Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Republicans embrace Rand Paul, just not his words

By Matt DeLong

Just about everybody on the Sunday shows was talking about the firestorm that erupted last week over Kentucky GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul's comments on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The controversy arose from an interview Paul gave to MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, in which he defended previous statements taking issue with a provision in the legislation prohibiting discrimination by private businesses. GOP leaders found themselves walking a fine line Sunday in supporting their candidate while distancing themselves from Paul's actual words.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, appearing on ABC's "This Week," said he was uncomfortable with Paul's comments, but declined to condemn them. "I can't condemn a person's views," Steele said, adding that "the people of Kentucky will judge" them. In an earlier appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Steele was a bit more foreceful, saying Paul's views are "misplaced in these times."

"Rand Paul's philosophy got in the way of reality," Steele said.

Paul's potential future colleagues in the Senate GOP caucus were quick to chalk up the comments as a rookie mistake.

"Even a good baseball player sometimes has a hard time going from AAA to the major leagues," said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who called Paul's comments "a mistake" on CBS' "Face the Nation." Alexander noted that he had personally voted for multiple pieces of civil rights legislation and helped bring the holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr. to his home state.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), the chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, offered a similar explanation on NBC's "Meet the Press." "Dr. Paul is new to running for public office," Cornyn said. "I think it's ... my experience that you see novice candidates occasionally stumble on questions. I think he's clarified his positions." Cornyn defended Paul's decision to cancel a scheduled appearance on the same show.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin suggested on "Fox News Sunday" that MSNBC host Rachel Maddow's interview with Paul that spurred the controversy was "prejudiced" by Maddow's own agenda. Palin also compared the interview and subsequent media attention to the unfair treatment she has said she received during the 2008 presidential campaign. From the transcript:

One thing that we can learn in this lesson that I have learned and Rand Paul is learning now is don't assume that you can engage in a hypothetical discussion about constitutional impacts with a reporter or a media personality who has an agenda, who may be prejudiced before they even get into the interview in regards to what your answer may be -- and then the opportunity that they seize to get you.

You know, they're looking for that 'gotcha' moment. And that's what it evidently appears to be that they did with Rand Paul, but I'm thankful that he was able to clarify his answer about his support for the Civil Rights Act.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who like Palin is widely believed to be weighing a bid for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, called Paul's comments "unfortunate," but said on CNN's "State of the Union" that they do not reflect poorly on the tea party movement, in which Paul is wildly popular.

By 44 Editor  |  May 23, 2010; 12:25 PM ET
Categories:  44 The Obama Presidency  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sestak, White House still mum on alleged administration job offer
Next: Steele: Paul's 'philosophy got in the way of reality'; Sestak: White House offered me a job; Gibbs defends White House spill response

Comments

edmcgarvey1,
"Question??? Why would the GOP endorse a Libertarian who's agenda mocks that of a Rino, a Dino and Marxist at times."

Because much like the 08 Presidential election they had no other choice. The Candidates were Paul and Grayson, Paul a quasi-libertarian and Grayson a Democrat turned RINO. In the 08 Presidential race we had a RINO (McCain) and a Socialist Liberal (Obama). In the Kentucky race the RNC cut off it's nose to spite it's face by pulling all support from the real conservative available, early on. Jim Bunning is one of the true conservatives of modern American politics, as his voting record and statements prove. Which is another reason that Steele needs to be shown the door and a true Conservative needs to fill his job.

Posted by: jonweiss1 | May 24, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

I come here a few times a year to post a article on the hot topic. Frankly some of you need to get a life. Most of you College students need to be studying not bloviating on matters above your Witt's.
Your parents need to know their hard earned dollars are well spent, so far it does not look that way.

Posted by: edmcgarvey1 | May 24, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Question??? Why would the GOP endorse a Libertarian who's agenda mocks that of a Rino, a Dino and Marxist at times. Rand Paul is not a man we need to be associated with. Conservatives need not lower their values.

Posted by: edmcgarvey1 | May 24, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

rcossebo,
"This country is DOOMED with this myopic, prejudiced, hate mongering that both the Republicans and now the TEA PARTY seems so good at dishing out."

After reading your comment, you made me realise that it is not only the Republicans and TEA party that are good at dishing out prejudice and hate mongering. You are doing a fair job of it yourself.

Posted by: jonweiss1 | May 24, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

SteelWheel25,
"I won't argue with you on this highly arguable claim you made but which race is in the best position to act on their racial bias and has a very long history of doing just that???"

Considering many articles and commentaries from the Reconquistas, as well as government surveys, the white race is in numeric and power decline, in America. In many parts of the country, especially the population centers of the South and Northeast, the power now rests in the hands of Latinos and Hispanics. But based on the left wing's need to foster racism between blacks and whites, I am sure these facts will be overlooked by the MSM. Just as Obama has already done in his recent call for African Americans, Latino, Asian, and women to energize for the November elections. Apparently even Obama looks to anyone and everyone for support...except white males. So the Race Baiters will have to look elsewhere in the future for a target.

Posted by: jonweiss1 | May 24, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Reading this article I was struck with how STUPID the Republicans are and the TEA PARTY is for having PALIN as their spokesperson. This country is DOOMED with this myopic, prejudiced, hate mongering that both the Republicans and now the TEA PARTY seems so good at dishing out. Obviously they don't have a CLUE as to what diplomacy and STATESMANSHIP is! Mark my words: If the TEA PARTY, Republican, CORPORATE, Banking Machine gets control of the Government again, we all need to PRAY the MAYAN's were right and 12/21/12 is the END OF THE WORLD, because one way or another, it will be. It will end either by natural causes or the RELIGIOUS NUT JOBS that seem to be coming forth from all religions will create a WWIII scenario! Too bad they don't use their hatred and energy for good causes instead of slurring other people and blowing up innocent women, children, and men! Just my NOT SO humble opinion and thank GOD we are still free to express that!

Posted by: rcossebo | May 24, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

jefrix
"To disagree with her is fine, to make fun of her for being a "commoner" is another..."

Very true, your comment is one of the most sane I have ever heard from the left regarding Palin. I doubt that she is ready for the "Big Chair" any more than Obama, who proves his inability on a daily basis. But what I find entertaining about many on the left is how, eveve after the election is over they keep pronounceing Palin as "politically dead", but then keep attacking her to "kill" her again and again. It seems that this politically dead woman, simply refuses to stay in the coffin. More likely the left is terrified of her popularity. Because whether she is ready for high office of any type may be debatable, her popularity among "the commoners" is undeniable.

Posted by: jonweiss1 | May 24, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

I think these "classical" libertarians make too much of the distinction between "government" and the "private." Would Rand Paul say it wasn't OK to discriminate against Jews when hiring, at a "public" university, but OK at a "private" one (which nonetheless gets all kinds of tax breaks and money from government, anyhow)? This makes no sense. In any case, in "real life," most discrimination is in the "private" sphere -- restaurants, hotels, housing, country clubs, etc. You get the equivalent of segregation without the legal, government-imposed legislation, and when definable groups are kept out of these areas, they are effectively ghettoized and become second-class citizens.

Posted by: hsrebrnik | May 24, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

DwightCollins wrote:

in case nobody knows, blacks discriminate against whites more than any white would against a black person today...

---------------------------------------------

DwightCollins,
I won't argue with you on this highly arguable claim you made but which race is in the best position to act on their racial bias and has a very long history of doing just that???

Posted by: SteelWheel25 | May 24, 2010 6:22 AM | Report abuse

Rand Paul's ignorance of the reasons why the Civil Rights Act and Fair Housing Act had to be passed not only illustrates the huge gap between reality and his libertarian philosophy, but also exposes the GOP for what it has become: the home of America's racial bigots. Now that's no surprise since the GOP has built itself on racial bigotry and it has, in collaboration with the so-called Tea Party movement, gone on a race-baiting attack against our first President of African heritage.

Rand Paul illustrates why no nation can afford to be governed by a radical ideologue because their political ideology prevents competent governing which requires a flexibility that strict adherence to a political ideology does not permit. Good governing requires a careful combination of liberal, moderate, and conservative approaches to different issues -- something President Obama actually has been doing (it's amazing how many conservative proposals have been adopted as part of the Health Care and Financial Reform legislation -- and that the Republicans actually opposed inclusion of so many of their own ideas in these bills simply because the President had adopted them.

But what's scariest of all is how similar libertarians and communists are. They both believe the world must work according to their own political ideologies despite there being no evidence that it ever has functioned as they see it nor any evidence that it could. It's just amazing how two radical political philosophies can be so similar.

Posted by: dl49 | May 24, 2010 1:22 AM | Report abuse

People react to her because she believes.
There is nothing phoney about Sarah Palin.
Plus she is courageous, charismatic, and gives a great stump speech while looking hot in a leather motorcycle jacket.

I think she is a tranformational figure in American politics. Several things (e.g., the GOP, feminism, grassroots politics, internet politics, a politicians career path) have now changed irrevocably because of Sarah Palin.

And she's still young!

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 24, 2010 12:03 AM | Report abuse

Wow! - you're right, Azarkhan - he totally nailed the zeitgeist of Palin's appeal.

Where he says "I can disagree with her without making fun of her. And for those of us who are more liberal, we step on dangerous ground when we try to belittle her, ... saying you know she is backwoods or stuff like that. That is how liberals come across as elitists or snobs...
She touches a nerve for people who resent being looked down upon. And there is a significant segment of America that feels it is being looked down upon. I think that's dangerous. It's where people who are liberal can get into trouble."

EXACTLY! I think that's why it's not so much HER that enthralls me, it's the reaction others have TO HER that intrigues me. To disagree with her is fine, to make fun of her for being a "commoner" is another...

Posted by: jefrix | May 23, 2010 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Jerry Springer is a liberal Democrat but no fool. In this interview, he was very respectful of Sarah Palin.

http://www.popeater.com/2010/05/21/jerry-springer-sarah-palin-baggage-interview/

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 23, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Well said, Azarkhan, and pretty insightful too. Palin really touches a nerve in this country (and I admit, shamefully, that her looks make me listen to her more than I should). But for the pundits to dismiss her for her journalism degree (which, by the way, is the same degree most of them hold), doesn't disqualify her at all to me. Being a lawyer does not make one a good law-maker, we could use some "common folk" in Congress. In fact, being a lawyer tends to turn bills into thousand page monstrosities of legaleze and doublespeak. As for Rand Paul making a mistake, maybe, we'll see...but it was refreshing to hear a politician stick to his principles, even when he knows he will be nailed to the "politically correct" cross for it. He could have given political blather or a simple "no comment", but he stood there, literally against a brick wall, and took it. I hope this doesn't keep him from engaging in further philosophical discussions, though...for better or for worse.

Posted by: jefrix | May 23, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

On Fox News Sunday, Sarah Palin did exactly what she had to do-

1) She strongly supported Rand Paul while repeating several times that Paul supported the Civil Rights Act.
2) She provided Paul with an excuse: he was "engag[ing] in a hypothetical discussion".
4) She gave hundreds of editors a headline gem when she said about the biased media: "You know, they are looking for the gotcha moment."
5) She reassured the GOP establishment, which had never supported Paul, and no doubt was wondering how Ms. Palin would react to the crisis of her protégé.
6) And in her most brilliant move, she moved the debate off Paul and onto Pres Obama when she questioned both the Obama regime's slowness in responding to the Gulf oil leak and wondering if Obama was in the pocket of BP(!). (Politico on May 5 listed Pres. Obama as receiving the most cash from BP)

Unfortunately, since Rand Paul has the political savvy of a kangaroo, he'll probably screw up again.

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 23, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Paul didn't "misspeak". He just wouldn't answer the question.

The USA is a practical experiment in balancing the diametric opposites of liberty and equality. To defer to "liberty" in all things misses the point. It is a chink in Libertarian armor they cannot overcome, no matter how much double-talk they use.

Posted by: michael4 | May 23, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Paul didn't "misspeak". He just wouldn't answer the question.

The USA is a practical experiment in balancing the diametric opposites of liberty and equality. The defer to "liberty" in all things misses the point. It is a chink in Libertarian armor they cannot overcome, no matter how much double-talk they use.

Posted by: michael4 | May 23, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Quiz: pick the politician's position:

Your choices are A)Bush B)Obama C)Paul

Answer:
1. Against Gay marriage.....A,B
2. Against Legal Pot...........A,B
3. For Secret Prisons.......A,B
4. For Torture..................A
5. For Corporate Bailouts...A,B
6. For Unilateral War.......A,B
7. For the Patriot Act.........A,B
8. For Oil Drilling..............A,B,C
9. For Gov't Transparancy...C
10. For Auditing the Fed.......C
11. Lowering Def Spending...C
12. Lowering Taxes.............A,C
13. Lowering Spending.......C
14. Deficit Reduction...........C

You neo-cons that love Bush and hate Obama - Why? What's the difference?

You liberals that love Obama and hate Bush - Why? What's the difference?

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!

No wonder everyone hates Paul, he IS a loony with extreme views that neither right-wingnuts or libtards can agree with!

Put an X by the things YOU agree with, which politician is most like you?

Posted by: jefrix | May 23, 2010 9:55 PM | Report abuse

For those who are accusing Rachael Maddow of setting Rand Paul up or tricking him into sounding stupid, why don't you try watching the Rachel Maddow show sometimes, as opposed to those Right-Wing hacks over on FIXed News 24 hours a day.

You may just see how ignorant your so-called leaders are when they are trying their very best to communicate intelligently with other intelligent people, as opposed to the O'Reilly's, Glenn Becks, and Shawn Hannity's over on Mad T.V., news.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | May 23, 2010 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Oh! sort of like embracing the "fart" but not the s**t?

Republicans has this going for them:
Prejudice rightwing teaparty kooks!
Embracing by Big Corporation

And yet! They really think they're going too win seats in the fall....The smell of embracing all those "farts" has them delusional!!!!!

Posted by: dove369 | May 23, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Oh! sort of like embracing the "fart" but not the s**t!

Republicans has this going for them:
Prejudice rightwing teaparty kooks!
Embracing by Big Corporation

And yet! They really think they're going too win seats in the fall....The smell of embracing all those "farts" has them delusional!!!!!

Posted by: dove369 | May 23, 2010 9:42 PM | Report abuse

jefrix, you idiot, it was the voters of Massachusetts, most of whom are DEMOCRATS, who put Ed Brooke in the Senate.

What a moron jefrix is. He doesn't even know how Senators are elected.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 23, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Oh! sort of like embracing the "fart" but not the s**t!

Republicans has this going for them:
Prejudice rightwing teaparty kooks!
Embracing by Big Corporation

And yet! They really think they're going too win seats in the fall....The smell of embracing all those "farts" has them delusional!!!!!

Posted by: dove369 | May 23, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Of course the RepubliCANTS can't condemn Rand Paul's Libertarian views, but they condemn Democratic Liberal views everyday.

Hypocrites!

They need Rand Paul and Sarah Palin, like a fish needs water. Because, without them, guess what?

There goes the Tea Party supporters and the RepubliCANTs need those Tea Party people to help to try to win a few upcoming elections this year.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | May 23, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

The problem I see with the Libertarian view is that since, according to the Constitution, the USA is in a practical experiment of balancing diametric opposites, liberty and equality. The more you have of one the less you have of the other. To ignore equality in favor of liberty at all times, like the Paul's seem to do on an theoretical, idealogical basis, is to undermine the basis of our country.

Posted by: michael4 | May 23, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

The problem I see with the Libertarian view is that since, according the Constitution, the USA is in a practical experiment of balancing diametric opposites, liberty and equality. The more you have of one the less you have of the other. To ignore equality in favor of liberty at all times, like the Paul's seem to do on an theoretical, idealogical basis, is to undermine the basis of our country.

Posted by: michael4 | May 23, 2010 9:10 PM | Report abuse

LMAO! If Sarah was any dumber...well, that can't be...

Posted by: michael4 | May 23, 2010 9:00 PM | Report abuse

LMAO! If Sarah was any dumber...well, that can't be...

Posted by: michael4 | May 23, 2010 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Posted by sally1860:
Frankly, I hope Paul sticks to his Libertarian agenda in interviews, so we can see what the teabaggers really represent.

========================================
You can count on Paul sticking to his views, as his dad has for 30 years, even when the republicans hated him for blaming Bush's foreign policy for arab hatred, for wanting to end the drug war, to end secret prisons, to end the patriot act, to end the bailouts...you know, all the stuff Obama campaigned on...then extended when elected.

"Delusional hypocrites, all." - INDEED!

Posted by: jefrix | May 23, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul . . . .

Mmmmmmm. . . . tastes like chicken.

Posted by: palmtree2001 | May 23, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Paul just articulated what most Republican officeholders believe, so they can't run too far from him. As far as the mainstream media picking on poor Paul, he is either ready for primetime or he is not. If Paul can't defend his ideas or articulate his positions then he needs to stay home in Kentucky. Besides he is toast once the press starts covering his position on a $2500 deductible for Medicare. Even the old redneck hillbillies of Kentucky will understand that is a mistake.

Posted by: merrylees | May 23, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Rachel Maddow's interview questions to Paul about the Civil Rights Act were a follow-up to comments Paul had previously made on NPR. Asking for clarification about ideas that seem to run pretty much against the beliefs of most Americans, including Republicans, is hardly "gotcha" journalism. Sorry, Sarah.

Frankly, I hope Paul sticks to his Libertarian agenda in interviews, so we can see what the teabaggers really represent.

Now I hear rumbling blaming Obama for failing to somehow (magically?) stop the BP oil leak. Apparently the government should have had a "plan" for this. But wait -- don't you folks believe in keeping government out of private business, and nowhere moreso than when it comes to big oil?

Delusional hypocrites, all.

Posted by: sally1860 | May 23, 2010 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Here’s the way my friend see’s it, “as a property owna you do with your place as you chose, but the GOV comes into YOUR place and tells YOU you gotta serve these mo-fos even if you freakin hat’em.
Dr Paul point is well taken, “why serve them?”

“What happened to ‘No shirt, No shoes, No service’? Or better yet, how bout ‘We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone’. Does contractual law count no more?”

But I says “It’s your dam property, if you descide yo shoot any mo-fo who steps on your land (clearly labeled NO TRESSPASING) that is your GOD given write to do um”.

Too many bleeding hearts. Theres the problem.

Posted by: ArchAngel888 | May 23, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

> DwightCollins
Wow, where to start?
For one, thanks for providing no examples whatsoever. Two, if I were a black person living in America, supposed land of the free, I might not easily embrace white people after all those centuries of law-sanctioned racism. I just might think that was kind of risky. Three, all blacks discriminate worse than ANY white does? Are you kidding? Where are all the black-supremacist armed-to-the-teeth waiting-for-the-race-war militia camps? Where are the black schools that don't allow students to date white people? Where are the black sports executives saying out loud that whites aren't smart enough to be in management?

Posted by: terry-the-censor | May 23, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

> georges2
You seem to misunderstand freedom of speech. Yes, you are free to state your opinion, but others are also free to criticise your opinion. But to conspiracy-minded persons such as yourself, Palin, Beck, FOX, etc., "criticism" means "against" which means "biased." That low trick allows you to think you are never wrong, that you are persecuted. This dishonest tactic protects you from stubborn facts, it insulates you from taking responsibility for your opinions.
People like you people do not believe in facts, people like you do not believe in free speech.

Posted by: terry-the-censor | May 23, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

It's refreshing to see a politician who is willing to stand up and speak of his beliefs and positions. The American people need a true debate with real issues.

I truly hope that Dr. Paul will continue to extol about his libertarian positions and I hope the Democratic Party candidate will present a true progressive stance.

I'm tired of Dem candidates campaigning as GOP 'Lite'. Let's have a real debate of philosophies.

Let the people hear both sides and make a decision.

Posted by: WakeUpHadEnough | May 23, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

in case nobody knows, blacks discriminate against whites more than any white would against a black person today...

Posted by: DwightCollins | May 23, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

does this mean all dems agree to obama's agenda and should be held accountable to the results of obama's policies...

Posted by: DwightCollins | May 23, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

It would be better to allow businesses to discriminate based on race, orientation, gender, etc.

How else would I know which businesses to reward for being inclusive or boycott for being racist? As it stands now, I don't know who I'm giving my money to.

Posted by: boonem | May 23, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

To all who are ranting about liberal PC and free speech....I'm BEGGING Dr. Paul to continue to speak out in support of libertarianism. Please, speak your mind....share your thoughts...don't let anyone stop you, sir.

Stand by your beliefs, sir! Let's see how they are received by voting populace.

Posted by: WakeUpHadEnough
==========================================
As am I, brother!
When he announced that he was running for senate on MSNBC, they smirked and laughed and said he didn't have a chance. Then, after SPEAKING at several public functions, he won IN A LANDSLIDE!

And to Miss CynthiaD1, I made TWO errors when I said,
"Yeah, like the irish-pubs in Boston, which are virtually whites only, where the liberals get together to talk of their disdain for racism...

The only state to never put a woman or minority in a federal office - Massachusetts - bastion of liberalism."
=========================================
Since the Republicans there did elect
Senator Brooke (a black man, and war hero) to office, (over the democrats latest white-guy corporatist nominee)...

I should have said:
Massachusetts DEMOCRATS have never put a woman or minority in federal office -Massachusetts - bastion of liberal HYPOCRICY."

========================================
Now what was that about the placement of my foot? I'll wait for you to finish chewing your shoe to respond...

Posted by: jefrix | May 23, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I have no idea why would anybody blame media and calling them liberal for people hating republicans, because I don't know one single liberal talk show host, they are all republican and they all love republican regradless what.

Posted by: BOBSTERII | May 23, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul is not republican nor democrat and that waht people see and like.

Posted by: BOBSTERII | May 23, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Waaaaaaaaay down south in the land of cotton...

Posted by: whocares666 | May 23, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

To sosueme1 at 2:25pm:
Barry Goldwater was a really nice guy and an honest politician (quite an accomplishment). But I'm old enough to remember his bid for Pres--if he had been elected, I have no doubt that the USA and Russia would resemble the set of "X-Men" today. The few people still around would be as radioactive as heck, purple, and have 2 heads.

Posted by: Dan4 | May 23, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

To all who are ranting about liberal PC and free speech....I'm BEGGING Dr. Paul to continue to speak out in support of libertarianism. Please, speak your mind....share your thoughts...don't let anyone stop you, sir.

Stand by your beliefs, sir! Let's see how they are received by voting populace.

Posted by: WakeUpHadEnough | May 23, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

I hate to break it to you, PC Liberals, but the Nazis haven't totally taken over this country. There is still FREE SPEECH and that means I can say what's on my mind and if you don't like it, too bad! The problem with the Nazi PC Liberals is if you don't talk the way they think you should talk then they protest, call you names, etc., etc., etc., whatever they can do to destroy one of the things that makes this nation better than most nations. Well, PC Liberals, you can crawl back under your rocks. We're retaking this country from the Obamaidiots!

Posted by: georges2 | May 23, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

CynthiaD1 said:
Google the name, "Senator Edward William Brooke", then come back to this forum and let us know how that foot of yours tastes.

Sorry to disturb your erroneous screed.
=========================================
You're right, I should have said "Massachusetts DEMOCRATS have never put a woman or minority in federal office" - my mistake!

Posted by: jefrix | May 23, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul may not be a racist. But he is a delusional libertarian.
In his world he would tolerate racism. Sure he says he would remonstrate, demonstrate and not personnally favour the businesses that practiced racism. But he would still tolerate their right to treat others differently according to the colour of their skin.
And that tolerance is inherently evil.

Posted by: rpp1 | May 23, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

archie136:

I sometime think that the Right in America has come from some parallel, bizarro world dimension where ignorance and anti-intellectual thinking are prized qualities and reason and logic are ridiculed as liberal elitism. The most disturbing part of all is the continued blame the messenger mentality that demonizes reporters for asking their candidates reasonable questions. That allows them to dismiss all information that challenges their world belief as the sinister work of "mainstream media".

BTW - Has anybody ever heard on radio or seen on TV some of the "interviews" that Sean Hannity conducted of liberals like Sen. Edward Kennedy? I use quotation marks because they are in reality boorish interogations and screeds.

Posted by: CynthiaD1 | May 23, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Let's review for a moment ...

Sarah Palin can't name a single newspaper that she reads.
Conservatives blame Katie Couric and CBS.

George Rekers gets caught traveling with a male prostitute. Conservatives blame the Miami New Times and the internet.

Rand Paul causes an uproar by questioning anti-discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act.
Conservatives blame Rachel Maddow and MSNBC.

Does anyone see a pattern here?

Posted by: HughBriss | May 23, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

sephers165:
"The most racist people I know are the media and the liberal left."

Ha ha ha! Good one.

The most racist people in the United States are indeed Fox News and the Tea Bigots. Liberals? You must be projecting again, hatemonger.

Rand Paul is such an obvious corporation-butt licker and just as obvious a racist. His Dad should smack him silly. Idiots like you will vote for him, but let's not pretend this guy's within 80 miles of the political center. Have fun with him. I know I will, and so will the few "liberal" media left in a country dominated by an Australian fascist and his Fox News.

The guy (Murdoch) even, somehow, gets away with monopolies on the NFL Ticket and MLB Network via his Direct TV. He's paid off so many cowardly Congresspeople that it's considered an industry unto itself.

Posted by: 2229 | May 23, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

sephers165:
"The most racist people I know are the media and the liberal left."

Ha ha ha! Good one.

The most racist people in the United States are indeed Fox News and the Tea Bigots. Liberals? You must be projecting again, hatemonger.

Rand Paul is such an obvious corporation-butt licker and just as obvious a racist. His Dad should smack him silly. Idiots like you will vote for him, but let's not pretend this guy's within 80 miles of the political center. Have fun with him. I know I will, and so will the few "liberal" media left in a country dominated by an Australian fascist and his Fox News.

The guy (Murdoch) even, somehow, gets away with monopolies on the NFL Ticket and MLB Network via his Direct TV. He's paid off so many cowardly Congresspeople that it's considered an industry unto itself.

Posted by: 2229 | May 23, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

sephers165:
"The most racist people I know are the media and the liberal left."

Ha ha ha! Good one.

The most racist people in the United States are indeed Fox News and the Tea Bigots. Liberals? You must be projecting again, hatemonger.

Rand Paul is such an obvious corporation-butt licker and just as obvious a racist. His Dad should smack him silly. Idiots like you will vote for him, but let's not pretend this guy's within 80 miles of the political center. Have fun with him. I know I will, and so will the few "liberal" media left in a country dominated by an Australian fascist and his Fox News.

The guy (Murdoch) even, somehow, gets away with monopolies on the NFL Ticket and MLB Network via his Direct TV. He's paid off so many cowardly Congresspeople that it's considered an industry unto itself.

Posted by: 2229 | May 23, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

sephers165:
"The most racist people I know are the media and the liberal left."

Ha ha ha! Good one.

The most racist people in the United States are indeed Fox News and the Tea Bigots. Liberals? You must be projecting again, hatemonger.

Rand Paul is such an obvious corporation-butt licker and just as obvious a racist. His Dad should smack him silly. Idiots like you will vote for him, but let's not pretend this guy's within 80 miles of the political center. Have fun with him. I know I will, and so will the few "liberal" media left in a country dominated by an Australian fascist and his Fox News.

The guy (Murdoch) even, somehow, gets away with monopolies on the NFL Ticket and MLB Network via his Direct TV. He's paid off so many cowardly Congresspeople that it's considered an industry unto itself.

Posted by: 2229 | May 23, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Despite Sarah Palin's comparison of her interview with CBS with that of Rand Paul, at least one differences is clear. Sarah Palin could not name not even one publication that she reads on an on-going basis. For anyone, not least a VP Presidential candidate to be caught unable to answer a softball question like that must be taken to mean that Ms Palin had no interest in facts, analysis, research or any of the bothersome chores. On the other hand, Paul has at least some views that are bounded in Conservative and/or Libertarian philosophy. In other words Paul have read some documents and or books. Sarah Palin, at least at the time of her candidacy, read nothing.

The fact that Ms Palin has been able to transfer below average ignorance into a money-making adventure is nothing short of breath taking and fits right in with the beliefs of many members of the Tea Party whose motto seems to be , "to hell with the facts".

Posted by: archie136 | May 23, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed one year after 4 school girls were murdered in a church bombing in Birmingham, Ala. It was a time when Gov. George Wallace proclaimed, "Segregation Now, Segregation Forever". There were still blatant signs of Jim Crow in the form of segregated drinking fountains, store entrances, theaters, etc. And this was the tip of the blatant discrimination.

To argue a lawyerly defense of non government intervention in the private sector on supposed philosophical principles is stupid and shows the ignorance of a bloody and shameful time in America.

Posted by: CynthiaD1 | May 23, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Before anyone ripostes that Senator Edward William Brooke was a Republican it should be obvious that if he was active in today's politics he would be denounced as a RINO.

Posted by: CynthiaD1 | May 23, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

....stumbling because he is a rookie to the ways of Wash DC

PUHLEEZE !!!

Some actual facts and character of said person can come out by stumbling.

Elected officials aren't supposed to stumble on words. And they all are.

Look at Clinton "i did not have sexual relations with that woman".
And he was the President.

GOP is already "eating their words".
///
BTW, the Boston Tea Party which has brought around "teabaggers"...was
for taxation without representation.
Big difference.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | May 23, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

"Everyone knows that if it was repealed today, white-only lunch counters would return"

This is delusional. Anyone that tried to set up a whites-only lunch counter would be picketed and boycotted. They would lose far more business that they would gain.

The only places that this would affect would be a very small number of bars that cater specifically to a white-power subculture.

Posted by: tjk1
+++++++++++++
Yeah, like the irish-pubs in Boston, which are virtually whites only, where the liberals get together to talk of their disdain for racism...

The only state to never put a woman or minority in a federal office - Massachusetts - bastion of liberalism.

Remember when Maddow and Olberman broadcasted from irish pubs for the Mass. special election - the most lilly-white crowd on tv - notice that MSNBC is the only "news" station without any black (or any race other than white) anchors or pundits. Heck, even Fox does better than that.

----------------
Google the name, "Senator Edward William Brooke", then come back to this forum and let us know how that foot of yours tastes.

Sorry to disturb your erroneous screed.

Posted by: CynthiaD1 | May 23, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Rand paul did Not say he would repeal the civil rights act of 1964. However, his ideology is straight down the republican party line. He believes business should be able to refuse anyone service if it is a private business, he believes business should run the country. In short Rand paul is a very typical country club republican.
What the party big shots will teach him is to keep his mouth shut and get elected.
And in Kentucky he is a shoe in.

Posted by: gilleyrobert | May 23, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"Everyone knows that if it was repealed today, white-only lunch counters would return"

This is delusional. Anyone that tried to set up a whites-only lunch counter would be picketed and boycotted. They would lose far more business that they would gain.

The only places that this would affect would be a very small number of bars that cater specifically to a white-power subculture.

Posted by: tjk1
+++++++++++++
Yeah, like the irish-pubs in Boston, which are virtually whites only, where the liberals get together to talk of their disdain for racism...

The only state to never put a woman or minority in a federal office - Massachusetts - bastion of liberalism.

Remember when Maddow and Olberman broadcasted from irish pubs for the Mass. special election - the most lilly-white crowd on tv - notice that MSNBC is the only "news" station without any black (or any race other than white) anchors or pundits. Heck, even Fox does better than that.

Posted by: jefrix | May 23, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

These conservatives are unbelievable with their statements and ideas. Start with the writer Pawlenty and Palin won't survive the first cut for Pres. candidates and look for Cantor and Romney in the final selection. Then go to Steele that condemns Paul then can't fault him for his position. Then go to Palin that thinks Maddow's fight against racism is a Democratic agenda when the article is full of GOP support for her position in the interview. Maddow's ratings increase will surely forgive her cutting commercials, and expect her to now do what Palin said, an agenda to discredit Paul. A Rhodes scholar talking head with increased ratings will play this to the max.

Posted by: jameschirico | May 23, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

This isn't about Mr Alexander's voting record, and being new to the national stage is not an excuse- would it be acceptable at the state level. Mr Stele has now determined he is unfit to express any opinion whatsover and accept whatever verdict whatever group decides for him. But Mr. Steele did say "Rand Pauls philosophy got in the way of reality". There you go again tea party( although of course this has no bearing on the tea party, they only voted for Rand), your thoughts are not connected to reality. Well, often not connescted to reality.

Posted by: jmdziuban1 | May 23, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

"Everyone knows that if it was repealed today, white-only lunch counters would return"

This is delusional. Anyone that tried to set up a whites-only lunch counter would be picketed and boycotted. They would lose far more business that they would gain.

The only places that this would affect would be a very small number of bars that cater specifically to a white-power subculture.

Posted by: tjk1 | May 23, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

These so-called conservatives should go back and review history. Even Rand Paul admitted the South was doing nothing to correct a wicked situation and federal intervention was required.

Somewhere along the way, we've gotten definitions mixed up. Real, true conservatism will change when change is required but only then. What we've got on our hands is a whole-bunch of reactionaries.

And, one more thing: These tea-baggers don't seem to have a sense of humanity or of unity with the rest of humanity.

Posted by: highplainswoman | May 23, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Sarah. Being asked what newspapers you read is not a "gotcha" question. 70% of Americans see you for what you are. A moron and a quitter.

Posted by: jimestw | May 23, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Finally someone gives us the whole interview transcript. Well, folks, choose the most racist part of it:

1) I think it is a sort of a stain on the history of America that it took 120 years to desegregate the South.

2) And a lot of that was institutional racism was absolutely wrong and something that I absolutely oppose.

3) I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race.

4) I really think that discrimination and racism is a horrible thing. And I don't want any form of it in our government, in our public sphere.

5) what I'm saying is, is that I don't believe in any discrimination. I don't believe in any private property should discriminate either. And I wouldn't attend, wouldn't support, wouldn't go to.

6) every fiber of my being doesn't believe in discrimination, doesn't believe that we should have that in our society. And to imply otherwise is just dishonest.

These are the only thing Rand says about discrimination, and yet...


WITHIN AN HOUR AFTER SAYING THESE 6 THINGS THE MEDIA PROCLAIMS THIS MAKES HIM A RACIST

Posted by: jefrix | May 23, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

"What Rand Paul said is essentially what Senator Barry Goldwater said forty years ago. Senator Goldwater is highly regarded by democrats and republicans alike and can certainly be classified as a statesman."
Posted by: sosueme1

Goldwater was a radical who lost the election because he was considered a nut. Those who think he was some genius should consider themselves nuts too. If you did not live before 1964 you have no idea what life was like back them, not only for blacks but for whites and other skin colors as well. Racism was so pervasive and ingrained that society looked nothing like it does today. Freedom was quite limited, even for whites of lower "class". The notion I've seen perpetrated of a perfect 1050s world is a doctored picture of what everyday life was like back them. If you were born after 1970 and today went back to 1950, you would be shocked at what you saw. America was quite ugly back then. Thank God we came to our senses, and thank God those who imagine those were the good times are in the minority.

I remember sitting at a lunch counter in Alabama in 1962 as my family was traveling to New Orleans. The waitress behind the counter thought I was so cute. She was very nice, to me, a white boy. Then a black man came in and she turned very ugly, yelling at him to get out because there was nothing for him in her restaurant. She then turned back to me telling me how cute I was. I'll never forget that, never, and I'll never vote for anyone that thinks that is how a business in America, protected by American laws and might, should be allowed to treat any American.

Posted by: Fate1 | May 23, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Out of the 10 provisions in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, there is one provision that he has a difficult time with.
Dr. Rand Paul supports 100 percent in regards to the 9 other provisions. 9 out of 10 the last time I checked was 90% - right? Don't we as citizens have the right to disagree on one thing but overall endorse and support everything else? When did being objective become a sin?


"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."
- Ayn Rand

Posted by: gbozic | May 23, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

racerdoc states: " I believe that Rand Paul is a racist."

Ok then what about your old pal Senator Harry Reid? Remember Reid's comment "Obama's light skin color and lack of Negroe Dialect will help him to get elected". Okay, so skin color and dialect are important to be qualified for running for public office? Well,well, well. Does this not make Reid a racist? Obama states that he considers Reid's comment "a closed book."

So Gov. Palin was right. Rachael Maddow (MadCow) does have an agenda. And she obviously could care less (like most Liberals) about protecting monorities. Till this day, the black people I talk to are angry with Reid's comment.Which is why more and more black voters are leaving the Democrats in droves. The TEA Party is here to stay folks. And no amount of "Gotcha" moments is going to stop us.We're taking back our Government.

Posted by: mousepd | May 23, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

@ sosueme1 - Yes, your Grandfather's old school common racism is NOW crazy and extreme. And I would put a box of rocks against you.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 23, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

"Civil rights laws are often much too sweeping, if I run an ice cream parlor (a private business) I would have the right to run that business as I see fit and that includes hiring whomever I wish. Do you see "Hooters" hiring males?"
Posted by: OregonStorm

The bit of the civil rights act Paul was referring to was that businesses that serve the general public must serve the entire public, not just the public they want to serve. Before this legislation white lunch counters were not uncommon. Everyone knows that if it was repealed today, white-only lunch counters would return, and that does not seem to concern Paul since, being white, he would not be affected, or so he thinks.

Ask yourself, the next time you're traveling on a long trip, what it would be like if along the way you might not get served food, be provided hotel lodging, or be allowed to use a gas station restroom. If you feel American businesses should be allowed to do that to American citizens based on skin color, religious affiliation or other reasons, then you are not a very good American. How can we speak of American values while allowing those values to be trampled on a daily basis? Paul may have been speaking in constitutional theoreticals, but the results of his vision would have real world results, taking us back to a racist America I knew all too well and am happy to forget ever existed.

If one American is not free, no Americans are free.

Posted by: Fate1 | May 23, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Your Grandfather's old school common sense is NOW crazy and extreme? Whaaaaaat? Just when and where did this country throw an axle and fly off into the ditch? Stupid-CRAZY-EXTREME-dumber-than-a-box-o-rocks-regressive-socialists!

See how easy that is?

I say again - MORONS!

Posted by: sosueme1 | May 23, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

What Rand Paul said is essentially what Senator Barry Goldwater said forty years ago. Senator Goldwater is highly regarded by democrats and republicans alike and can certainly be classified as a statesman. I think it’s safe to say that in forty years SENATOR Rand Paul will also be classified as a statesman. Shame we can’t say the same for George H. W., Slick Willie, George dubya and certainly not B. H. Obama.

MORONS – silly-socialists, neo-cons, progressives, country clubbers…ALL MORONS!

Posted by: sosueme1 | May 23, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

>>>in the Senate GOP caucus were quick to chalk up the comments as a rookie mistake.

Rand Paul didn't "misspeak"! His crazy extremist Libertarian ideology is exactly as stated.
But if the GOP believes sending Paul to GOP 101 School will remove that Libertarian chip in his brain - they're totally clueless! It's there to stay.

Posted by: angie12106 | May 23, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

>>>in the Senate GOP caucus were quick to chalk up the comments as a rookie mistake.

Rand Paul didn't "misspeak"! His crazy extremist Libertarian ideology is exactly as stated.
But if the GOP believes sending Paul to GOP 101 School will remove that Libertarian chip in his brain - they're totally clueless! It's there to stay.

Posted by: angie12106 | May 23, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

The GOP embraces him, just not his words? Wow, that is real leadership we can stand behind. The GOP is farther in the ditch than even I could imagine, and I live in Arizona in the teabagger zone. John McCain, Kyl, Brewer, and the hits just keep on coming.

Posted by: deadchief | May 23, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

If the GOP really does embrace all of what Pal stands for, then this country is saved. Right now, the leaders of both parties owe their allegiance to Wall Street more than Main Street. Millions of jobs outsourced, something like 45 million since Rubin and Clinton "thunk up" this fee trade nonsense, well over 3 million outsourced since Obama took office. In fact 80% of the jobs "lost" since Obama took office have either ben outsourced or a guest worker was invited in to displace a U.S. worker. In fact, something like 4 million U.S. hi-workers have lost their jobs to the H1-B and L-1 visa programs, a treacherous scheme dreamt up by the Democrats and their hi-tech corporate donors. The Paul's, father and son, have made it clear that they would flat out end the H1-B and L-1 visas, as they undermine national security, and they would end job outsourcing once and for all by use of sky high trade tariffs and punitive taxes..... which goes a long ways towards explaining the attacks on them by the Post, NYT's, NBC, and all of those political crooks in Washington that take their orders from big banks and corporations. Make no mistake about it, the whole "racist" accusation is nothing more than a blatant attempt by the greedy Wall Street spin masters to derail the public's attention from the real #1 issue - JOBS!

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 23, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

From the article, quoting Sarah Palin:
"One thing that we can learn in this lesson that I have learned and Rand Paul is learning now is don't assume that you can engage in a hypothetical discussion about constitutional impacts with a reporter or a media personality who has an agenda, who may be prejudiced before they even get into the interview in regards to what your answer may be -- and then the opportunity that they seize to get you.

You know, they're looking for that 'gotcha' moment. And that's what it evidently appears to be that they did with Rand Paul, but I'm thankful that he was able to clarify his answer about his support for the Civil Rights Act."
____________________________

And Rand Paul was an innocent victim of the vile conspiratorial harpy Rachel Maddow and her truth-destroying leftist agenda?? Maddow programed/tricked him into saying what he said, right? OK, I see. Rather like Couric doing the same thing to Palin with her now infamous interview . . . . You betcha. Never a problem so big it can't be blamed on somebody else . . .

I, for one, believe Rand Paul NOT to be racist on a personal level, but still find his comments to be very troubling. And I concede there there are strains of "gotcha" journalism surfacing from time to time. Must say, this doesn't seem like one of them. And I would think that a very bright (bright enough, anyway, to be a specialist MD) guy like Rand Paul would be well aware of the dangers of stepping into the lair of that Princess of Darkness Maddow.

So Rand Paul discovers that being a candidate for a high-profile political office comes with a learning curve. So be it. And the rest of us discover what some of the implications of his libertarian agenda, offered in words issuing from his own mouth, are. So be it. And Palin is unhappy that one of her teammates is embarrassed. To be fair, she thinks he is a misunderstood victim and has thankfully clarified his position (Hey, Sarah--go read Gerson's editorial on the subject. You know, Gerson the REPUBLICAN and former Bush43 speech-writer? Read his view on Rand Paul's "clarity".). So be it. I'm not losing a wink over any of it.

For the record, I live in West Virginia and obviously don't get to vote in Kentucky. Should be interesting for us all, though.

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | May 23, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

...Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele...said he was uncomfortable with Paul's comments, but declined to condemn them. "I can't condemn a person's views"...
----
The head of the Republican party, a Black man, can't condemn a man's racist "views"? Is he kidding? Are the Republicans seriously defending a fellow member's racism and bigotry? These politicians should be ashamed and should be ridiculed for their spinelessness.

Posted by: jaynashvil | May 23, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Randy said it was alright for businesses to discriminate against whoever and have local authorites enforce that discrimination as they did before 1964 in the South with Jim Crow laws. He then said President Obama was being too tough on BP for polluting the Gulf Of Mexico. He also seems to have problems with various other laws protecting workers, children, consumers, the disabled and the environment. Randy has some explaining to do, period.

Posted by: rodneythecat | May 23, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Rachel Maddow DID NOT CALL HIM A RACIST and these instances were far from GOTCHA MOMENTS unless GOTCHA moments last for over a month.

I also don't believe that Paul is a racist. I think he lives in some little LA LA LAND in that he may honestly believe that if given their will, there would be no separation of the races in this private business should the one provision of the Civil Rights Bill be repealed.

He also believes that businesses NOT Be required to assist a disabled person get a fulfilling job if say if they are in a wheelchair and cannot climb 5 flights of stairs. OR EVEN GET ACROSS a parking lot if there are no wheelchair ramps available.

Rightly or wrongly these are ideals that many AMERICANS of color or who are disabled find repugnant. We still live in a very DIVIDED COUNTRY where race is often a cause for derision.

DO people really think that someone like RAND PAUL who called the PRESIDENT UNAMERICAN becuase he came down hard on BP would represent the people or allow BIG BUSINESS to get away with whatever they want? Paul would be one of those who say that big business does nothing wrong? THat Toyota has all the right in the world to make CARS that ACCELERATE on their own without any consequences. That Drug companies can make killer drugs without any issues. That ranchers and meat processor would have no rules to keep them clean from bacteria.

He would agree that companies could dump chemicals into the water and introduce poisons into the air - because the governmnet should not place environmental restrictions.

ANd let;s go further. IF he is all for business, there would be no minimal wage and for that matter who would say that kids would not be subject to child labor?

One of the few reasons America became a superpower is because we have advanced cause of human rights of ALL people, not just the business owner. He would prefer we revert back to someonthing from the early 1900's where there was no interference, no required public education, where "People knew there place" and where we were screwed as a country.

Posted by: racerdoc | May 23, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Rachel Maddow DID NOT CALL HIM A RACIST and these instances were far from GOTCHA MOMENTS unless GOTCHA moments last for over a month.

I also don't believe that Paul is a racist. I think he lives in some little LA LA LAND in that he may honestly believe that if given their will, there would be no separation of the races in this private business should the one provision of the Civil Rights Bill be repealed.

He also believes that businesses NOT Be required to assist a disabled person get a fulfilling job if say if they are in a wheelchair and cannot climb 5 flights of stairs. OR EVEN GET ACROSS a parking lot if there are no wheelchair ramps available.

Rightly or wrongly these are ideals that many AMERICANS of color or who are disabled find repugnant. We still live in a very DIVIDED COUNTRY where race is often a cause for derision.

DO people really think that someone like RAND PAUL who called the PRESIDENT UNAMERICAN becuase he came down hard on BP would represent the people or allow BIG BUSINESS to get away with whatever they want? Paul would be one of those who say that big business does nothing wrong? THat Toyota has all the right in the world to make CARS that ACCELERATE on their own without any consequences. That Drug companies can make killer drugs without any issues. That ranchers and meat processor would have no rules to keep them clean from bacteria.

He would agree that companies could dump chemicals into the water and introduce poisons into the air - because the governmnet should not place environmental restrictions.

ANd let;s go further. IF he is all for business, there would be no minimal wage and for that matter who would say that kids would not be subject to child labor?

One of the few reasons America became a superpower is because we have advanced cause of human rights of ALL people, not just the business owner. He would prefer we revert back to someonthing from the early 1900's where there was no interference, no required public education, where "People knew there place" and where we were screwed as a country.

Posted by: racerdoc | May 23, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Rachel Maddow DID NOT CALL HIM A RACIST and these instances were far from GOTCHA MOMENTS unless GOTCHA moments last for over a month.

I also don't believe that Paul is a racist. I think he lives in some little LA LA LAND in that he may honestly believe that if given their will, there would be no separation of the races in this private business should the one provision of the Civil Rights Bill be repealed.

He also believes that businesses NOT Be required to assist a disabled person get a fulfilling job if say if they are in a wheelchair and cannot climb 5 flights of stairs. OR EVEN GET ACROSS a parking lot if there are no wheelchair ramps available.

Rightly or wrongly these are ideals that many AMERICANS of color or who are disabled find repugnant. We still live in a very DIVIDED COUNTRY where race is often a cause for derision.

DO people really think that someone like RAND PAUL who called the PRESIDENT UNAMERICAN becuase he came down hard on BP would represent the people or allow BIG BUSINESS to get away with whatever they want? Paul would be one of those who say that big business does nothing wrong? THat Toyota has all the right in the world to make CARS that ACCELERATE on their own without any consequences. That Drug companies can make killer drugs without any issues. That ranchers and meat processor would have no rules to keep them clean from bacteria.

He would agree that companies could dump chemicals into the water and introduce poisons into the air - because the governmnet should not place environmental restrictions.

ANd let;s go further. IF he is all for business, there would be no minimal wage and for that matter who would say that kids would not be subject to child labor?

One of the few reasons America became a superpower is because we have advanced cause of human rights of ALL people, not just the business owner. He would prefer we revert back to someonthing from the early 1900's where there was no interference, no required public education, where "People knew there place" and where we were screwed as a country.

Posted by: racerdoc | May 23, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

To sephers165: You are right that Paul is not a racist, and Maddow (and other ultra-liberals like moi) don't think he is. However, he is completely, utterly wrong in his opinion that the Fed. gov't has no role in combating racism by companies that do business with the public. If not for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including the Title prohibiting discrimination by companies that provide services to the public, we would still have separate-but-equal in this country, and that would have kept black people "in their place" forever. No movement toward a more just society would have been possible. So, even though he isn't a racist himself, the vast majority of the American people don't agree with his extremist laissez-faire views when it comes to discrimination.

Posted by: Dan4 | May 23, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

This was a very interesting "bait the candidate" moment I'm sure that anyone at MSNBC would know quite well the stance of Libertarians if asked the question that Rachel Maddow asked of Rand Paul. His personal opinions are just that, PERSONAL and he probably shouldn't even have answered the question.

Civil rights laws are often much too sweeping, if I run an ice cream parlor (a private business) I would have the right to run that business as I see fit and that includes hiring whomever I wish. Do you see "Hooters" hiring males? Not even if they have man-boobs!! This country has been regulated to death and it's a big part of the reason that the jobs have gone elsewhere!!

Posted by: OregonStorm | May 23, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

I'm still really confused. This whole big furor about his comments about the piece of the civil rights he disagreed with, seems completely manufactured by the media, or Democrats, both who will jump at anything.

First off his stance stems from the idea of private business being able to make their own bad decisions without interference of the government, even if those bad decisions stem from their own racist attitudes.

This does not make someone a racist. That is like saying being against the war on drugs makes you a drug user. What would make him a racist is if he himself personally racially discriminated, which he hasn't done. If there was a business that discriminated like that, I believe Rand Paul wouldn't patronize them.

The whole idea of race falls apart when someone stops being a collectivist. Individualists like Rand Paul, don't think in terms of race.

The most racist people I know are the media and the liberal left.

Posted by: sephers165 | May 23, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company