Rand Paul to reporter: "Calm down a bit here, Kelly. Let me answer the question." Joe Scarborough to guest: 'Let me finish my sentence and then you can be a condescending liberal Emanuel." The two responses sound similar, don't they? Two guys getting frustrated by their interlocutors' interruptions.
The irony is that Joe Scarborough devoted a segment on today's Morning Joe to rapping Rand Paul for "shushing" that reporter, whereas a bit later in the show, Scarborough himself shut down a guest with such similar language.
Note that by the time Paul couldn't take it anymore, CNBC reporter Kelly Evans had already hit him with two loaded and contentious questions. Out of the box, she asked him, her voice dripping with incredulity, "did you really just say to Laura Ingraham that you think that most vaccines in this country should be, quote, voluntary?"
Later, in the exchange that led to the shushing, she began discussion of his proposal to allow corporations to repatriate cash from overseas at reduced tax rates by saying "Senator, I'm sure you know that most of the research on this indicates that these actually cost more money over the long term than they save." You can view the entire interview here.
Note also that Paul endured considerably more interruption than Scarborough before he reacted. Emanuel barely got in a few words before Joe shut him down.
Wonder if the double-standard he adopted every occurred to Joe?
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Rand Paul, also, you were talking before . .
WILLIE GEIST: We showed a piece of that interview, Senator Rand Paul with Kelly Evans on CNBC. And there was another moment that has gotten a lot of attention. They were talking about a different issue of taxes. And he had sort of an -- not a beautiful moment.
MIKA BRZEZISNKI: He sushed her.
GEIST: He sushed her.
KELLY EVANS: Most of the research on this indicates that these actually cost more money over the long term than they save. Are you saying that --
RAND PAUL: That's incorrect. You're -- oh, let's go back again. Your premise and your question is mistaken.
EVANS: All right.
PAUL: Most of the research doesn't indicate that.
EVANS: [series of unintelligble interruptions].
PAUL: Let me -- Kelly, hey, Kelly. Shhh. Calm down a bit here, Kelly. Let me answer the question.
EVANS: I can tell you're fired up. I apologize for the extent to which I'm the reason for that. But what about 2016? I mean, is this here a -- with an eye towards you entering 2016 as a presidential candidate or maybe getting drafted into one of the campaigns?
PAUL: We're thinking about it. And we're looking around the United States and seeing if the message resonates. Part of the problem is is that you end up having interviews like this where the interview's so slanted and full of distortions that you don't get useful information. I think this is what is bad about TV sometimes. Frankly, I think if we do this again you need to try to start out with a litle more objectivity going into the interview.
GEIST: The interview kind of went that way. Kelly Evans asking some tough questions.
SCARBOROUGH: Wow. I've never known Kelly Evans to be slanted. I've certainly never known CNBC --
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I think the wrong person apologized. I don't know why the woman apologized in that interview.
SCARBOROUGH: I've never heard of CNBC being accused of being a bastion of left-wing liberalism. It's a very conservative outlet. The Washington Post" said -- who is this in the Washington Post? Erin Blake with the Washington Post" said, "Well, this Rand Paul interview with CNBC didn't go well. One he reiterated is his contention on vaccines, two . . . three, he actually sushed the anchor and, four, he concluded the interview attacking CNBC as being biased." Very strange.
. . .
ZEKE EMANUEL: What I don't get is Rand Paul as a doctor saying --
SCARBOROUGH: I don't understand that.
EMMANUEL: This just strikes me: how can you go through medical school and internship and training and not believe in the science.
SCARBOROUGH: You know the thing is, you and I, a lot of people can have debates about climate change and we can debate the extent of climate change as far as I believe in climate change.
EMANUEL: The extent, not whether it's happening --
SCARBOROUGH: That's what I'm saying. Let me finish my sentence and then you can be a condescending liberal Emanuel.
EMANUEL: I'm an Emanuel. Why bother?
