Rand Paul: Great White Hunter tries to educate students at Howard U. about Republican Party

[brickbacon]

@RTFirefly

I wasn’t talking about his personal survival. Please keep up.

Okay, please explain what you meant when you said:

@RTFirefly

The GOP needs minorities and young people; that’s the lesson of the 2012 election. Doing what you have to do to survive doesn’t get you points.

Do you honestly contend that the survival of the party/Paul is contingent upon the GOP speaking at HBCUs in order to gain the Black/minority vote, yet at the same time hold that such speeches are really about shoring up their dwindling conservative White base and not actually appealing to minorities? Please explain your comment to me. You think he/they shouldn’t get points for doing what he/they have to do to survive, which in your opinion is shoring up their base? How does that make sense?

@RTFirefly

OK, but any clue that he was listening to them, or that he will be disabused of any of his notions? Time will tell, but my bet’s on ‘no.’

I doubt he is gonna become a different person, but he did speak about many areas where he and most in the Howard community, myself included, agree. Namely, drug laws and sentencing. Even if he doesn’t change his politics in any demonstrable way, there are significant areas of overlap where he could be an advocate for many of the issues that Black people care about. I for one would welcome that more than I would having a few more reasons to hate Ron Paul. I would also like to note that Paul will be speaking at another HBCU in the near-ish future. I have no doubt Paul will never become Bernie Sanders, but I think most people tend to evolve if they are routinely exposed to compelling arguments challenging what they believe. That’s how people began to accept gay marriage. It’s how people, even ones like Ron Paul, might begin to see things in a clearer manner. Better he be a useful idiot for progressive causes.

@RTFirefly

Come, come. 2012 wasn’t all that long ago. Surely you remember - it was widely commented on at the time - that Romney kept on feeling the need to shore up his base well after the time when most candidates would have been tacking back to the center.

I do remember that. Now please explain to me how wasting his time speaking to people who will likely never vote for him helps him achieve that goal? There was no guarantee they were going to boo him, and even though they did, there are just not that many people who would have been swayed by such an event that it would make sense for him to do it. Couple that wit the fact that his base is a dwindling percentage of the electorate, and you get a “plan” that is nonsensical.

I would bet far more vehement racists would be annoyed he bothered to honor them with his presence, or would have already been spurred to vote against the first Black president in history. They didn’t need to be fired up by hearing a Black crowd boo him. What you are suggesting makes no sense whatsoever in the real world. Furthermore, you are attributing this plan, which has a huge probability of failure, to a campaign that messed up routine things. This idea that you rally your base by wasting time and money speaking to people who hate you is just stupid.

If anything, his speaking to the NAACP would help him appeal to moderates who would view him as strong, stable, and reasonable in the face of a chorus of boos from “left wing zealots”. Even that is likely not going to win the day. It’s certainly a terrible plan in any sense. Couple that with the fact that Obama declined the invite, and there is little reason for Romney to go for the primary purposes of motivating his base.

@RTFirefly

And the consensus was that the need was real - the base didn’t really trust Romney, so he had to all but out-base the base.

Which he clearly tried to do by moving to the right, and making 47% speeches; not doing a world tour giving his lame stump speech to liberal groups.

@RTFirefly

And while they weren’t going to vote for Obama, they could have chosen to stay home in larger numbers than they did. In discussions of electoral strategy, the fact that people can choose to not bother to vote, rather than choose between the candidates, is often overlooked.

No, it’s not overlooked. At least not by anyone who does this for a living. Can I ask have you ever worked in politics, or seen how a high level race is run? You seem to think all these people are so stupid as to ignore basic things like voter turnout. Yes, Romney’s folks make terrible assumptions, but they were aware of the criteria those assumptions needed to be based on.

[Sitnam]

@Chefguy

This follows on the heels of his speech to Latinos about how their values are Republican values. No. . .no, they’re not. They favor both abortion and gay marriage by a large margin.

I’m going to need a cite that latinos, who are overwhelmingly pro-catholic, are for abortion and gay marriage.

[GIGObuster]

@Sitnam

I’m going to need a cite that latinos, who are overwhelmingly pro-catholic, are for abortion and gay marriage.

This very recent Pew Center poll shows that it is true that most Latinos now favor gay rights and even gay marriage:

http://www.pewforum.org/Race/Latinos-Religion-and-Campaign-2012.aspx

Regarding abortion, Hispanics on the whole do not favor it; but there is a change coming there also, if you ask the question to young Hispanics and second and third generation ones, then most are in favor of keeping abortion legal.

V. Politics, Values and Religion

[RTFirefly]

@brickbacon

Okay, please explain what you meant when you said:

Do you honestly contend that the survival of the party/Paul is contingent upon the GOP speaking at HBCUs in order to gain the Black/minority vote, yet at the same time hold that such speeches are really about shoring up their dwindling conservative White base and not actually appealing to minorities? Please explain your comment to me.

No, not at the same time. Goddamn, you’re an idiot. Two different speeches, two different times, one before and one after the 2012 election, two different statements on my part about their meaning.

I’d say ‘do keep up’ again, but it’s obvious you can’t.

No, it’s not overlooked. At least not by anyone who does this for a living.

No, just by you. I was responding to you, not to someone else. Your assumption was that a certain group of voters had nowhere else to go, so there was no need to pander to them. Not voting at all is the always-available somewhere-else.

As to the rest: TL;DR.

[guizot]

@GIGObuster

Regarding abortion, Hispanics on the whole do not favor it;

Not favoring abortion isn’t the same thing as being anti-choice. They shouldn’t be conflating religion with policy–especially when it comes to “Catholicism.” The idea that all “Hispanics” are “Catholic” in the same way (or just the assumption that all “Hispanics” are even Catholic) is just as misguided as the idea that you can talk about the “Hispanic” population–whatever that is supposed to mean–as though it were one block–either socially or politically. The ignorance here is almost willful.

[monstro]

@BrainGlutton

“I have the greatest affection for them [Negroes] but I know they’re not going to make it for 500 years. They aren’t. You know it, too. The Mexicans are a different cup of tea. They have a heritage. At the present time they steal, they’re dishonest, but they do have some concept of family life. They don’t live like a bunch of dogs, which the Negroes do live like.”

– Richard Nixon

Wow.

That was just 53 years ago. On one hand, I’m impressed with how rapidly society has changed since then. On the other, I’m reminded that since my grandmother and my parents are still alive today, so are some of the people who had nodded their heads in agreement with Tricky. That’s messed-up.

[brickbacon]

@RTFirefly

No, not at the same time. Goddamn, you’re an idiot. Two different speeches, two different times, one before and one after the 2012 election, two different statements on my part about their meaning.

I’d say ‘do keep up’ again, but it’s obvious you can’t.

Dude, are you fucking high or just retarded? Let’s look at this exchange one more time:

I said:

[QUOTE= brickbacon]
True, but I will give him a few points for effort for showing up. It’s the same way I felt about Romney speaking to the NAACP.
[/QUOTE]

You replied:

[QUOTE= RTFirefly]
I’m gonna say, “soft bigotry of low expectations.” The GOP needs minorities and young people; that’s the lesson of the 2012 election. Doing what you have to do to survive doesn’t get you points.
[/QUOTE]

Now, my question is WHO has to do WHAT to survive? Clearly, since you claim this is a lesson from the 2012 election, and because your use of the word “points” was in response of my use of the word in reference to Paul, you are talking about Rand Paul. Assuming that is the case, please explain how Paul speaking at a HBCU helps him survive? How does it even help the party survive? How is he helped at all by speaking constituents who likely will not, and are likely unable to ever vote for him? If you think I have misunderstood you, please explain what the hell you are talking about.

@RTFirefly

No, just by you. I was responding to you, not to someone else. Your assumption was that a certain group of voters had nowhere else to go, so there was no need to pander to them. Not voting at all is the always-available somewhere-else.

Wrong again. Of course they could not vote, but those people are largely not in states that matter, already have a vested interest in voting against Obama, and will likely not be swayed by someone getting booed by the other side. The problem with your logic is not that he didn’t need to take steps to solidify his base, it’s that you think speaking to the NAACP would do that.

Do you really think there are parts of the GOP base that say, gee I was gonna stay home, but now that Romney was booed by the NAACP, I can see he is the real deal. Are you fucking retarded? That makes no sense whatsoever. So me 3 people in the GOP base who were moved by his treatment by the NAACP crowd (which I might add was largely civil). Nobody even makes that argument. The standard, also incorrect, argument is that he was appealing to MODERATES.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

Brickbacon: I think the gist is that Paul is speaking as a representative of the GOP in general.

ETA: And doing a crappy job of appealing to new voters.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

Let’s look at another example of Rand Paul’s ‘outreach’ to minorities. Here is a transcript from the Rachel Maddow show (I am too lazy to find the video clip and most people hate videos anyway):

SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: There is a hilarious episode on
“Seinfeld” – any “Seinfeld” friends? – Where Jerry, Jerry admits that he
loves Asian woman but he frets and he worries. He says, is it racist to
like a certain race? So, it is with trepidation that Id like to express my admiration today for the romance of the Latin culture. Im a great fan
of –
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky then went on in the same speech
just moments later to read to the assembled crowd which was the Hispanic
Chamber of Commerce, to read to them a Pablo Neruda love poem. Not a
policy poem, not a poem about commerce or chambers, but rather a love poem.
To show his love of how romantic Latinos are – Latino business leaders who
turned out to hear a policy address by a United States senator, and instead
got a love poem, in his profession of the romantic love of Latinos.

Seems like when Rand Paul talks to people of other than European ancestry, he behaves foolishly at best.

[Dangerosa]

@Sitnam

I’m going to need a cite that latinos, who are overwhelmingly pro-catholic, are for abortion and gay marriage.

I really wish people would stop confusing “being Catholic” with “toeing the Catholic political line” Most American Catholics - including Latinos - are “cafeteria Catholics” - they pick and choose which parts of the Catholic agenda to agree with. For instance in the U.S. most use birth control and keep their families small. Many Catholics are pro-choice. Many are pro-gay marriage.

I went to a Catholic church a number of years ago and the priest gave a pro-choice sermon. Granted, it was St. Joan’s in South Minneapolis, which as “a reputation,” but Catholics are not a monolithic entity.

[John_Mace]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

Let’s look at another example of Rand Paul’s ‘outreach’ to minorities. Here is a transcript from the Rachel Maddow show (I am too lazy to find the video clip and most people hate videos anyway):
Seems like when Rand Paul talks to people of other than European ancestry, he behaves foolishly at best.

Which is yet another example of why relying on partisan sources for your news is not so good an idea. Here’s a transcript of the speech. Note that what RM is talking about are the closing remarks of the speech, which she would have us think was the main thrust of the speech. He closed with a type an anecdote, which is certainly a common rhetoric device.

Now, I’m not saying it’s a good speech. On the contrary, it’s rather rambling and he jumps around a lot from one idea to the next, and then back again. But to say there is no policy discussion in that speech is to deliberately distort the facts.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@John_Mace

Which is yet another example of why relying on partisan sources for your news is not so good an idea. Here’s a transcript of the speech. Note that what RM is talking about are the closing remarks of the speech, which she would have us think was the main thrust of the speech. He closed with a type an anecdote, which is certainly a common rhetoric device.

Now, I’m not saying it’s a good speech. On the contrary, it’s rather rambling and he jumps around a lot from one idea to the next, and then back again. But to say there is no policy discussion in that speech is to deliberately distort the facts.

I don’t ‘rely’ on Maddow for my news; I watch her as an expression of my admiration for the romantic love of Lesbinos.

But seriously, I’ve pretty much switched to watching Maddow since Spitzer’s program went off the air, leaving her as (who I consider to be) the smartest TV personality. I agree with you that she is partisan, but she is still a real journalist and not a propagandist IMHO. I read the full text of Rand Paul’s speech and found it to be mostly as cringe-worthy as the part highlighted by Maddow. He relentlessly characterizes Latinos as illegal immigrants. There is the aforementioned inaccurate assumption that Latinos, being largely Catholic, share the GOP’s bigoted values. His main policy position seems to be that he will take deporting 12 million immigrants off the table in exchange for super border security. He claims that WWI was started by the Germans. And there is this gem:

Republicans need to become parents of a new future with Latino voters or we will need to resign ourselves to permanent minority status

Kinda condescending to suggest the GOP is going to be the Great White Father to Latinos, doncha think? Especially considering the audience at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce probably don’t need anyone to hold their hands and lead them to success. As for the poorer and less successful masses of ‘Latino voters’, I think they could be helped by people like Paul ceasing to perpetuate his caricatures of Latinos.

Sorry, John. I’m going to have to call your reply a ‘foul tip’: Maddow distorts Paul a teensy bit with her cherry picking, but overall it is an accurate portrayal of the tone of his whole speech. Even with the full context, the bit she highlights is still quite awkward.

Again, I don’t ‘rely’ on any one source for my news- I’m Try2B Comprehensive for gosh sakes! If it is slant you’re after, take a look at Investor’s Business Daily once in a while. Holy moly, keep up with the front page of that and you will stay abreast of which lies and distortions are being perpetrated daily out of the right-wing think tanks. But I keep one eye on it for just that reason, along with plenty of other stuff. Heck, I think you are partisan too, but that doesn’t make you some dummy with nothing relevant to say.

[John_Mace]

Well, you chose to quote her and her take on that speech, so I can only see what you post here, not what you’re thinking or reading off line. If you had better news sources, then you should have quoted them instead. Or, you could have posted the actual transcript and given your analysis of what he said. But don’t take it too personally, as I was speaking generally and not so much to you, specifically.

We all have our political biases, but it’s best to use news sources that at least strive for objectivity rather than those with an agenda-- right or left.

In any case, no, I don’t think her analysis is spot on. It’s not only taking a snippet out of context, but creating a context that is contrary to reality. There were policy points made in his speech, even if they weren’t articulated all that well. Concerning your quote, I read it differently than you. Becoming “parents of a new future with Latino voters” isn’t saying he wants to be a parent of latino voters. He said with not of. That is, Republicans need to work with latinos to create a better future. It’s sappy, sure, but paternalistic? No.

[elucidator]

It is certainly wise that he expresses his reverence for Neruda and Marquez, both men widely famed for their appreciation and gratitude for the influence of the United States on their respective cultures. And hitting upon themes of sympathy and unity, as so very many Hispanic Americans trace their ancestry to Colombia and Peru.

Oh, Mr. Paul? They are called “romance languages” because they derive from Latin, hence, Rome. The term has nothing whatever to do with the relative emotional temperature of the speakers. There is a good chance that the majority of the people you were so deftly patronizing knew that, even as you didn’t. Nor, apparently, your crack team of advisers.

He reminds me of Cheech Marin’s movie Born in East L.A.. A scene struck me for how well underplayed it was, it happens when Cheech’s mom asks him to meet his cousin coming into the US from Mexico, and Cheech complains “Awww, Mom, you know my Spanish is no good.”

That gave me pause. Attitude check. His Spanish is not good, but he’s…oh, right. Born in East L.A.

I wonder if it occurred to Mr. Paul to question whether or not his audience was really all that familiar with Spanish? Como se dice “condescending”?

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@John_Mace

Becoming “parents of a new future with Latino voters” isn’t saying he wants to be a parent of latino voters. He said with not of. That is, Republicans need to work with latinos to create a better future. It’s sappy, sure, but paternalistic? No.

It’s not paternalistic to use the precise image of parenting (rather than the image, say, of “cooperating with” or “learning from” or as you phrased it “working with”?) Is English spoken in your home?

Why didnt he just come right out and say “I will make babies with you, and together we bring up those babies much better than if you had those babies with an ignorant wetback. Metaphorically speaking, of course–in reality, I don’t really go for dark meat”?

[Oldeb]

@brickbacon

No it wasn’t. Bush was called out several times by then NAACP chief, Julain Bond, for not attending their conventions. Bush openly snubbed them,
…
So yes, while Bush did at one point speak to them, he got all butthurt when they called him names, and decided to freeze them out.

Bush got over it, since he spoke there for a second time. And if your criteria for a hostile enviroment is people saying things about you afterwards then literally every single politician is incredibly brave to ever make any sort of public address. Neither Bush or McCain received anything but polite applause while they were there. By that logic Obama must have balls of steel to give the State of the Union address since he actually had a Congressman heckle him and still came back for more. Far worse than Bush faced when he went back to the NAACP. Romney didn’t deserve credit for “at least showing up” and neither does Paul.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@elucidator

Oh, Mr. Paul? They are called “romance languages” because they derive from Latin, hence, Rome. The term has nothing whatever to do with the relative emotional temperature of the speakers.

Oh yeah! There was so much to poke fun at I left that one out.

@John_Mace

In any case, no, I don’t think her analysis is spot on. It’s not only taking a snippet out of context, but creating a context that is contrary to reality. There were policy points made in his speech, even if they weren’t articulated all that well. Concerning your quote, I read it differently than you. Becoming “parents of a new future with Latino voters” isn’t saying he wants to be a parent of latino voters. He said with not of. That is, Republicans need to work with latinos to create a better future. It’s sappy, sure, but paternalistic? No.

John, saying ‘there were policy points made in his speech’ really doesn’t cut it when that policy is putting the (more popular with the public than gay marriage) path to citizenship on hold until there is some kind of super border fence set up and overseen by Congress. Yah, it is a policy point, but it is about as dumb a thing to bring up with the (Hispanic) Chamber of Commerce as love poems. Paul can’t seem to separate the concept of ‘illegal’ from ‘Latino’ anymore than he can talk to this audience about business. That’s why I think Maddow’s depiction is close enough.

Without hijacking the thread, what do you think is Maddow’s ‘agenda’?

[elucidator]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

I don’t ‘rely’ on Maddow for my news; I watch her as an expression of my admiration for the romantic love of Lesbinos…

Wait, what? That complicates things. Still, I could have surgery…

[John_Mace]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

Without hijacking the thread, what do you think is Maddow’s ‘agenda’?

She wears her progressive politics on her sleeve. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it makes her an advocate or analyst, not a reporter.

There are a whole bunch of them out there, and I think she’s one of the better ones, but I’d still check any of her claims with a actual news source, like the NYT or WP. In this case, if she wanted to act like a reporter, she could have taken his policy proposals and then asked those listening if they agreed with them or not. Instead, she chose to mock him, which is great if you’re going for laughs or knee-jerk applause from your political allies.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@elucidator

Wait, what? That complicates things. Still, I could have surgery…

That won’t be necessary, 'luci.

@John_Mace

She wears her progressive politics on her sleeve. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it makes her an advocate or analyst, not a reporter.

There are a whole bunch of them out there, and I think she’s one of the better ones, but I’d still check any of her claims with a actual news source, like the NYT or WP. In this case, if she wanted to act like a reporter, she could have taken his policy proposals and then asked those listening if they agreed with them or not. Instead, she chose to mock him, which is great if you’re going for laughs or knee-jerk applause from your political allies.

Advocate or analyst? I guess I can live with that. I was looking at her in the context of Fox News, or IBD, or Limbaugh- also partisan but not honest. I think Maddow strives for researched accuracy even if she is clearly a lefty.

As for the topic at hand, well if you read the rest of the transcript from her show or have paid attention to the Decline and Fall of the GOP lately, you can see a pattern of GOPers stumbling over race issues. They want the votes of blacks and Hispanics, but at the same time they somehow aren’t able to stop being insulting to them in any of a number of ways. So, yeah sure Maddow takes her lefty glee in poking fun at Paul, but the GOP trying and failing to reach out to these groups is a real thing. That’s why I support this pitting- Howard U. isn’t the only place Paul drops the ball in public trying to deal with ‘minorities’, and Paul is far from the only GOPer to doing this. I guess all those decades of the Southern Strategy are coming back to bite them in the ass, which is pretty entertaining to watch for an awful lot of people.