Rand Paul

Liberal Hack Alert: Maddow Calls Rand Paul Clueless on Drones, the Fed, and Prison Reform (!)

|

Maddow
MSNBC

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.

Read more about why libertarianism is having a moment here.

NEXT: Alaska Becomes Fourth State to Legalize Marijuana

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.

  1. He says he cares about the Fed? He has no idea what monetary policy is.

    I don’t need to know about the intricacies of blood letting, trepanning, and phrenology to know that I don’t want them performed on me and that they should be abolished.

    1. Trepanning was actually useful though.

    2. You’d want bloodletting if you had hemochromatosis or polycythemia vera as it is the treatment for these desieases. Phrenology is correct to an extent as the Broca’s area of the brain is specific for speech production and wernickes for speech reception, there are specific areas of the cortex devoted to motor control of your body and specific areas for sensory input, vision, smell, planning, memories, etc. Knowledge of these areas is useful for MDs to determine where in your brain you had a stroke. I don’t know what trepanning is.

  2. Madcow is a moron.

    I’m so tired of that utter pillock being described as a “policy wonk,” especially on military affairs. No single person who comments on military affairs in the media, besides maybe Hannity, has such a breathtakingly profound ignorance of the subject.

    She isn’t just just a Team BLUE cheerleader, she’s thoroughly full of shit.

    1. I just spent 2 weeks with my mother and she loves Maddow. It was the first time I’ve seen her, but watching it I had the distinct impression that she’s just a democrat Rush Limbaugh.

      1. At least Limbaugh’s controversial arguments are usually controversial because they are poorly worded or otherwise offensive, Maddow’s controversiality is a result of the smug sureness she weaves into her awful arguments.

    2. Interesting. That’s the only topic for which I have any respect for her.

  3. Is Rand Paul Reason’s “Guy”, now?

    1. He is until he’s on the ballot again anyway…

    2. Someone will dig up obscure articles in a newsletter that he didn’t write or edit and claim they are his. Then all Hell will break loose.

    3. Personally, I like Justin Amash better than Paul, but Paul is still better than anything else the Repugs have to offer.

  4. watching Maddow reminds me of the ‘smug’ episode of South Park.She’s so sure he’s smarter then everyone,and that damn evil smile,makes you want to slap her .

    1. and there’s nothing wrong with that.I sure she has a penis

    2. It’s definitely the smugness that gets me. I can understand smugness if you are right in the face abject stupidity, but she’s smug just because she’s so damn satisfied with her dumbfuck self.

      1. I can understand smugness if you are right in the face abject stupidity, but she’s smug just because she’s so damn satisfied with her dumbfuck self.

        I can understand the smugness even if you aren’t surrounded by idiocy but just ahead of the pack. The problem is, as far as I know, she’s rarely any sort of news breaker or thought leader.

        Maddow is a living, breathing version of Ron Burgundy revamped for 2014.

        1. There is no way she has enough leather bound books to be Ron Burgundy.

  5. I would have thought Matthews would be savvy enough not to miss the chance to utter the iconic line:
    “Rachel you ignorant slut”

  6. The best Maddow moment on TV is when Nick Gillespie called her a hack to her face.

        1. all this is unfair to maddow and maher. as they tried to explain, it’s not that they can’t find an issue to side with the gop over the dems on, it’s that the gop is so different now that it’s impossible for anyone to agree with them on something in the first place. as you can see, it’s not their fault that they’re exactly what nick was saying they were, and also, how dare he!

    1. “you don’t know me…you don’t know me.”

      and note, that Maher admits to having lived an unexamined life for the past 2 decades.

      1. “I’m not even a Democrat!”

        Sure you’re your not Rachel.

  7. she must pretend that everyone with an R next to his name represents everything she despises.

    All for the TEAM, and nothing but the TEAM.

    Matthews disagreed vehemently

    Perhaps someone else is making his leg tingle.

    I don’t believe that Rand Paul has ideas.

    I don’t believe Rachel Madcow possesses any semblance of intellectual honesty.

    1. Nor any semblance of intellect.

  8. You’re being unfair. Maddow is a perfectly nice young man.

  9. What she’s doing is not ineffective. I know people who get their news from her show. Yes, those people are intellectually lazy morons, and they will lap this up eagerly. She can lie to them like this because once you have become invested in a certain worldview, you won’t go out seeking things that discredit it. A Maddow viewer googling Rand Paul’s views on monetary policy would be like a 7th Day Adventist googling scientific papers on evolution–just not gonna happen.

    1. It could be that she is attempting to “shape the narrative,” but given her complete and utter incompetence when it comes to policies which transcend TEAM (like the military) I’m thinking it’s just that she is fucking stupid.

  10. I would rather see Judge Napp run, myself. But I don’t know if he wants to. It would be entertaining seeing Judge Napp in a primary debate with Christie and Romney.

    1. I can’t imagine anyone that the Judge would not verbally destroy in a debate.

      1. With his knowledge of history and law, it would not be a debate. It would be a slaughter.

        1. The problem is that he would so thoroughly destroy them that he’d alienate the debate audience, mostly because those who watch candidate debates aren’t accustomed to thorough, forceful, complex answers and would assume he’s talking down to them.

          1. “First of all, you throwin’ too many big words at me, and because I don’t understand them, I’m gonna take ’em as disrespect.”

          2. Either that or, when asked a question, he would answer with 20-30 questions of his own.

      2. Unless it’s a debate about the civil war, then look out, judge.

    2. Penn Jillette would be a much better candidate. Seriously.

      1. Teller as VP.

      2. Penn would be more entertaining. Not more electable.

        1. The one concession I’ll make in favor of Penn is that it would be hilarious to hear all the BEEPS as they edit out all the “fucks” during the debates. (kinda like how it’s funnier to watch Southpark with the beeps rather than the real profanity)

        2. Infinitely more electable. He’s a likeable and entertaining guy, plenty of money and name recognition, quick thinker, and would draw tons of media attention.

          That last is key.

          1. I’d love to see Rand Paul, Penn Jillette, Justin Amash, Andrew Napolitano, Peter Schiff and Gary Johnson ALL throw their hats in the ring for the Republican nomination. In that first debate at least, we wouldn’t have a mob of idiot warmongers outnumbering the only decent human being on the stage they way they did in ’08 and ’12.

            As the campaign went along, the libertarians could bow out and endorse whichever one of them was in the lead. Personally, I think the best possible ticket would be Napolitano/Amash,

            -jcr

            1. I could absolutely get behind Napolitano/Amash, but since I do not believe the Honorable Judge would ever through his hat in the ring, I want to see Johnson/Amash.

              1. Amash is pro-life, so I don’t know if he would go on the ticket with Johnson.

        3. Penn would be more entertaining. Not more electable.

          I disagree. Who wouldn’t want to vote for a comedic magician?

          1. He and Teller could do the burning the flag trick during debates.

          2. We could also save money on the Secret Service protection because Penn would just catch the bullets of any assassins in his teeth.

            And he could get things done with his pen, his phone and his ability to make Congress disappear.

            1. We need to draft him.

              Nice thing too is that since he is stridently a non-drug user, but stridently pro-legalization, he’s the perfect counterpoint to the tired characterization of libertarians as “Republicans who smoke dope.”

          3. Who wouldn’t want to vote for a comedic magician

            I can see it now. “Penn, why should the voters cast their ballot for you?”

            “Perhaps because I’m rich, I live in a Castle and I can do magic”

  11. The next two years are the most dangerous since the Civil War.

    Obama still has two more years left in his final term.

    Already, he has demonstrated again and again that he has no regard for the constitution or the legitimacy of laws when they do not suit his agenda. He flaunts his disregard for the constitutional process, dismisses laws he doesn’t like and rewrites others.

    He mocks the powers of Congress. The Supreme Court has slapped him down more than any president in recent times. All of this as he tells us he is an expert on constitutional law.

    Now come his very explicit threats to pass more illegal and unconstitutional presidential edicts to grant amnesty to illegal aliens already in the United States. This, in turn, will issue invitations for millions more illegals to come streaming across the border.

    It will not end at immigration. Unchecked power is addictive.

    1. Yeah, but watching Obama and other Democrats* throw temper tantrums will be totally worth it.

      *Who would have thought Chris Matthews would have been the voice of reason at a time like this?

    2. If you believe that commentary, then you must believe that we are doomed ALREADY. Why? Because the GOP now has majorities in both houses. If they can’t (I mean, “won’t”) rein in the President, then the whole system has been allowed to crumble.

      I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if the country can’t survive having a complete moron or a complete despot in the oval office, then the system is broken.

      1. The USSR survived Stalin but that system would still qualify as ‘broken’ by any objective standard.

    3. All of this as he tells us he is an expert on constitutional law.

      It IS important to know your enemy.

    4. It will not end at immigration. Unchecked power is addictive.

      Fixed it.

  12. I’m surprised at Matthews. I really didn’t think he was capable of seeing anything other way than through a TEAM lens. I understand given his other views he’s almost surely not going to come out in support of Paul, but he at least possesses some intellectual honesty. Good for him.

    1. Matthews is a “moderate” Catholic.

  13. And the idea of Maddow criticizing Paul for not knowing about policy is laughable. Like she could hold a candle to him intellectually.

    1. Some other stupid cow, a media operative if I recall correctly, recently took a shot at Rand Paul by asking “when did he get a medical degree?”. She took the tweet down when a hell of a lot of people answered “Oh, about two decades ago, you dumb bitch.”

      -jcr

  14. She also said that because Paul would be barred from running as the KY senator and the president at the same time, that he wouldn’t be running for president. Her theory is that Paul knows he wouldn’t win, so running for president means that he would be basically quitting his employ with the federal government and jeopardizing his pension. And that is obviously something that someone with the low moral character of Paul would never do.

    Maddow, you mendacious cunt (I prefer that to ‘ignorant slut’).

    1. I agree that calling Maddow an ignorant slut is the epitome of slut shaming.

  15. Robby – it’s Maddow. This is like arguing with a kindergartner. Her argument consists of “HE DOESN’T KNOW ABOUT THAT! HE DOESN’T! NUH UH!” Assertions with no backup or thought.

    It’s delicious. Enjoy it.

    1. No evidence whatsoever. Just unfounded claims as usual. On her best day, her evidence will consist of suspect statistics or logical fallacies and this was not even her best day.

  16. 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.

    This. Progressives think nothing about lying to preserve the distinction between “us” and “them.”

  17. Her train isn’t stopping for anyone’s intelligence. It’s full-out rails to Dumbville or bust, brothers and sisters.

  18. Morning Joe:

    “THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN!!!!1!1!111ELEVENTY!!”

    1. Well, he’s not wrong. He’s just not right about the reasons why.

  19. Aw come on! Maddow is a nice dude! Stop picking on him!

  20. my roomate’s step-aunt makes $80 hourly on the computer . She has been fired for eight months but last month her pay check was $18640 just working on the computer for a few hours. read this ….

    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  21. No one’s watching this dumb bitch anyway so who really cares?

  22. “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.”

    As long as Rand Paul continues his daily newspaper subscription he will at least know as much about the issues as her Dear Leader.

  23. Yeah, yeah, we all know Rachel Maddow looks like a woman. Let’s concentrate on criticizing him for his IDEAS, not his LOOKS.

  24. MSNBC spent all their efforts this year bashing Chris Christie in the hopes that Hillary would self-coronate and avoid the messiness of an actual election in 2016.

  25. When did Maddow decide to become an odious little warmonger?

    -jcr

    1. 20JAN2009.

  26. BTW, if Maddow has something against people who are clueless on foreign policy, how does she reconcile that with her support for the teleprompter-in-chief tossing the State department to Hillary as a consolation prize to shut her fans up instead of nominating a career diplomat?

    (Not to mention handing it over to the Ketchup Gigolo when she bailed out…)

    -jcr

  27. Maddow doesn’t even understand that Paul’s filibuster was about the Fifth Amendment. Not drones. Drones are just a tool. Obama was refusing to answer specific questions about the use of this new technology enabled him to circumvent the Fifth Amendment. That’s what the filibuster was about and if Maddow doesn’t understand that than she was displaying that she knew nothing about Paul’s positions.

    You are right. Her mindset is so warped by the right-left paradigm she doesn’t understand any issue. All she knows is “Democrat good, Republican bad”. She has been freaking out about Paul ever since he schooled her on the real meaning of liberty in that 2010 interview.

  28. Aren’t MSNBC ratings in decline?

    Who watches that shit anymore? I saw a clip of ‘ronan farrow’ and jeee-sus, it was like a bisexual retard giving a powerpoint presentation to pre-schoolers. The only other thing I’ve seen from them has been some ‘gamergate’ coverage which basically consisted of idiots asking other idiots idiotic questions about “How much can we dramatically exaggerate the element of ‘widespread, irrational woman-hating’ in this issue?”

  29. Why are you watching MSNBC? As George Carlin used to say, it’s bullshit and it’s bad for you.

  30. “He’s talking about how much he cares about this drone policy? He has no idea what the drone policy is. ”

    Wasnt that the exact point of Paul’s filibuster? To find out some of the limits of the drone policy?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.