Explaining the Rand Paul Disaster

h/t Talking Pants Marshall.

Joshua Green, senior editor at that place that thinks ME-gan is worth publishing offers this explanation as to why Rand Paul's first moments in the national spotlight went all pear shaped.

1. Rand Paul isn't a crazy lunatic. Honest. Joshua Green has been covering him throughout the campaign and he seems totes normal. "The Tea Party is not about extremism" because Rand said so. The very idea that he's a crazy asshole is just lie-beral media bias and ebil lefty bloggerators.

2. Local media in Kentucky has been so gutted by teh noozpaper crisis that Rand wasn't properly vetted by the fourth estate until too late.

SRSLY. This is his "explanation". These are his two pertinent points. Well reading them brought to mind two impertinent points that I'd like to make:

1. WTF?!? As has been made obvious to anyone not wearing a tri-corner hat with the Confederate flag sewn in it - Rand Paul is exactly the angry unlikeable nut he's been portrayed as. Only now we're also seeing how sleazy he can get when trying to squirm out of the p00py mess he put himself in. I think this Dan Savage headline sums it up best.

2. IOW, U WERE RONG. Joshua Green, Mr. Sr. Editor, Mr. Young Writer On The Rise - U were ther on the spot and U WERE RNOG. FAIL 4 U, buddy. Look back at this flaming wreckage of a national debut and know that you had the ground-floor inside-track spot and blew it. The jerkwad that is Rand Paul, who couldn't make it through one interview without coming off as a racist prick was someone you thought was emminently likeable. Hell, reading your first pertinent point again, it seems that you still think that's true.

Ooops, I was rnog too, I have a third impertinent point.
...the local Kentucky media--in particular the newspapers, and especially the flagship Louisville Courier-Journal--has been decimated by job cuts, as has happened across the country...

BTW, you smarmy assclown - that thing you got totally wrong? About Rand Paul and his extremist views? Louisville C-J nailed it:
The trouble with Dr. Paul is that despite his independent thinking, much of what he stands for is repulsive to people in the mainstream. For instance, he holds an unacceptable view of civil rights, saying that while the federal government can enforce integration of government jobs and facilities, private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people, or gays, or any other minority group.

If there's a media failing here - and there most definitely is - it's not on the part of the small local guys. It's you. Even now you are framing the thing in the best light possible for the racist guy who wants to enable racists¹. To wit:
Thus, when Rand Paul appeared on "Maddow" and the other shows, I expect he was prepared to offer the same sermon I heard on the trail. Problem is, he was encountering an aggressive, experienced press corps that appropriately had its own agenda and was eager to challenge Paul to elaborate on his views.

Maddow had her "own agenda"? Nice way to phrase it there buddy. I believe that "agenda" - of getting a candidate to "elaborate on his views" - well it sounds an awful lot like journalism. Maybe you should try it sometime.

¹ Editted for maximum benefit of the doubt. See even ebil lefsists can be unreasonably accomodating to that asshole.

UPDATE: Just me being petty and getting some more kicks in.
Speaking of Talking Pants Marshall, nailed it in one and then nailed it again. Not to mention that the folks over at TPM took a peek at Rand's history and found a whole mess of crazy.


UPDATE 3: As a Jane Hamsher sympathizer, and therefore a "firebagger" - John Cole is my natural worst enemy. Still, props have to be given. AWESOME. Rand cancelled his first shot at a totes syncophantic knob slobbering, just the thing he needed to get over this week from Proof That There is an IPU. Either that or the fucktard is so awful that even David Gregory is seen as a threat.... bwahahahhaahahaahhahaa111111wheresmyshiftkeYOHTHEREITIS!!!!!


Smut Clyde said...

despite his independent thinking, much of what he stands for is repulsive to people in the mainstream

That crappy bit of writing makes a lot more sense when you replace "despite" with "because of".

Dragon-King Wangchuck said...

That crappy bit of writing makes a lot more sense when you replace "despite" with "because of".

It makes me sad because it's true.