Gaffetastic: Rand Paul cancels Sunday “Meet the Press” appearance

posted at 5:41 pm on May 21, 2010 by Allahpundit

I guess he’ll follow the Palin playbook going forward, avoiding hostile media on grounds that they’ll never give him a fair shake. But Palin at least has the good sense to avoid the terrible optics of scheduling a big interview and then pulling the plug after a rough couple of days. Not Paul:

After two days of bruising media coverage about his views on elements of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the campaign of Kentucky U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul tells me it has canceled the candidate’s upcoming appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” — something the show’s host and producer are currently sounding the alarm about on Twitter.

Yeah, the fact that MTP people are Tweeting about it shows either how unusual this is or how they’re out to get him, depending on your disposition towards Paul. If you’re keeping score, this is, arguably, his third screw-up of the day. The first, which I think he’s getting a bit of a bad rap on, came during his contentious interview with Stephanopoulos this morning when he said the White House’s obnoxious “boot on the neck” rhetoric about BP was “really un-American.” Gabe Malor thinks Paul was calling Obama’s general criticism of business “un-American”; I think Paul was being much more specific than that, but judge for yourself. It comes at 6:22 of the clip below. Even so, “un-American” is a nuke that should be deployed sparingly, even for something as irritating as the “boot” line. And Gabe’s totally right that, with a galaxy of things to hammer The One about, it’s almost singularly stupid to pick a fight that aligns you, however reluctantly, with the people responsible for the oil spill when the headlines about it seem to get worse every day.

The other gaffe isn’t new but, thanks to TPM, it’ll be new for a lot of people who hadn’t heard of Paul until this week. Quote:

Campaigning for his father in Montana back in 2008, Rand Paul spoke out against the NAFTA Superhighway, encouraging Congress to stop the mythical project that would connect Mexico, the U.S., and Canada and, critics say, deal a fatal blow to American sovereignty. Long a bugaboo on some segments of the Right, the NAFTA Superhighway does not actually exist.

“It’s gonna go up through Texas, I guess, all the way to Montana,” said Paul, at an event in Bozeman. “So, it’s a real thing, and when you talk about it, the thing you just have to be aware of is that, if you talk about it like it’s a conspiracy, they’ll paint you as a nut.”

As was amply documented by The Nation a few years back, “There’s no such thing as a proposed NAFTA Superhighway.” It represents, Newsweek put it, “a strange stew of fact and fiction, fired by paranoia” that was popularized by Jerome Corsi, the man who spearheaded the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry in 2004.

I used to goof on the Superhighway nonsense myself, and I wasn’t the only righty who did so. Presumably the TPM story was a contributing factor in Paul’s decision to duck “Meet the Press.” I’m hoping against hope that the left is throwing whatever they have at him now rather than keeping a bunch of stuff in reserve, but (a) given his pedigree, I kind of doubt that this is the limit of it and (b) his chumminess with Alex Jones will surely be an issue sooner or later. His dad’s always gotten a pass on that from the media, but his dad’s just one of 435 and likely can’t be defeated in his district. Rand can. And as Rod Blagojevich said, a Senate seat is a f***ing valuable thing.

What’s most interesting about the Stephanopoulos clip isn’t the “un-American” quote but Paul’s clear irritation at the beginning that the media isn’t playing pattycake with him the way they usually do with Republican-bashing Republicans like his pops. I was surprised at that myself; to see the sort of softballs Rand Paul used to get from the left, check out Dave Weigel’s transcript of questions asked by Rachel Maddow the first time he was on her show. No wonder Paul feels shellshocked. Like Weigel says, this is the end of the left/libertarian romance. Exit question from Powerline: Is this guy ready for primetime?

Update: According to HuffPo, there have been only two other last-minute cancellations in the 62-year history of “Meet the Press.” (The others: Louis Farrakhan and Prince Bandar.) Wasn’t the whole point of this guy’s candidacy, at least for Paulnut true believers, that he’d have the stones to defend his libertarian positions unapologetically? Those other squishy RINOs might say the “safe thing” but the Paul boys don’t run. Well, he’s running. No disappointment?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

What other Republican winner of a recent primary is dumb enough to go on Rachel Maddow? If you know anything about her, you know how extraordinarily stupid that was.

chris999 on May 21, 2010 at 11:18 PM

And what did Rachel Maddow do other than ask him to explain his Libertarian philosophy? Why didn’t he man-up and show the courage of his convictions?

Maddow didn’t do anything to Paul. He tried to run away from his own beliefs and made himself look like a fool!

And now he has shown himself to be a coward to boot. He can’t even face David Schuster! Bwaaahahaha!
If the people of Kentucky elect this loser, they will be getting exactly what they deserve.

chumpThreads on May 21, 2010 at 11:34 PM

why can the left, case in point with Michelle “1st time i’m proud of my country” Obama….

why can the left put her on ice for a few months, put her makeup on…..and the media can literally make it go away…..

But Rands Macaca moment will follow him indefinetly…..because exactly as he said: State Run Media

sbark on May 21, 2010 at 11:34 PM

And what did Rachel Maddow do other than ask him to explain his Libertarian philosophy? Why didn’t he man-up and show the courage of his convictions?

Maddow didn’t do anything to Paul. He tried to run away from his own beliefs and made himself look like a fool!

And now he has shown himself to be a coward to boot. He can’t even face David Schuster! Bwaaahahaha!
If the people of Kentucky elect this loser, they will be getting exactly what they deserve.

chumpThreads on May 21, 2010 at 11:34 PM

Did you watch the interview? He made it abundantly clear he had a philosophical objection to one of the ten titles of the Civil Rights act. He stated that private property and freedom of association rights were being violated. He never stated he would repeal the CRA. Nevertheless, Rachel Maddow continued on her quest to extract a campaign soundbyte from Rand, even as go as far to ask him for a yes or no on segregating lunch counters from blacks. She’s a smart women who understands nuance and knew exactly what Rand’s position was, no matter how abhorrent it appeared to her.

Pitchforker on May 21, 2010 at 11:45 PM

chumpThreads on May 21, 2010 at 11:34 PM

Are you serious? David Schuster!!?? Well, hey, why doesn’t he just give an interview to Bozo the Clown?

chris999 on May 21, 2010 at 11:50 PM

Rand Paul just got the lesson that McCain got upon winning the repub nomination. The libs love you only as long as you aren’t going after big prizes and as long as you are trashing other republicans. McCain was ok as long as he was a losing candidate and thus not a threat. Once he got the nomination locked up, all that NYSlimes and WashCompost love went out the window and he became the next incarnation of Adolph Hitler. Likewise, Rand Paul’s family was always repub bashing and so they probably got lots of love from the media ala David Brooks and other lowlife repubs who bask in the self loathing media limelight. However once Rand had a serious chance to win, the media started its testing of just how far Rand would go in sticking a foot or three in his mouth. The civil rights comments were unforced errors. Much like Sarah’s snippy comments not naming newspapers she read and then that she read all of them. Although she lost the battle she may win the war, but we need people to win battles and the war. Is Rand Paul ready for prime time. I will reserve judgment, but right now the answer is iffy. Somewhere Mitch McConnell might be starting to smile. Maybe even thinking about putting an independent candidacy together if Rand flames out in the next couple of weeks. Rand must get himself together pronto.

eaglewingz08 on May 21, 2010 at 11:50 PM

He can’t even face David Schuster!

Shuster is on MTP?! That alone is reason enough not to go on. WTH has happened to MTP?!

Vince on May 21, 2010 at 11:59 PM

eaglewingz08 on May 21, 2010 at 11:50 PM

I would say we need big challenges to the Republican establishement. John McCain challenged Republicans from the LEFT, unlike Paul, who is challenging from the right, at least on fiscal issues. I want Paul to go to Washington and shake things up. Give Republicans like Mitch McConnell a little backbone when it comes to fighting statist, big-spending legislation. I think you are incorrect about David Brooks. He hates Rand Paul. Paul is courageously advocating what the squishy Republican establishment needs to be but won’t – abolish unneeded departments like education and energy. I don’t want McConnell smiling to himself – I want him to get in gear and support this guy and listen to him!!

chris999 on May 22, 2010 at 12:04 AM

Did you watch the interview?

Yes, I did.

He made it abundantly clear he had a philosophical objection to one of the ten titles of the Civil Rights act. He stated that private property and freedom of association rights were being violated. He never stated he would repeal the CRA. Nevertheless, Rachel Maddow continued on her quest to extract a campaign soundbyte from Rand, even as go as far to ask him for a yes or no on segregating lunch counters from blacks.

Because that is the philosophical implication of his position regarding private property and freedom of association! She asked for a simple yes or no, AND HE COULDN’T DO IT! He didn’t have the intellectual honesty to stand up for his beliefs! Instead he danced, dodged and evaded the question!

She’s a smart women who understands nuance and knew exactly what Rand’s position was, no matter how abhorrent it appeared to her.

Pitchforker on May 21, 2010 at 11:45 PM

EXACTLY! That’s why she wouldn’t let him off the hook! (unlike tough guy O’Reilly). She wasn’t looking for a soundbite, she was trying to take Paul to the logical conclusion of his Libertarian stance. He knew what she was doing and he also knew he had no where to run. Telling the truth was not an option for him.

Stop blaming Maddow for doing her job! As someone said this morning, if Paul can’t handle a tough interview then he can’t handle the Senate!

chumpThreads on May 22, 2010 at 12:05 AM

Are you serious? David Schuster!!?? Well, hey, why doesn’t he just give an interview to Bozo the Clown?

chris999 on May 21, 2010 at 11:50 PM

Tougher than he looks.

chumpThreads on May 22, 2010 at 12:07 AM

Are you serious? David Schuster!!?? Well, hey, why doesn’t he just give an interview to Bozo the Clown?

chris999 on May 21, 2010 at 11:50 PM

At least Bozo knows he’s a clown. Paul’s learned the awful truth about himself the hard way. At the hands of Rachel Maddow!

chumpThreads on May 22, 2010 at 12:10 AM

chumpThreads on May 22, 2010 at 12:05 AM

So here we have one of the ten viewers of the Rachel Maddow show. You go, girl!

chris999 on May 22, 2010 at 12:10 AM

So here we have one of the ten viewers of the Rachel Maddow show. You go, girl!

chris999 on May 22, 2010 at 12:10 AM

And that’s all you’ve got, pal.

chumpThreads on May 22, 2010 at 12:12 AM

chumpThreads on May 22, 2010 at 12:12 AM

Relax, chump, I know Dr. Paul is a great threat to the republic, but don’t worry, our country is in the very best of hands!

chris999 on May 22, 2010 at 12:14 AM

He tried to run away from his own beliefs and made himself look like a fool!

And now he has shown himself to be a coward to boot. He can’t even face David Schuster! Brit Hume or Chris Wallace or Bret Baier or… Bwaaahahaha!

If the people of Kentucky the US elect this loser, they will be getting exactly what they deserve.

chumpThreads on May 21, 2010 at 11:34 PM

Too late.

ddrintn on May 22, 2010 at 12:25 AM

If the people of Kentucky elect this loser, they will be getting exactly what they deserve.

chumpThreads on May 21, 2010 at 11:34 PM

I agree with you when it comes to Rand, but that also applies to electing another democrat to continue $1 trillion+ deficits and more taxes, regulations, and government interference to further saddle our increasingly uncompetetive economy.

Seriously, if ever there was a case of why can’t they both lose this is it (at least since the McCain-Obama matchup).

jarodea on May 22, 2010 at 1:06 AM

If the people of Kentucky elect this loser, they will be getting exactly what they deserve.

chumpThreads on May 21, 2010 at 11:34 PM

I agree with you when it comes to Rand, but that also applies to electing another democrat to continue $1 trillion+ deficits and more taxes, regulations, and government interference to further saddle our increasingly uncompetetive economy.

Seriously, if ever there was a case of why can’t they both lose this is it (at least since the McCain-Obama matchup).

jarodea on May 22, 2010 at 1:06 AM

I know – I mean Rand Paul believes in limited government, individual freedom and responsibility, sound money, and the Constitution. He sucks.

King of the Britons on May 22, 2010 at 9:29 AM

I know – I mean Rand Paul believes in limited government, individual freedom and responsibility, sound money, and the Constitution. He sucks.

King of the Britons on May 22, 2010 at 9:29 AM

Well since this thread is about to drop into oblivion, I’ll be brief. The first isn’t coming back, the second is much better in theory than in practice (at least as envisaged by libertarians), he may be for “sound money” but there’s a reason no one uses his idea of “sound money” anymore and never will without sharply curtailing suffrage (meanwhile as the Germans have shown “sound money” is very possible with the current system), and he’s a bit more than esoteric on the last part as we are seeing.

Well that’s briefer than I was originally going to be at least.

jarodea on May 22, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Well since this thread is about to drop into oblivion, I’ll be brief. The first isn’t coming back, the second is much better in theory than in practice (at least as envisaged by libertarians), he may be for “sound money” but there’s a reason no one uses his idea of “sound money” anymore and never will without sharply curtailing suffrage (meanwhile as the Germans have shown “sound money” is very possible with the current system), and he’s a bit more than esoteric on the last part as we are seeing.

Well that’s briefer than I was originally going to be at least.

jarodea on May 22, 2010 at 10:26 AM

I feel sorry for people like you. You went to a public school didn’t you? Well, good luck with your McCains, Frums, Grahams, and Snowes.

King of the Britons on May 22, 2010 at 10:33 AM

If anyone thinks Rand Paul appeals to anyone but the extreme right, you are blind. He canceled because someone informed him that if he keeps talking and letting the average citizen(who isn’t a political junkie)know his views, he’s toast.

fastestslug on May 22, 2010 at 10:49 AM

If anyone thinks Rand Paul appeals to anyone but the extreme right, you are blind. He canceled because someone informed him that if he keeps talking and letting the average citizen(who isn’t a political junkie)know his views, he’s toast.

fastestslug on May 22, 2010 at 10:49 AM

Extreme right?! Paul is a libertarian you moron.

King of the Britons on May 22, 2010 at 10:55 AM

Extreme right?! Paul is a libertarian you moron.

King of the Britons on May 22, 2010 at 10:55 AM

I’ve never met a libertarian that believes abortion should be illegal in all cases.

fastestslug on May 22, 2010 at 11:48 AM

Extreme right?! Paul is a libertarian you moron.

King of the Britons on May 22, 2010 at 10:55 AM

And btw, you are the moron. HE recently stated that he is not a libertarian.

fastestslug on May 22, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Allah, you’ve really fallen for this faux flak, haven’t you?….I’m disappointed in HotAir….what’s happened?

Webutante on May 22, 2010 at 12:26 PM

Rachel has got you and the other hysterics debating Paul on her terms. You’re her guy now, Allah, and in doing so, you’re fiddling while Rome is burning. Is it really that slow in HotAirland these days?

Webutante on May 22, 2010 at 1:02 PM

Dumb Paul is the candidate that Sarah Palin endorsed, What the hell did you expect him to be but an extreme nut like his dad?

Falz on May 22, 2010 at 1:24 PM

I think I’d rather have him win without this Meet The Press date he stood up, proving the show as irrelevent that we all know it is… :)

golfmann on May 22, 2010 at 1:27 PM

I think everyone should boycott Meet the Depressed, politicians and viewers alike.

Does anyone watch it anymore?

Who cares?

Stepan on May 22, 2010 at 1:35 PM

That’s “third to cancel at the last minute.”

That’s what happens when you lift your content from Puffington Host.

misterpeasea on May 22, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Extreme right?! Paul is a libertarian you moron.

King of the Britons on May 22, 2010 at 10:55 AM

I’ve never met a libertarian that believes abortion should be illegal in all cases.

fastestslug on May 22, 2010 at 11:48 AM

*yaaaaawwwwn* The abortion litmus test again. Maaaaaan that gets boring.

ddrintn on May 22, 2010 at 1:51 PM

Rand did the right thing . He obviously can’t help saying stupid things . The less exposure , the better .

borntoraisehogs on May 22, 2010 at 3:00 PM

back in 2008, Rand Paul spoke out against the NAFTA Superhighway, encouraging Congress to stop the mythical project that would connect Mexico, the U.S., and Canada and, critics say, deal a fatal blow to American sovereignty. Long a bugaboo on some segments of the Right, the NAFTA Superhighway does not actually exist.

In defense of Rand, I’m not sure the plans were entirely nonextistent. My family were down in Laredo, TX over spring break in 2008 and there was extensive construction at the I35 bridge to Nuevo Laredo. All along the plaza for foot traffic to the bridge and over the driving lanes were three flags flying – Texas, Mexico and Canada. What earthly purpose does it serve to fly Canadian flags down this way? I have been to the border many, many times over the past 12 years and I had never seen that before. Mexican and Texan flags, sure, but nothing Candian. I haven’t been down to the bridge in two years due to the violence so I can’t verify the continued presence of the flags but it was certainly strange to see them pop up like that.

inmypajamas on May 22, 2010 at 4:47 PM

I rest my case.

King of the Britons on May 21, 2010 at 10:14 PM

Atticus Finch called, then threw up in his mouth a little.

The Race Card on May 22, 2010 at 4:59 PM

The New York Times Frank Rich sounds very concerned about the Randslide and it’s national implications. He understands the democratic hegemony is threatened:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/opinion/23rich.html

Paul is articulate and hard-line. When he says he is antigovernment, he means it. Unlike McConnell, he wants to end all earmarks, including agricultural subsidies for a state that thrives on them. (He does vow to preserve Medicare payments, however; they contribute to his income as an ophthalmologist.) He wants to shut down the Department of Education and the Federal Reserve. Though a social conservative who would outlaw all abortions, he believes the federal government should leave drug enforcement to the states.

Still, it’s Paul’s brand of populism, not his views on Jim Crow or Iran, that are most germane to the Tea Party’s birth and its future — both within the G.O.P. and as a force that will buffet Obama and the Democrats. Paul most abundantly embodies the movement’s animus when he plays on classic American-style class resentment. His campaign loved to deploy the full name of his opponent, Charles Merwin Grayson III, a Harvard-educated banker’s son. In his victory speech Tuesday night, Paul said the voters’ message was to “get rid of the power people, the people who run the show, the people who think they’re above everybody else” — or, as he put it on an earlier occasion, the establishment who “from their high-rise penthouse” look down on and laugh at the “American rabble.”

The unemployment numbers, unlikely to change drastically by November, will have more to say than any of Tuesday’s results about what happens on Election Day this year. Yes, the Tea Party is radical, its membership is not enormous, and its race problem is real and troubling. But you can’t fight an impassioned opposition merely with legislative actions that may bear fruit in the semi-distant future. If the Democrats can’t muster their own compelling response to the populist rage out there, “Randslide” may reside in our political vocabulary long after “Arlen Specter” is leaving “Jeopardy” contestants stumped.

Pitchforker on May 22, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Paul most abundantly embodies the movement’s animus when he plays on classic American-style class resentment.

Now that takes some real gall there.

ddrintn on May 22, 2010 at 6:12 PM

I went onto Wikipedia…just for kicks…to look up the votes for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I had heard that this was the result..but wanted to make sure. Here it is:

By party
The original House version:[9]

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

VERY INTERESTING. In her hit piece, did Rachel MadCow mention this?? And that Robert KKK Byrd led the way AGAINST it????? I didn’t see it…would never watch it…but I am guessing…NO SHE DIDN’T.

Dan Pet on May 22, 2010 at 6:33 PM

if Paul can’t handle a tough interview then he can’t handle the Senate!

chumpThreads on May 22, 2010 at 12:05 AM

Sadly false. Agree with the rest, however.

RINO in Name Only on May 22, 2010 at 7:03 PM

But Palin at least has the good sense to avoid the terrible optics of scheduling a big interview and then pulling the plug after a rough couple of days. Not Paul:

How well did Palin do with the MSM during the election again?

Paul might just be smart to limit his National exposure and concentrate on Kentucky Media.

jpmn on May 22, 2010 at 11:42 PM

Not sure I agree with the premise that the NAFTA superhighway was “mythical”, as I attended a town hall meeting several years ago in regard to the proposal to run the Corridor through Texas and up into Oklahoma. In the presentation there was a clear understanding that this was to traverse the United States and go on to Canada.

It wasn’t called the NAFTA Superhighway, but the proposal was not “mythical” and involved highway study funding. Multiple town hall meetings were held regarding it. Tons of press.

Not sure how you can wave it off as non-existant.

Johnny Crow on May 23, 2010 at 12:49 AM

Mark Levin has offered to go in his place. But that won’t happen, because

David Gregory

is afraid of Mark Levin.

Hey David! Grow a pair and invite Levin on your show!

Mark7788 on May 23, 2010 at 12:55 AM

I feel sorry for people like you. You went to a public school didn’t you? Well, good luck with your McCains, Frums, Grahams, and Snowes.

King of the Britons on May 22, 2010 at 10:33 AM

Well I thought this thread would have already died. But yes, I love McCain, hence why I said I wish both he and Obama could have lost. Great reading skills, maybe you could have used at least going to public school.

jarodea on May 23, 2010 at 4:33 AM

I thought it was a smart move. He’s corrected the record. Right now, he’s nothing but fodder for the gristmill, just as Palin was.

The worst mistake McCain made was not pulling the plug on Couric.

AnninCA on May 23, 2010 at 8:59 AM

He’s running in Kentucky. The only valid opinions are those of his voters. As for the hand-wringing wimpy Republicans, they need only keep repeating the word libertarian. And try to keep the eyerolling down to a minimum.

Queen0fCups on May 23, 2010 at 10:13 AM

Can you imagine if the press was this vigilant when Obama was running for president? This situation with Dr. Paul shows how corrupt and in the tank the mainstream media is for anyone with a D behind their name.

Apparently associating with KNOWN racists and TERRORISTS isn’t that big of a deal. But we can’t debate have a debate about the Civil rights act that passed back in 1964….

nazo311 on May 23, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Can you imagine if the press was this vigilant when Obama was running for president? This situation with Dr. Paul shows how corrupt and in the tank the mainstream media is for anyone with a D behind their name.

Apparently associating with KNOWN racists and TERRORISTS isn’t that big of a deal. But we can’t debate have a debate about the Civil rights act that passed back in 1964….

nazo311 on May 23, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Translation = “Waaaaahhhh! I can’t refute the fact that Paul is a political coward, so I’ll blame the press.”

chumpThreads on May 23, 2010 at 11:51 AM

The worst mistake McCain made was not pulling the plug on Couric.

AnninCA on May 23, 2010 at 8:59 AM

Word. Pull the plug and rush to a favorable media outlet to clarify. Start talking about something else and hope it dies over the next week’s news cycle. This is pretty basic PR.

alwaysfiredup on May 23, 2010 at 3:16 PM

MTP is not a sunday morning staple for KY voters. He’ll probably get a bump in the polls FOR cancelling, as opposed to actually showing up for the intended leftwing media ambush/attackfest. The MTP’s, MSNBC’s, WaPo’s, etc., are held in disdain by the vast majority of America. Wouldn’t it be nice if the state run media went after Obama with afraction of zeal they go after Rand with? On any issue?

roninacreage on May 23, 2010 at 3:48 PM

They don’t call it a superhighway. I don’t know what they’re calling it.
But when you have informational meetings by govt, local, state, & fed, on a ‘highway’ that will involve just what the ‘superhighway’ involves, i.e. getting easements from farmers & ranchers, buying up land from farmers & ranchers, etc., then I would say that there is something going on that approximates a ‘superhighway’.
Pretending it doesn’t exist & vilifying people for being conspiratory is wrong (media have done this in the past).
Point is, it is happening. Ask farmers & ranchers in the states of TX, WY,CO,MT who have been to these ‘workshops’.

Badger40 on May 24, 2010 at 9:28 AM

He’s a nut, just like his dad. Republicans in Kentucky will come to regret nominating him.

The “superhighway” would go through Montana? Bullcrap. The highway that is typically referred to as the “NAFTA highway” is Interstate 35, and it doesn’t go anywhere near Montana. The Trans-Texas Corridor idea is dead; it was what something like a “NAFTA Superhighway” might have looked like. I-35 does need improvement, though; it’s being slowly widened to three lanes each way through Texas – that’s work that’s sorely needed, given the amount of truck traffic on it.

Ward Cleaver on May 24, 2010 at 12:12 PM

The “NAFTA Superhighway” was not a myth. In Texas it was very real, and it was called the Trans-Texas Corridor.

It took a massive concerted effort by Texan conservatives and land owners to fight the international consortium, and the plans for the TTC were scrapped only last summer in ’09. And by scrapped, I mean “scrapped” like amnesty was “scrapped”. The consortium is still looking for ways to use current transportation corridors (without the massive displacement of private land owners), but the concept of shipping directly from China-owned seaports in Mexico through the heartland to Canada remains the same.

I rather resent the scoffing, AP, knowing the effort that was expended by Texans to stop this thing.

Redhead Infidel on May 24, 2010 at 12:15 PM

He’s a nut, just like his dad. Republicans in Kentucky will come to regret nominating him.

Ward Cleaver on May 24, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Not only are the Paul family nuts but racist too. I guess Dad has set a good example for the son by associating with known racists.

Ron Paul and his son have no place in the Republican party or in conservative circles.

Conservative Samizdat on May 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3