The Rand Paul/Don Lemon early morning interview is garnering quite a bit of Internet chatter. The chatter is from various perspectives, generally based in how the writer feels about the participants: Lemon and Paul.
If one has an affinity for the insanity and callousness of the Tea Party, Paul may come across as some innocent victim of the "main-stream media". If one has little to no respect for those who claim 'The Tea party', it makes sense that more commentators other than those employed by MSNBC should take these people to task. Well, it does appear that my bias is showing.
Both Paul's (Ron and Rand) have tendency to go on 'friendly' interview networks with attempts to 'twisty-talk' their way around the central focus of the interview. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow proved my point when Paul stood for an interview that ended is a rambling idiotically feeble effort to explain how pre-Constitutional United States of America. The central issue was Rand's personal beliefs that places him squarely in the arena of those who feel that 'states rights' should supersede federal governance. Rand also clearly stated the he believed in civil rights but was reticent about saying a restaurant owner could turn away potential customers based on race. As one who joined the Air Force in the late 1960's (to serve country and avoid the draft), Rand's bigoted beliefs hit me squarely in the face as I witnessed 'Whites Only' signage in many places as I was stationed in Biloxi Mississippi. Yes, Paul (the younger) claims that Tea Party. So his beliefs in states rights kind of supports the signage that I personally witnessed.
If competent interviews do not pinned down the Paul's of the world, our nation suffers.
When competent interviewers tackle the evasive tactics of the Tea party and 'no taxes increase' crowd the subjects of the interview do not seem to speak so authoritatively as when they are allowed to ramble for long minutes on Fox News.
I am attaching the Lemon interview and I am linking to an article that I wrote a couple of weeks back. the latter of the two relates to Ali Velshi's interview with Rick Santorum.
Lemon on Paul
Velshi on Rick Santorum and Norquist
While I remain critical of CNN, I take my hat off to a couple of on-air personalities who delve deep and hard into the psyche and beliefs of people who either have great impact on segments of the nation or those who wish to have said impact on the nation.
If you think my point earlier in this article about how our paradigms affect our perception of the Lemon interviews check-out these links.
A. The Conservative View http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/31/cnn-anchor-to-rand-paul-i-hope-youre-happy-with-yourself-mr-tea-party/
B. The Progressive View http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-don-lemon-and-sen-rand-paul-clash-over-the-tea-partys-role-in-the-debt-crisis/
Did you notice the marked difference in articles?
The bottom-line reason for my efforts here relate to my 'over-the-top' concern and disdain for anything Tea Party. If on-air personalities do not work to expose the fallacies of the Tea Party and the innate nuttiness of their leaders, the nation loses.
Rand Paul and his ilk consistently speak about cutting spending. They cut spending for those who most need federal assistance while balking at defense spending cuts and taking hands-off positions on taxing those who could chip-in much more towards the nation's financial well being.
If the likes of Rachel Maddow, Velshi and Lemon do not take-on the rhetoric and authoritarianism from people such as Paul, those people are allowed a free pass to reach millions across the nation. Paul's fiscal conservative messages keep bad company.
Applause to Lemon's interview as he attempted to pin down Paul as one who does not seem to care that a majority of U.S. voters want a balanced approach to deficit/budget negotiations. I take a bow to Velshi for his straight forward approach as he interviewed the dangerous Grover Norquist and the mentally deficient Rick Santorum.