First, why are you appearing on a show whose host once infamously said that Barack Obama sent a "tingle" up his leg? Secondly, just how many GOP primary voters are you reaching with an appearance on MSNBC? Thirdly, don't you remember your son Rand's post primary interview on the same network with Rachel Maddow?
The bigger question is why do you insist on answering every historical hypothetical question posed to you? Presidential campaigns are about keeping focused on your message, not the "gotchas" of Chris Matthews. Why would you bother to mention you would not have voted for the Voting Rights Act of 1964? Did you not foresee the reflexively liberal response? It is quite strangely the mark of a political amateur to become so ensnared.
Ron Paul is quite capable of defending his positions without my assistance, but Chris Matthews assertion that he is racist for a hypothetical vote in history is classic demagoguery. But not surprising.
Ron Paul's hypothetical vote is grounded in a strict Libertarian view that the states are responsible for conducting elections, not the federal government. Ron Paul is wrong about the Voting Rights Act. But Chris Matthews rather than engaging with a legitimate rebuttal, grounded in history decided to keep it simple and play the race card.
Chris Matthews could have explained that while the states conduct elections, many states were systematically denying people their voting rights based on skin color alone. The deprivation of voting rights were either directly or indirectly undermined by state and county governments that were empowered to conduct elections. Constitutional empowerment, however does not justify denying fundamental rights. When the states violate their trust and deny any right, the federal government must intervene,guarantee the rights of those victimized and hold the guilty parties to account. The Voting Rights Act of 1964 secured the rights of those, who by virtue of their race were disenfranchised at the polls. It was the right thing to do.
Chris Matthews as was noted did not do that. It would've made for a better, more substantive conversation. Ron Paul has his Libertarian blinders on and they have clouded his judgement on the historic 1964 law, but as flawed as he is in that regard and to my mind as unqualified as he is to serve as President that does not make him a racist.
I don't agree with Ron Paul on many things, except on the budget where I find kinship, but he is politically honest which is rare. He has at the least something of value to offer public discourse. I used to watch Chris Matthews show many years ago but ceased because I found he had become overly cynical and arrogant. Unlike Ron Paul, Chris Matthews has nothing to offer except an abundant ego bred of mediocrity typical of pundits.
I remember watching Comedian Robert Wuhl comment: "Will Rogers, a man who never met Chris Matthews". To Ron Paul I say. Stop wasting your time with losers like Chris Matthews,it brings us all down to his level and demeans civilized conversation.
No comments:
Post a Comment