant asshole, projecting.

  • Brandybuck||

    You mean a man like Schwarzenegger claiming foreign policy experience because his state is on the Pacific Rim? He was taken seriously for that, and deservedly so (despite his inanity on a myriad other topics).

  • grey||

    I thought Socialists forfeited their right to talk about experience as a pre-requesite for the presidency when they lined up behind their community organizer.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    What's priceless about this is that Tony's exquisite concern for a politician's foreign policy experience goes only one way.

    Assume everything he says about Palin is 100% true, and the sum total of her foreign policy experience was the relatively minor crap that attends being a governor of a state that has an international border. Fine, whatever.

    What's Obama's foreign policy resume, again? That he lived abroad for a few years when he was a kid, smoked Mexican-grown dope in college, and spent half a term in the U.S. Senate honing his international-relations chops under the tutelage of laughingstocks like Biden and Kerry?

  • AuH2O||

    It may come as news to folks at Reason, but Matt Welch and I wrote a book about much of this.

    Nick, stop lying to protect him. We ALL know that Matt's illiterate.

  • Brandybuck||

    Matt did the drawings in the book.

  • H. Reardon||

    Rachael Madcow put a hit on him excerpting an interview where he didn't denounce an internet rumor, instead calling the rumor 'troubling.' She portrayed Rand as a reactionary idiot that will believe any kook thing said on the internet.

    Of course she didn't bother to excerpt his SOTU response that might put Obama in a bad light to 'so-called' civil liberty supporters.

    It was just by chance that I saw it. Did MSNBC even cover RP's SOTU response. I'm guessing NO.

    I'm thinking the Maddow would change her stripes for a chance to suck Obama's cock. But the whole scenario is unlikely since I don't think Obama would let a woman do such a thing to him.

  • T o n y||

    The best criticism of Obama's policies on cable TV comes from Maddow, if you ever bothered to watch.

    No it's not "Obama's an uppity radical Muslim black panther" as you might hear on FOX News, but they have a standard of factualness on MSNBC that interferes with competing on the manufactured rage ratings.

  • John||

    The best criticism of Obama's policies on cable TV comes from Maddow

    HAHAHAHAHAHA Sometimes you are funny Tony.

  • H. Reardon||

    Maddow's criticism of Obama consists of 'he could be more to my liking on this narrow issue, but let's ignore that and discuss how dreamy he is instead.'

  • Hopfiend||

    You are saying, without laughing, that there are factual standards at MSNBC?

    Your position is that MSNBC is a legitimate news organization?

    WOWZA

  • John C. Randolph||

    The best criticism of Obama's policies on cable TV comes from Maddow, if you ever bothered to watch.

    Since when does standard media Obama-fluffing count as criticism? “Oh, dear leader, you’re not looting us fast enough!”

    -jcr

  • Not a Libertarian||

    As to the Gallup graphic.
    Is this data solely from self described "Independent" voters or is this the sentiment of voters overall.

    And what would describe the rather dramatic five point increase in call for government intervention in 2013?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    In time, this AP report will become a generic "controversy over Sen. Paul's attitude toward immigrants." If they have to drop the misquote, they'll try and find a way to talk about Paul's *reaction* to the misquote, or say that he or his supporters are probably secretly thinking this, etc.

    Basically, they're mad at Paul for this perfect story not being true, and they're going to try and take it out on him.

  • The Real Jose||

    I've pointed out before that the good senator's own page on the subject boils down to "our current policies are just fine. We just need mo' bigger fence."

    Also, he's against birthright citizenship.

    He's no friend to immigrants.

  • Proprietist||

    "I support making English the official language of all documents and contracts."

    Damn, Paul's an English-firster? Like government has any say what language I choose to write a contract in.

  • Brandybuck||

    Write your contract in any damned language you want, just don't expect to use the US court system when you have a dispute.

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    Exactly

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    Its funny how you cosmotarians will pick and choose which part of the Founder's immigration policies should or not be enforced. Like it or not, America is a sovereign country that should be able to filter who comes in, and who doesnt.

  • Calidissident||

    You do realize that there were no restrictions on immigration when the country was founded? And for most of its history, there have been few restrictions. The current policies are not those of the Founders. Nor are we obligated to do whatever the Founders wanted. Please give me the clause in the Constitution that justifies the current immigration laws - please note that "naturalization" is not synonymous with immigration. And your last sentence begs the question

  • Proprietist||

    I'm surprised "mixed/depends" didn't get more than 4.5%. Hell, even I think government should do more to solve the problems of political and legal corruption and police brutality.

  • Hopfiend||

    This begs the questions:
    1. What can the govt do to fix political and legal corruption?

    2. Of course they need to, since the govt is the source of these problems

    but I am not sure greater empowerment of the govt is a solution to govt corruption.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I just realized - suppose this were the pre-Internet era and there was no recording? Then the story would be "transcript shows Senator Paul wants to round up Mexicans; claims transcript inaccurate." Even if every participant signed affidavits that Rand said "don't," it would still be a "controversy" and the possibility that he wanted to round up all illegals would still be the key point of every story.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Oh, I suspect this is just a rough draft of the treatment Sen. Paul can expect for the next few years. I suspect if he announced "I have personally found a cure for brain cancer." or "I find the use of racial epithets does no good and only serves to degenerate the level of discourse.", it would be reported as "I have...brain cancer." or "I find the use of racial epithets...good...discourse."

  • Garth55||

    my best friend's mom makes $60/hour on the internet. She has been out of a job for 9 months but last month her check was $20409 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this web site http://WWW.FLY38.COM

  • ||

    I paid your mom a lot less than $60/hour.

  • Sevo||

    Prolly worth every penny.

  • EternalOptimist||

    Someone should have proofread the proofreader who found these gaffs. There are several typos in the retraction!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    They were probably in a hurry to get it over with as fast as possible.

  • grey||

    I thought it would take a little longer for Fox and the Republican Party to start tearing down Rand Paul. Perhaps it was an accidental misquote.

    Anyhow, I fully expected the Democratic media would start now, but then they are concentrating on Rubio being a water drinker. But then who doesn't agree: awkward water drinkers do not belong in public service.

  • jecobjesan||

    til I saw the bank draft ov $6092, I did not believe that my friend had been truley erning money parttime from there labtop.. there mums best friend has done this for less than ten months and as of now repaid the dept on there home and bourt a great new Ariel Atom. this is where I went, www.WOW92.com

  • miniha||

    go away spammer... and learn how to spell...

  • ||

    A shortage of software designers in the US is forcing
    investors to build companies in Asia; importing millions of smart workers will
    create thousands of high-tech US organizations. No adult or child should be
    permitted to enter the US unless they pass the highest intellectual standards. The costly attempt to educate slow learners
    will bankrupt America.

  • miniha||

    I really wish you guys would do an audio version of your book...

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement