TPMDC
What Did Rand Paul Really Say On Maddow Last Night?
KY-SEN candidate Rand Paul on the Rachel Maddow show
Share
Send to a friend!
It didn't take long for Kentucky Republican Rand Paul to stumble into trouble. Steeped in libertarianism and partly in the conservative anti-establishment tea party movement, his views -- particularly those on the Civil Rights Act -- have been the subject of much scrutiny and debate since he won the GOP Senate nomination Tuesday night. Last night, Paul's views burst into the national debate after an interview Paul gave to Rachel Maddow set the Internet alight.
In a nutshell, here's what he said:
"Well, there's 10 -- there's 10 different -- there's 10 different titles, you know, to the Civil Rights Act, and nine out of 10 deal with public institutions and I'm absolutely in favor of," he told Maddow deep in their 15-minute interview. "One deals with private institutions, and had I been around, I would have tried to modify that."
Got that? Rand Paul agrees with most of the Civil Rights Act, but not the part that deals with private businesses. And he won't say whether or not that one part of the bill would have been a deal-breaker if he had been in Congress when the bill was up for a vote.
That's it, essentially. Paul said many, many times in the interview with Maddow that he is not a racist, and that his motivation for saying what he's saying about the civil rights act is not race, but rather allowing business owners their right to "free speech," which in this case is the freedom to discriminate.
"Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking?" Paul told Maddow. "I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it."
When it comes to spending taxpayer dollars, Paul says he is all for laws requiring equal accommodation for everybody.
"In the totality of it, I'm in favor of the federal government being involved in civil rights and that's, you know, mostly what the Civil Rights Act was about," he told Maddow. "And that was ending institutional racism."
So, there you have it: a libertarian take on government intervention in private lives, focused on a discussion of the civil rights act. Paul says it's no big deal.
"I think what you've done is you bring up something that really is not an issue, nothing I've ever spoken about or have any indication that I`m interested in any legislation concerning," Paul told Maddow near the end of their long discussion about the Civil Rights Act. "So, what you bring up is sort of a red herring or something that you want to pit. It's a political ploy. I mean, it's brought up as an attack weapon from the other side, and that's the way it will be used."
Paul's opponent, state Attorney General Jack Conway, has made it clear that Paul's libertarian stances -- which may continue to surprise even his supporters as they are clearly spelled out in the coming months -- will be a part of the campaign. Conway told me last night that Kentuckians won't take to Paul's message, which Conway asserted was too extreme for the state.
Jillian Rayfield's succinct video of the Maddow interview in a nutshell:
Click here to watch the whole thing.
Comments (192) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
jsgammato
May 20, 2010 11:46 AM
Paul went to great lengths to embrace equality in the "public space" while defending the rights of private businesses to discriminate, while stating clearly that discrimination is bad business.
His view does not take into account that discrimination is good for business in some places, and that leads to acceptance of intolerance and breeds inequality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
May 20, 2010 11:59 AM in reply to jsgammato
Nor does he - like the typical Paultardian opponent of CRA (Ok, parts of CRA) acknowledge that these private businesses all have a dependency, in some form or another, of publicly bestowed protections.
At minimum, there's a publicly funded fire department to put out the fire or a publicly funded police department to stop that angry mob from torching the place to begin with.
The sewer system the establishment relies on was also almost certainly publicly funded and is certainly publicly maintained.
The roads that lead to the establishment, likewise.
The water, electricity, gas - find me a restaurant that isn't relying on all 3 publicly supported in some way pieces of infrastructure.
The backing of the currency the restaurant accepts. The protection of the restaurants deposits at a bank.
That's the problem with Paultardian "principles" - they're vapid, hole-filled, and actually meaningless. They want a one-way compact... provide for ME - but heaven forbid that providing comes at any price.
Just go Galt already, Paultards... Leave - you clearly don't want to participate in a civilized society - so take your nonsense somewhere that will leave you alone to your individualistic fantasies, free of your paranoid delusions. There are plenty of options. This country ain't one of them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
May 20, 2010 12:14 PM in reply to zonk
Thank you for putting it so succinctly. I would add the fact that their employees were all educated, for the most part, at public schools, or with public funds.
Private businesses do not exist in a vacuum. They depend on public institutions in order to function, and to claim that they should be able to do whatever they want to do because they are "private" is ridiculous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Davran
May 20, 2010 12:15 PM in reply to zonk
He also seems to believe that the 'public space' should be whittled down to nothing.
Leaves an awful lot of room for discrimination, well, pretty much everywhere.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
May 20, 2010 1:50 PM in reply to Davran
thought the same thing myself
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John Crandell
May 22, 2010 6:12 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker
Each weekday, a Libertarian works in the cublcle next to mine. He wears a long ponytail and ardently believes that he's a descendant of humans who once interbred with aliens. Aliens, like from outer space - you understand... He claims to also be a rocket scientist and whether or not he really did once work for NASA I do not know.
With his having once having had a relationship with a minor, one can find his name and photograph on the website which lists all those citizens who have been prosecuted and convicted of having had such a relationship. He sends e-mail screeds to all of his co-workers, screeds against the tyrant president of the United States. Yes. The POTUS, the commander in chief of the organization which issues his paycheck.
Within eighteen months, construction on a school facility for minors will be completed, approximately two thousand feet distant from our workplace.
Higher ups in the organization are just waiting to pounce. Ponytail Man just might be feeling the heat, is hoping to gain employment with an organization up north, a society of INDIVIDUALS, obsessed with space aliens. One can only imagine the degree to which he would be free to spread his seed thereat.. Some sort of new race, I would guess he might imagine...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KingElvis
May 20, 2010 1:34 PM in reply to zonk
Yup. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Every real libertarian is a 14 year old boy, since anyone who has had a brush with reality will realize their 'principles' are bizarre, pie in the sky horse manure: paradoxes, oxymorons and self contradictions all wrapped up in the pretty paper of delusion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maz
May 20, 2010 2:28 PM in reply to zonk
You will find the extreme Libertarians want all of these public things whittled down and supported by private industry. If you speak to Libertarians, it is very likely they were privately schooled, and believe that competition will force private schools to surface that are "affordable" to low-income families. They believe in the free market.
They want a dystopia where corporations rule, they just won't say it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tim
May 20, 2010 9:17 PM in reply to zonk
It's a bate and switch argument that the libertarians are trying to throw at us.
First is the idea that liberty trumps all other rights. This is carbon fibre to say the least.
Then again Paul seems to be saying that liberty doesn't seem to trump property rights. Because you own a piece of property, I am 'red headed' and you don't like 'red heads' you can ban me from your property.
That is, of course, fine, in and of its self. BUT - tort law in regard to trespass makes a big distinction between property that is held for private uses and property that is held with a license that invites the public to trespass... for purpose of doing business.
If I own a piece of land for private purposes, baring the public from trespassing, I have less liability to those that trespass upon the land. I own a piece of land that has a shopping mall on it... and so I invite the public to enter and exit freely, then the law imposes upon me higher standards of accomodation.
What Paul is saying is, if I own the land, the law cannot (or should not be able to) impose upon me different standards when I open that land up to the public a license to enter my land freely. In Paul's view, as the owner, I should be free to control who is allowed to enter or not even after I provide a license to the public to enter it for business purposes.
The answer I say to Paul is the property owner is afforded a choice already: between opening up the property to a public license or keeping it to private use. Once a property owner opens the property to public use, the law is able to impose conditions and liability with that license.
This is almost ancient common law sensibilities that have been hashed out already long ago. So what we really have is people like Paul, who weren't around when those issues were hashed out, and haven't studied how those issues were hashed out, and so he's having to go through the whole learning process all over again, on the fly.
I think people like the idea of some kind of a Doctor being in politics because they usually are smarter then the rest of us. I know nothing about Paul's background, but this is the problem when people with little background and education in the field of civics gain to much power and to much exposure.
In fact this could be said of the public at large, who managed to vote George Bush into office twice even though his policies were anti-thetical to remedial levels of civics (things such as cutting taxes during a time of war, deregulation, blurring the line between church and state... I could go on and on and on and one, but the bottom line is that these things defied common sense if one knows the least bit about civics).
So Paul, and libertarians are just pulling a bate and switch game with the notion of liberty and property rights trumping all other rights.
Some one should get Paul into a discussion on Free Speech. First ask him to what extent free speech rights be extended. He'll say as he did on Maddow's show that people should have the right to say reprehensible and barbaric things. But then ask him: should people be able to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater? If he says yes, then people will realize he lacks common sense. If he say no, then ask him why not.
At that point he starts to articulate a limitation on freedom of speech and liberty in general. And finally he's wondered back into the realm of common sense and reality.
But really what's happening is that Libertarians are having to go through an education in civics that shouldn't have to happen this late in life and at this level of public discourse. A candidate for high office shouldn't be functionally illiterate in the field of civics.
There is, certainly, a great debate on how far the right of liberty should extend when it confronts other fundamental rights - but it's only appropriate at the margins and almost all of these debates have been hashed out before. In the case of the law they were hashed out by learned men in the face of practical problems, or sometimes on battlefields, and they were resolved, in general, to the optimal point for us all in society.
Rehashing these things is the motive of resentment by resenters over the course history has taken. Lets not forget that the Republican Party is the party of resentment. It is a coalition of resenters: Korporatist who resent the New Deal, Southerners who resent the outcome of the Civil war, Social Conservatives who resent the extension of civil liberties, Racist who resent the out come of the civil rights movement, Nationalist/Militarist who resent the outcome of the civil war and so on. Libertarians movement in the republican party is just a new way of shaking up the bottle and coalesing a new brand of resentment that then tries to turn back the clock of history and its past out comes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
May 20, 2010 11:46 AM
Yes. There you have it.
Rand Paul: Private businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on race. Its a free speech issue.
WTF?
No big deal? We'll see.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
May 20, 2010 12:52 PM in reply to willia451
It was astonishing to watch. I see the front page here chose the same lead headline as I blogged about today. I had no idea the guy was this weird.
And I also thought, how could he be where he is as candidate for Senate and be so unprepared, picking the Maddow show as his foolhardy venue? And then I remembered, he's the *teabagger* candidate in actuality; he didn't get to sit on Karl Rove's knee and get tutored in politics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
free2bme
May 20, 2010 1:25 PM in reply to Overreach THIS!
You do know that Rand Paul is Ron Paul's son. I don't like either, but I doubt that Rand is that much of a novice with regard to political media posturing. That said, the reason I believe that Rand Paul will step in his own mess many times from now until November is because of the party platform he has to support. He is openly a teabagger, a clear distinction from the Brown election, where Brown tries to distance himself from the teabaggers whose vote Brown courted. Because of the rhetoric from the teabagger movement, it is unavoidable for Rand to make more outrageous statements. We shall see how many are captured on video for us outsiders to catch a glimpse of Rand's real agenda if actually elected.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
boo_lala
May 20, 2010 9:26 PM in reply to free2bme
But Ron Paul says equally crazy things all the time. Did you see the Colbert Report episode where he said that he would completely eliminate the USDA, FDA, EPA, DEA, FBI, IRS, Department of Education, UN, etc, if given the chance? And this was while he was running for president. The difference is that Ron Paul has been saying these crackpot things in his little Congressional district forever and they like him and either agree with or filter out his more lunatic statements, knowing he doesn't have the power to enact them. Rand Paul thought he could get away with it because his father does. But Kentucky is bigger and more diverse than the city of Galveston, and I imagine Ron Paul was slightly less kooky the first time he ran. Ron Paul, even though he has a big following in Texas (among the black-helicopter types), could probably not win a statewide contest here, although he might win the Republican party primary for one. He runs for president as a gadfly, but Rand Paul wants to actually get elected.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
May 20, 2010 1:26 PM in reply to Overreach THIS!
I actually think he was smart to go on Maddow's show to address this issue. He defended his real (Crazy, but heartfelt) position on the CRA and actaully stuck to his guns. Both his Views and his adherence to them play well to the TeaBaggers.
He knew his real views would come to light once he made it into the general election so the best place to discuss them first is on MSNBC, and better yet on the Maddow Show. He will be able (with his base anyway) to shoot the messenger as a Liberal(sshhh... she's also a lesbian) who is distorting his views and the rest of the "Liberal Media" is doing their usual job of trashing republicans.
He is going to attempt to make this about the "liberal media" and not his radical views. This will play well w/ his base, but isn't his base already convinced?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
May 20, 2010 1:34 PM in reply to _jonny_5_
He's already painted Maddow as a member of the "loony left." So, yes, perhaps that was part of his strategy. Hard to see how this helps him in the general election, though, unless the teabagger base is really gigantic in Kentucky.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
May 20, 2010 2:35 PM in reply to commie atheist
You don't have to be a teabagger to believe the "Liberal Media" myth. He's hoping to fool meny into thinking his actual views are actually a liberal(Gotcha Media) characture of his views.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BillSoo
May 20, 2010 2:36 PM in reply to commie atheist
I think he actually respects Maddow. He thinks she's wrong of course, but he respects her as a worthy opponent. He knows that Rachel is argumentative but fair. Since he believes that his own position is rational, he thought that he could successfully debate her on this issue. To that end, he continually tried to conflate civil rights with the 2nd amendment or with free speech.
I think Rachel could have mopped the floor with him on a debate on these terms, but instead she simply had him baldly state his position and rather than debate it, let us decide for ourselves how extreme it is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Boidster
May 20, 2010 4:38 PM in reply to BillSoo
I didn't think he ever actually stated his true position. Rachel tried multiple times to get him to answer a simple question: do you support the legal right of private businesses to not serve black people, or gays?
He would not answer that. He kept going off into 1st or 2nd Amendment tangents, answering her question with a question like, "well, do you support allowing guns into all restaurants?"
Wha? His thing seemed to be, if the federal government passes a law that affects a private enterprise, then that private enterprise is a de-facto public enterprise and therefore any places it occupies are "public places" and since people (in most states) are allowed to carry guns in public, they must be allowed to carry guns into any business affected by the CRA.
Or something. What a loony.
Rachel really tried hard, but the guy is a weasel. She even tried the same argument that Josh made in a post here today, about how this isn't about theory or philosophy of governing, it's about real, actual historical events and real, actual people getting beaten just for trying to express how "abhorrent" (his favorite word) they thought Jim Crow laws were. He of course latched onto the "beaten" part and diverted into assurances about how he's against violence.
And what was that whole thing about Boston? Who the frak cares if Boston desegregated its buses in the 1840's? What does that have to do with what will ACTUALLY HAPPEN in the REAL WORLD if people are allowed to discriminate like they did everywhere (except Boston!) pre-CRA?
What. A. Loony.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 20, 2010 5:35 PM in reply to Boidster
You're absolutely right, he deliberately evaded answering that question directly; he'd always sidestep it by saying he was totally in favor of outlawing discrimination by the government, and that he was personally against discrimination anywhere.
Yeah, I thought it was a little weird for someone running for office in Kentucky to be going on and on about how horrible the South was about civil rights for so long. I can't imagine that would play well with his base. And to put Boston up as the paragon in that respect? They've had their problems with discrimination, too, and it didn't all just magically go away in 1840. I remember riots in South Boston over school desegregation in the 1970s.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BillSoo
May 20, 2010 7:30 PM in reply to slb
Actually, I thought the 1970 riots was where he was going with that so I was confused when he went back to 1840.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
boo_lala
May 20, 2010 9:39 PM in reply to BillSoo
I think Rand and Ron Paul live in some 18th or 19th century Utopia of their imaginations. The thing that makes me shake my head is that you hear someone like Ron Paul--favorite of the tea party and conservative base--proposing that we eliminate the IRS, FDA, EPA, department of education, income tax; that we negate all our treaties; that we return to the Gold Standard and implement a flat tax; and then you hear them complaining that Obama is destroying our way of life because he increased the regulation of private insurance companies a little and provided some extra tax credits here and there. Do they not realize what a country of 300 million people with no centralized government and no federal laws would look like? Certainly not like the great America they are nostalgic for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mooser
May 23, 2010 10:44 AM in reply to boo_lala
"I think Rand and Ron Paul live in some 18th or 19th century Utopia of their imaginations"
So do I and millions of others. Most people call them suburbs, but we know that is how man should live in ideal conditions.
Man has evolved as a suburban animal. One question: Why would we have such fat asses if we weren't designed to sit in the bench seats of full-size pick-ups?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
May 20, 2010 3:53 PM in reply to _jonny_5_
I too had the same thought about Paul's using the old Rovian trick about putting all your dirty laundry in one venue, and then trashing the venue.
But it's pretty hard to pooh-pooh VIDEO. This one was viral by Wednesday night. And say what you will about those horrid Lefties on MSNBC, they will play this to death, for the duration; thus increasing the pairs of eyes that have seen it. That is not good for Paul, regardless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
May 20, 2010 3:16 PM in reply to Overreach THIS!
Definitely a case of being full of himself and figuring he could walk in and just own her. A true tactical mistake as anybody with any sense in the GOP who is running for office would appear on MSNBC between 6 and 10 (minus the repeat of 'Hardball' @ 7. His base doesnt watch that bloack anymore than any of us watch Faux, so what was he thinking besides taking his poorly coiffed doo into her show?
These comments will be on his back like a short overcoat for the entire campaign process...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tim
May 20, 2010 9:28 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
In regard to the 'doo' he looks liked the crazed villain in the fifth element.
Someone needs to do a 'seperated at birth' side by side. You'll notice I've done the same with the bride of frankenstein and our current Sect of the Treasury.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
May 20, 2010 9:54 PM in reply to Tim
Somehow I find Elsa Lanchester fairing far better with her radical electric doo than what poor Tim has got going on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WaitWut?
May 20, 2010 4:43 PM in reply to Overreach THIS!
I knew he was an a-hole, but never knew he was that dumb. Gotta say it was a joy to watch that smug look on his face fade to the sucking lemons look, even seemed to be twitching a bit. When Rachel said, "yes or no answer" I thought he was going to swallow his tongue.
Rachel didn't have to do much. He buried himself. Awesome.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sailormarlowe
May 20, 2010 11:50 AM
What did Rand Paul really think...? He thought, "Maddow? Looks more like Dolph Lundgren. Do I answer this cartoon character's loony questions, or channel Sylvester Stallone?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dswx
May 20, 2010 12:02 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
LMAO!
Rand Paul: Ophthomologist.
Rachel Maddow: Degree in public policy from Stanford University in 1994. Awarded the John Gardner Fellowship. Recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford. Completed her Doctor of Philosophy degree (DPhil) in politics from Oxford University.
Slam dunk for Maddow, junior. But thanks for showing how clueless you are once again. You are rapidly becoming our office "clueless person" bulletin board material; congratulations!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
May 20, 2010 12:16 PM in reply to dswx
Sailormarlowe only like women who are as intellectually challenged as he is - hence his fondness for Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Stupid is as stupid does.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
May 20, 2010 12:31 PM in reply to dswx
Are you really trying to debate sailorboy with facts and logic? Sorry to tell you, but that means he has won.
The only way to deal with this man-child is with scorn and ridicule. His only measuring stick (heh heh) with regards to women is whether or not he wants to have sex with them. Actually expecting him to think critically just makes you look bad.
Cue infantile response calling me "Fagsworth."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
May 20, 2010 2:21 PM in reply to farnsworth
Or just ignore him completely. I wonder if he would continue to post if no one replied to his "comments."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PSzymeczek
May 20, 2010 4:26 PM in reply to dswx
And Kudos to Rachel for not allowing Rand Paul to wriggle of the hook he found himself on!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WaitWut?
May 20, 2010 4:55 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
Funny. I was thinking that Randi looked a lot like a preadolescent girl. I even asked my husband what he thought he'd look like with a little mascara and some lip gloss. As a hetero female, I find Rachel more arrousing than Randi.
No offense to preadolescent girls, of course. Or, men who wear mascara and lip gloss.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
May 20, 2010 9:58 PM in reply to WaitWut?
I'm sure sailormarlowe didnt take any offense at your remark.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
markslp
May 20, 2010 11:51 AM
I watched much of this last night. Paul was very effective in monopolizing the time, being obtuse, trying to conflate the second amendment with the discussion of the civil rights act, and generally not answering the questions posed. It might work on a TV or radio appearance, but if I am Conway I have to get him to debate as many times as possible with strict rules limiting the time for answers and then I'd turn the rsulting sound bites against him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
May 20, 2010 12:57 PM in reply to markslp
Well, it's on "tape" now, as well. I watched it at my own pace, amazed by his nonsense and obfuscation, but more so by his incredible argumentation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcrose68
May 20, 2010 2:48 PM in reply to markslp
Good at monopolizing time, but at the end of the day he used his time to say that a private lunch counter has every right to refuse service to you for ANY reason including the color of your skin.
Not sure how that's going to fly outside the 18%-ers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 20, 2010 5:41 PM in reply to mcrose68
Especially in a year when we have been marking the 50th anniversary of several historic lunch counter sit-ins.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sean
May 20, 2010 11:58 AM
effective in monopolizing the time, being obtuse
Very Dubya-esque...his temper walks close to the surface of his facial mask and could erupt if poked.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
May 20, 2010 12:22 PM in reply to sean
I totally agree. This guy's beliefs (and his father) are downright scary to me. I watched her show twice and both times I could see him trying hard not to lose his cool. This guy needs to be exposed for who he is. I hope Conway beats his ass good.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
May 20, 2010 12:55 PM in reply to chameleon
Towards the end, he was pretty much at the edge and it was all he could do not to erupt. He had definitely lost his cool demeanor by then.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
May 20, 2010 2:55 PM in reply to It's Pat
I am glad you saw it that way too. Huffpo's pages are a blaze with the story. This is going to hurt him right out of the gate. Little slimy bastard....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
May 20, 2010 4:34 PM in reply to sean
Re his temper:
Am I the only one who noticed the slow burn in Rand's words and voice, when he first came on camera?
Rachel had intro'd his appearance with a package about her guest, that can most conservatively be described as "off-message" for the Paul campaign. And then, bingo! Heeeeere's Rand!
He noticed. And he mentioned it. And I swear to God, I could feel the smoldering volcano.
I actually remarked to my significant other last night after watching this that I would have given a week's pay if the producers at MSNBC had just kept his damned mic live, for about 10 seconds after he said, "Thank you" and ended the interview.
My imagination is going into overtime, with regard to what the first thing he must have said to his handlers when the red light went off! :-)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rockfish41
May 20, 2010 11:59 AM
He'll make a fine politician. Answers a yes/no question with "you know I find it interesting..." The intro was quite the hack job to be fair.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NerdRage
May 20, 2010 2:02 PM in reply to rockfish41
agreed...the intro to the interview was super biased...but she did acknowlege it by joking about it...
then again...if you're going to interview someone on a specific topic...you have to introduce it and explain why its important...
and its hard to not stomp on someone when you're explaining what their views are on CRA that are essentially supporting racism and discrimination
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
May 20, 2010 5:10 PM in reply to NerdRage
Yes, that's right... "super biased".
All intros to appearances by politicians should be as vanilla and unthreatening as possible.
They must NEVER show the politician in any light, other than the one devised by the politican's handlers.
And they must certainly not frame the guest in the context of anything controversial which might be dogging him, at that moment.
Tools.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ETSpoon
May 20, 2010 12:00 PM
As a dentist and a libertarian I wonder if Rand violates the Kentucky Dental Practice Act as it interferes with his individual right to conduct business as he see fit?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BeeClone
May 20, 2010 1:45 PM in reply to ETSpoon
Dentist? isn't he an ophthalmologist?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
May 20, 2010 3:21 PM in reply to BeeClone
Does working on eye teeth help?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
May 20, 2010 12:03 PM
He doesn't think the government should stop private businesses from discriminating against race or gender or religion, but he's okay with the government telling a woman what to do with her body? He's a big fat hypocrite.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Davran
May 20, 2010 12:17 PM in reply to Powkat
"Paul would support a constitutional amendment to ban abortion,[59] even in cases of rape, incest, or when the pregnant woman's life is endangered,[60] and opposes federal funding for abortion.[59]" (wikipedia)
Not much of a libertarian, eh?
Big friggin' hypocrite.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
May 20, 2010 12:34 PM in reply to Davran
From his campaign website:
Rand Paul will fight for the right to life of a collection of cells, but the government forcing businesses to serve black people if they don't want to is a bridge too far for him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
May 20, 2010 12:44 PM in reply to commie atheist
So if a woman's body rejects a fetus and spontaneously aborts, is it murder?
If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy that will eventually kill her, must she be forced to die?
His position on abortion, like far too many of his positions, lacks a relationship to reality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
May 20, 2010 1:38 PM in reply to farnsworth
If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy that will eventually kill her, must she be forced to die?
If she's in a Catholic hospital: Yes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37171656/ns/health-health_care/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Davran
May 20, 2010 1:46 PM in reply to commie atheist
That's quite a disturbing report. Reminds me of why I'm not a Catholic any more.
Well, there's that - and the fact that I'm an atheist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AdAbsurdum
May 21, 2010 9:53 AM in reply to Davran
Atheism never kept anyone from being a good Catholic, but this sort of abuse is truly unacceptable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Davran
May 20, 2010 1:38 PM in reply to commie atheist
Shorter Rand: The only good government intervention is one that enforces my priorities on others.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nancydenis
May 20, 2010 2:22 PM in reply to commie atheist
what stand does he take on death penalty?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
May 20, 2010 3:26 PM in reply to commie atheist
That made my head hurt.....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lotl
May 20, 2010 7:34 PM in reply to commie atheist
Yes, save that bunch of cells, but don't give a damn what happens to it after (if) it's born as a viable human being. Not to mention, they only care about human (or potential human) life. Everything else on the planet--slash and burn. Or shoot from helicopters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WaitWut?
May 20, 2010 5:00 PM in reply to Davran
Yep. Typical 'bagger.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AdAbsurdum
May 20, 2010 3:40 PM in reply to Powkat
To these freaks, the only public space to be recognized is a woman's uterus, and the only persons whose rights matter are fetuses and corporations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WaitWut?
May 20, 2010 5:04 PM in reply to AdAbsurdum
Perfect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 20, 2010 5:51 PM in reply to AdAbsurdum
...and the only persons whose rights matter are fetuses and corporations.
The former of which are not persons at all in any legal sense, and the latter of which are only persons by legal construct. Gotta love that irony.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ankhorite
May 20, 2010 10:40 PM in reply to AdAbsurdum
You summed it up perfectly. *sigh*
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrCurmudgeon
May 20, 2010 12:06 PM
I'm so sick of these right-wings cowards calling it an "attack" or a "political ploy" when you ask them to clarify their extremist political views. So much for personal responsibility. Galt would be disappointed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
May 20, 2010 12:58 PM in reply to mrCurmudgeon
Good comment!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
May 20, 2010 12:10 PM
Weren't slave owners private businessmen? Why did the mean ol' government take their property away? Had Paul been there back then, I'm sure he would have stood up for the rights of those poor oppressed businessmen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PurpleAvenger
May 20, 2010 12:11 PM
The issue I see is this fiction that it's just about speech. It's NOT about speech. The Woolworth owners can say they dislike people of other races, all they want. The Civil Rights Act was designed to alter BEHAVIOR - you can say what you want, but you don't get to exclude people just because they're of other races. And I think it's really important to call him out on that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lotl
May 20, 2010 7:40 PM in reply to PurpleAvenger
Yes. He's trying to claim that behavior which isn't speech, is speech.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ankhorite
May 20, 2010 10:46 PM in reply to lotl
No, what's really going on is that he has mixed up the First Amendment's right to freedom of association with freedom of speech, and no one has called him on it.
So much for reading the Constitution he hopes to swear to defend.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
May 20, 2010 12:13 PM
This is the same thinking as the "free market" deciding everything. Let people do whatever they want, and it will all work out.
Well, we know what happens if the "free market" is able to do whatever it wants: it cheats the consumer every chance it gets.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HoneyBaked
May 20, 2010 12:13 PM
Rachel's position here is quite clear: Apparently we live in an age where a cadre of racists are lurking in the shadows just waiting for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act (or parts of it) so they can keep black people from eating in their restaurants.
I am of the opinion that this isn't reality. I don't think these lurking racists, chomping at the bit to publicly announce their racists views, exist.
But even if her scenario were to befall us... I would have to think that these businesses would go out of business almost instantly. Can you imagine the uproar if Jerry of Jerry's Burger Joint forbid black people from entering his Joint? People would shun Jerry. His business would close. Regardless of where Jerry's Joint was located in America... such idiocy would be spotlighted and those idiots would go out of business.
Am I wrong, is this not 2010?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
May 20, 2010 12:17 PM in reply to HoneyBaked
You could make this argument about any fundamental right, and it would be just as ridiculous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
May 20, 2010 12:18 PM in reply to HoneyBaked
HoneyBal, you are wrong. You probably don't live in the South or the Southwest. I think it would quickly turn into segregation again; blacks, Mexicans, and Irish have to go to their own stores, waterfountains, etc.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HoneyBaked
May 20, 2010 12:47 PM in reply to billpaustin
I'm in Kansas -- KANSAS -- and even here, there is no way in hell that a business who discriminated would last once it became public knowledge.
I don't think we're in 1960 any more.
And even if there were businesses who wanted to discriminate... don't you think it would be best to get that out into the open? Would you rather know that Jerry is a raving lunatic... or would you rather not?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
May 20, 2010 12:54 PM in reply to HoneyBaked
I sure am glad laws aren't based on your personal anecdotes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HoneyBaked
May 20, 2010 1:08 PM in reply to LiberalRedneck
As apposed to yours? Are you the arbitrator of what makes good law?
And to this specific point... You would rather not know that Jerry is a racist/bigot/loon? I would prefer to know.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pirate jenny
May 20, 2010 1:23 PM in reply to HoneyBaked
i'd like to find out who all the murderers are but these darn laws against it are getting in the way of discovering who they all are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WaitWut?
May 20, 2010 5:07 PM in reply to pirate jenny
LOL!!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
May 20, 2010 2:57 PM in reply to HoneyBaked
Oh, my bad. I assumed you actually knew how laws were made. If I had known you were just bloviating I wouldn't have bothered responding.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lotl
May 20, 2010 7:52 PM in reply to HoneyBaked
Yes, it's good to have information about a business so you can shop with them, or not, in accordance with your principles. You don't do it by repealing laws and letting the worst in human nature run rampant, though. You do it by, for instance, researching records of political contributions. Supported Rand Paul? I'll take my business elsewhere.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brian M
May 20, 2010 1:12 PM in reply to HoneyBaked
This is true today because there actually are laws prohibiting discrimination. If, however, the act of having a "whites only" sushi bar or any other business were allowed, entrepreneurs would spring up all over limiting their business clientele to a segregated audience. It would not happen over night, but absent the presence of laws prohibiting such discrimination it would happen. Just look at history both here and in other parts of the world.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pirate jenny
May 20, 2010 1:21 PM in reply to HoneyBaked
i'll counter your anecdotal evidence with mine.
when i was working on a film shot in arizona not that long ago, some of us were put up in the only motel in town. the native american cast members had to stay in the next town over. why? take a guess...
our complaints did no good. the local sheriff was related to the motel owner. the whole town was like that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HoneyBaked
May 20, 2010 1:35 PM in reply to pirate jenny
So I take it that when you were confronted with such overt racism that you took your business elsewhere?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pirate jenny
May 20, 2010 4:37 PM in reply to HoneyBaked
nope, production couldn't; they were literally the only game in town.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lotl
May 20, 2010 7:57 PM in reply to pirate jenny
Wasn't there room at the hotel where the Native Americans were staying? You could have gone there with them, in protest, couldn't you, and shared their inconvenience?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pirate jenny
May 22, 2010 6:46 PM in reply to lotl
no, there wasn't room. if there had been we all would've moved.
now do you see why rand paul is a dangerous idiot?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
May 20, 2010 12:24 PM in reply to HoneyBaked
And if Jerry discriminated against gays? You really think that that would be a problem in some parts of the country? Jeez, get your head out of your ass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HoneyBaked
May 20, 2010 12:42 PM in reply to commie atheist
Nice response. Those who can't participate in respectful debate are best served by not saying anything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
May 20, 2010 1:31 PM in reply to HoneyBaked
Those who make stupid arguments don't deserve any respect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HoneyBaked
May 20, 2010 1:48 PM in reply to commie atheist
Ah, I see, so your opinion is true and correct and everyone you don't agree with is stupid. Very nice.
Are you a Tea Partier running for office? You sound like one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
May 20, 2010 1:59 PM in reply to HoneyBaked
You sound like the teabagger to me, dear:
Apparently we live in an age where a cadre of racists are lurking in the shadows just waiting for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act (or parts of it) so they can keep black people from eating in their restaurants.
Nope, no racists here. We're living in a post-racial era. We even have a black President. See? That proves there are no more racists anywhere. And to even suggest that someone is a racist is the worst thing you could say, even worse than saying something racist. Right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HoneyBaked
May 20, 2010 2:27 PM in reply to commie atheist
Purposely taking a quote out of context.. how unbelievably transparent, shameful and pathetic.
You will get no more responses from me as it is obvious that you aren't equipped to argue your points on their merits. Good day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
May 20, 2010 2:38 PM in reply to HoneyBaked
I SAID GOOD DAY!
Don't go away mad, just go away.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Deirdre
May 20, 2010 1:13 PM in reply to HoneyBaked
I'm from the deep South. These people do exist. I'm related to some of them. I've worked with MDs who would not personally treat black patients. Of course, they hired other doctors who would because we had those pesky civil rights laws to deal with. Without exception, these asses did not keep up with medical break throughs. They learned all they needed to know in med school, regardless of how long ago that might have been. It is 2010. These bigots aren't saying the n word on the street corner but they sure are using it at home & with like minded morons.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
May 20, 2010 1:48 PM in reply to HoneyBaked
yes, it is 2010, and racism still exists and is condoned whether you like it or not. And we're not gonna repeal the Civil Rights Act based on a conflict with libertarian ideology just because you assume that people wouldn't tolerate businesses that discriminate.
Businesses of all sorts still discriminate to this day, particularly in employment, and the only recourse for the victims is the Civil Rights Act. Take that away, and inequality and racism will continue, despite your dream of a libertarian utopia and your extremely ignorant belief that discrimination doesn't exist in 2010.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HoneyBaked
May 20, 2010 2:03 PM in reply to human
No one is/was suggesting a repeal of the Civil Rights Act; that isn't even up for discussion.
This is simply an exercise to demonize someone who has a differing opinion because there are political gains to be made from it.
Many on the Left see a chance for political gain here so they are going to spend the next few months painting Rand Paul as a racist so that a (D) wins this contested Senate seat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BillSoo
May 20, 2010 2:47 PM in reply to HoneyBaked
I don't see Rand Paul as a racist, I simply see him as putting private property rights higher than civil rights.
This is relevant not because he is a racist (he's not) but because as a senator, there will be lots of issues where a similar conflict between competing goods will have to be mediated.
To me, he has his priorities wrong and he should be held to account for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HoneyBaked
May 20, 2010 3:39 PM in reply to BillSoo
This is a very reasoned response and I agree on most of your points.
Arguing the merits (or lack thereof, depending upon your point-of-view) of his policy positions is certainly fair-game.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
May 20, 2010 3:53 PM in reply to HoneyBaked
No one needs to paint Paul as a racist.
His idiotic libertarian beliefs will destroy him without anyone else's help.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Podge
May 20, 2010 4:36 PM in reply to HoneyBaked
Honeybaked - your characterization of Maddow's intent and worldview (lurking racists held in check by liberal government) is pretty unpersuasive. I seriously doubt she thinks Paul's a racist or that electing a bunch of Pauls would allow the South to bring back rampant private segregation. It's much more likely that she thinks, as I do, that Paul is radically, dangerously anti-government (as all silly dogmatic libertarians are), so she used his recent, remarkable statements on the CRA to expose, amplify, and give shape and content to that conviction.
You can't have conversations about political philosophy in a vacuum, especially on TV (ratings and all that). Instead, you point out, as Maddow did, that if Rand's radical political philosophy had been the law of the land, private entities could not have been prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race. Which is really quite a remarkably batsh*t crazy position - one that Rand refused to disown despite being given plenty of chances to (i.e., until his handlers got wind of it and he flip-flopped to save his candidacy). That's the kind of insightful questioning and positioning that can help take people from thinking, "Rand's a libertarian - I guess that means he supports freedom," to thinking "holy shit, this guy is lunatic who has no idea how the world actually works and I want no part of him."
Of course, some people are OK with silly dogmatic libertarianism. But those people will, thank the Lord, always be a teensy tiny minority.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
May 20, 2010 2:31 PM in reply to HoneyBaked
Been to Denny's with a black high school basketball team lately?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whataretheysmoking
May 20, 2010 3:17 PM in reply to HoneyBaked
yes you are wrong. here's why:
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2010/5/20/133513/575/73#c73
plus, if a white restaurant owner beat up a black guy who walked in, who would be called in? the police? who pays for law enforcement? everyone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 20, 2010 6:08 PM in reply to HoneyBaked
Am I wrong, is this not 2010?
You are wrong. It wouldn't start like that. First there would be upscale private neighborhoods with race restrictions in express convenants written into the deeds. And then within those neighborhoods there would be community centers and recreation areas with the same sorts of restrictions. Insurance companies and mortgage lenders would again be free to redline areas with too many people of races considered to be undesirable, and so restrictive covenants would become a way of maintaining property values. And banks would be free to consider being of the wrong race as a negative factor when you applied for credit. Employers would be free to decline to hire on the basis of sex or race or religion; landlords would be free to decline to rent for the same reasons. Slowly but surely the norm would devolve into pretty much what was the case prior to any civil right legislation.
Any thought that "civilized" people would not regress to such behavior has not made much study of the genocides of the 20th century.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WaitWut?
May 20, 2010 6:54 PM in reply to HoneyBaked
I understand the point you’re trying to make, and actually had thought similarly last nite after watching the interview. But...let’s say Jerry’s Burger Joynt put up a big sign saying “We don’t serve Blacks, Mexicans, Gays or Redheads”, if Jerry’s was the only burger joint in town...for miles...would he still go out of business if the surrounding rural area was 99% white? Would you advocate the spreading of discrimination? What about the children and teenagers that ate there? Would Jerry, because it is his “private” business, be allowed to fill their little heads with his bigotry?
You have to consider that Rand’s take on this is that no one should “have” to have a sign up. It should just be their right to discriminate based on any reason. Patrons may not realize they’re frequenting an establishment that discriminates. They may wonder why some people leave after the manager whispers in their ear.
I live in Arizona. Mega-white Arizona. I can assure you that no restaurant would go out of business because the owner was a racist. It would flourish. I was born and raised in Chicago. The same business in Chicago would be out of business at the very least. That would be true of the inner city as well as the suburbs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ankhorite
May 20, 2010 10:57 PM in reply to HoneyBaked
You're wrong. Here in Virginia, where I live, it's always 1864, and there's always a hefty contingent of politicians trying to push the clock a bit further back to 1860.
Are you serious? In a world where the ACLU still has to intervene in several cases, every year, of black kids being turned away from public pools? In a world where even Tiger Woods (who certainly ought to know better) is not ashamed to play at a men-only golf course? In a world where women were still being taxed to support state military colleges they were not permitted to attend until 1997? In a world where Clint Eastwood, in his capacity as entrepreneur, says of the ADA and people with disabilities, "make them go away!" ? This is the real world, as of 2010.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sponson
May 20, 2010 12:14 PM
Here's what was happening before the law was passed that Rand Paul objects so much to: Check out Lester Maddox using a pistol and a thug with a club on an unarmed black man for having the audacity to want to eat at Maddox's restaurant in Georgia. To Rand Paul, this is simply a "private citizen" (Maddox and son) exercising his "free speech" rights. And it was the same to Maddox, who went on to become Governor of Georgia based on his unabashed racial hatred.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moloko+
May 20, 2010 12:14 PM
Ask Mr. Libertarian if he wants to do away with limited liability for corporations?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Extinct Tory
May 23, 2010 8:48 PM in reply to Moloko+
Actually, I have run into at least one extreme libertarian (writer of the Phineas Krumm web comic) who does also oppose large corporations. I'm not clear on the logic. There certainly is a case to be made for the mutual dependency of large capital interests and the central state, and for the success of this relationship as a requirement for a nation to become an economic leader. Fernand Braudel made that case. But I don't suppose many libertarians are that familiar with Marx-via-Immanuel Wallerstein-influenced economic historians.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Roger
May 20, 2010 12:18 PM
Rachel is fast as can be, sharp as a tack and all female...she's a real treat indeed. Pitting her against the right wing cavemen is just not fair play!!!...she eats them for breakfast!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
icarrion
May 20, 2010 12:18 PM
Less government means institutional racism. Less government means more Hurrican Katrina's. Less government means more oil in the gulf. This is what many in the "less government" crowd are either dishonest or ignorant about. I'm glad Paul has the national spotlight now. And just like NPR and Maddow did yesterday, a giant spotlight will be pointed on the "less government" philosophy and what it actually means.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
May 20, 2010 12:19 PM
Trying to turn every behavior into speech is just a desperate attempt to avoid the reality that the Constitution specifically empowers Congress to regulate commerce and provide for the general welfare in Article I of the Constitution.
Turning people away from a business is not speech just because it helps express a viewpoint. If that were so, then lynching would be completely okay, seeing as how it very effectively expresses a view.
The idea really is simple - if you take the benefit of the commercial system Congress has created and nurtured under Article I, you have to play by all the rules - even the ones you don't personally like. If you don't like the rules, you have 2 choices - convince enough peole to lawfully change them, or don't play. Paul doesn't want to do either. If (and it's a big if) Conway can make it this clear, and Paul persists in his specious attempts to make every act into speech, then voters should run away from Paul en masse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
reason_in_flames
May 20, 2010 12:21 PM
Perhaps the most frustrating part of the Rachel Maddow interview was her failure to take Paul's position one step further, beyond that of racial discrimination. Restaurants were the focal point of the hypothetical back and forth between the two--there is a veritable mountain of laws, regulations, and statutes that influence how a restaurant owner can run their business. By Paul's reasoning, the state's imposing of a maximum occupancy for fire safety is an onerous and burdensome intrusion into the rights of property owners. Mandated inspections by health officials can also hardly be justified in a "free" society. Rand needs to acknowledge that his viewpoint would indeed give proprietors the right to decline serving minorities, but it also gives them the right to allow rat turds to be included in your food.
These are not "philosophical" questions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
May 20, 2010 12:29 PM in reply to reason_in_flames
All excellent points. I think Maddow might have gone further if he had answered her repeated questions about the lunch counter thing, instead of evading and changing the subject. Obviously, the only answer he could have given was "yes," if he was going to be consistent with his philosophy, and that would have been political suicide.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rockfish41
May 20, 2010 12:59 PM in reply to commie atheist
"Yes" IS the answer to give IF you have the courage of your convictions which Paul obviously does not. It would be refreshing if when being nailed down to a yes or no by these politishow hosts like Gregory or Maddow that just once, ONCE, a politician would just say it and go with it. But they can't. They can't because they are scared of the soundbite it would make. Say YES Rand Paul say YES!!! I believe a business owner in America ought to be free to do with his business whatever he sees fit and the government should stay out of his business. He pays his taxes, he's a citizen, he should be free to discriminate. Period. Say YES!! That's it. That's what I believe!! And it is ONLY those people's votes, who believe the same way, that I, Rand Paul, am interested in. Say it. SAY IT!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgh!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
May 20, 2010 1:41 PM in reply to rockfish41
Easy does it there...a brain aneurysm can ruin your whole day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
May 20, 2010 12:39 PM in reply to reason_in_flames
I would have liked to hear her say, "Dr. Paul, your refusal to answer my question makes it seem like you are afraid to actually state your position. This makes it seem like you are in favor of private businesses being able to discriminate against blacks, or gays, or any other group. And as long as you continue to refuse to answer the question, that will be the prevailing opinion."
Even someone like Maddow, who is well-educated and forthright and forceful steers away from that kind of statement. And that's too bad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 20, 2010 6:20 PM in reply to farnsworth
It's important to Maddow that her guests feel they have been treated fairly. I have seen her press people hard for answers, and not hesitate to point out when they are in error regarding the facts, but she would never go so far as to put words in someone's mouth; that is hardly fair treatment. Chris Matthews would probably go that far, but that's one reason I don't like to watch his show.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lotl
May 20, 2010 8:24 PM in reply to slb
I don't think stating it the way Farnsworth did is putting words in someone's mouth. Neglect to include the word "seem", and shout down any attempt at refutation, and that's another story. Calmly and politely pointing out the truth that this is what he seems to be saying, so that it's what is likely to be believed, IMO, would be giving fair warning and one more chance to state his position definitively and confirm or deny that it is what it seems. If he refuses to do so, then he is essentially putting those words in his own mouth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
May 20, 2010 12:29 PM
Here's a question for the Tea Party'ers ... And is the Rand in Rand Paul the same as in Ayn Rand?
http://www.chaospark.com/politics/reid12.htm
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
May 20, 2010 2:34 PM in reply to Michael
Absolutely. Yes, he was named after Ayn Rand. Should have been named Ayn, though. BTW, she was Jewish by birth. Who woulda thunk it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lotl
May 20, 2010 8:30 PM in reply to Cal Gal
Yes, her real name was Alisa Rosenbaum. Didn't sound enough like the name of an Objectivist hero, I guess. (If you've read her books, she gives her antiheroes, those "evil collectivists" really dorky, silly names while the protagonists all had "heroic" names.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cube Zombie
May 20, 2010 12:32 PM
I just hope Bill Halter is as unabashed in his progressivism as Paul is in his libertarianism. Let them debate the issues on the merits, and see which approach 21st-century Americans actually prefer. Wouldn't that be refreshing. Of course, I'm always prepared to be horrified by the American electorate (2004, anyone?), but here I think there's cause to be optimistic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
May 20, 2010 12:37 PM in reply to Cube Zombie
I think you mean Jack Conway. Halter is running against Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cube Zombie
May 20, 2010 12:47 PM in reply to commie atheist
Yep, you're right. Thanks for correcting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
May 20, 2010 12:38 PM
There's a pretty big difference between denying someone service because of their race and denying someone service if they insist on carrying a gun into the establishment.
Just for starters, race isn't a choice and carrying a gun is. If the customer leaves his gun outside, he gets served, so it's not him who's being denied. It's his gun.
And, if we want to follow Paul's slippery slope in the other direction, if you can't deny service to someone carrying a gun, then you can't deny service to someone refusing to wear pants or someone who just climbed out of a sewage pit.
There are sensible libertarians and there are silly libertarians. Sensible ones recognize necessary limits to freedom. Silly ones don't see why you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Rand Paul and his ilk are the silly ones.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
May 20, 2010 12:41 PM
Reason_in_Flames: what about making it illegal to hire Illegal aliens? How does Paul feel about the state saying who one may or may not do business with?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
reason_in_flames
May 20, 2010 1:07 PM in reply to Michael
Well you would have to ask him; I've only heard of him for three days. But I'd speculate that he believes the government has authority to enforce immigration policy. The government is free to set that policy and punish those who are in violation of it. However, he might argue that prosecuting business owners for the employment of illegals is overreaching. It seems that he believes private markets should operate with a minimum of regulation and govt. oversight, and any law that stipulates who can employ who is meddling with private markets.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BeeClone
May 20, 2010 12:45 PM
What a great country it would be if you could only tell people if your black you can't eat here or if you can't walk you can't come in, WOW "freedom".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
May 20, 2010 12:52 PM
Libertarians only matter on the Internet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bigmike828
May 20, 2010 12:54 PM
Rachel let Rand off the hook last night and I kept waiting for the zinger. To each simple question Rand rambled on about his belief in civil rights. She should have said, "Give me a yes or no answer on whether you believe a restaurant should have a right to refuse service to blacks." She did ask that several times but permitted him to get away with ignoring the question. She was way more than polite. I think she was too concerned about whether he would appear again on the show
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pstamler
May 20, 2010 12:55 PM
Yes, the "Rand" in Rand Paul is the same as the "Rand" in Ayn Rand. He admires her a great deal, and changed his name in tribute. (Sorry, I don't know what it was originally.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tamiasmin
May 20, 2010 2:19 PM in reply to pstamler
Strom?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
May 20, 2010 2:48 PM in reply to tamiasmin
Adolf?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cliff Hendroval
May 20, 2010 4:02 PM in reply to pstamler
Not really, at least according to Wikipedia. His full name is Randal (yes, only one "l") Howard Paul.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lotl
May 20, 2010 8:47 PM in reply to Cliff Hendroval
Considering that most guys would abbreviate that to Randy, and that he is a libertarian, I would guess the shortening to Rand is a tribute to the author, though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
davcbr
May 20, 2010 1:04 PM
I think the whole debate wouyld have been a little cleaner in definition if it was about employment. Or housing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
davcbr
May 20, 2010 1:06 PM in reply to davcbr
Any "other" races on his staff?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nicolo MachPlato
May 20, 2010 1:12 PM
Saw the interview. What comes to mind is something the rabbi once explained to me (talking about anti-semites which is also racism)).
"There are two types of racist;
1) the first is the true believer. Those individuals who truely believe that jews or blacks are a sub-species. They believe in genetic inferiority and cannot accept that a black or a jew as genetically equal to themselves.
2) The second is the opportunity racist. Those people who see a benefit from aligning, pandering or servicing racist and racism and seize that opportunity for personal gain.
Rand Paul is a racist of the second definition. His useing the canard of hair splitting public and private ownership is little more then wrapping his racism in the smugness of the psuedo-intellectual BS that is libertarianism.
Rand Paul sees a political benefit in qualifying true beleiver racist as boors who shouldn't be that way .. "but hey, it's there 1st ammendment right".
That makes him a racist and a coward and no ammount of intellectual double speak will change that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lotl
May 20, 2010 9:11 PM in reply to Nicolo MachPlato
True enough, but there's a third type of racist, the paternalist. The one who thinks his rules are for the "other" 's own good and protection, and that only they are capable of defining what that good is and only they have the power to act on it. Let's stick with the restaurant example. The owner says, "I'm only keeping [insert minority here] out because of the rough types that come in here who might beat them up. It's for their own safety!" He might actually think he believes it, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
voreason
May 20, 2010 1:30 PM
Right, if Rand Paul believes private businesses should be able to discriminate, then two things follow. Private businesses should then be able to discriminate in any realm of their activities, including, hiring, real estate sales and so on.
Second, discrimination should logically be able free as well: discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnic background, where is the limit?
Of course this would legitimize overt discrimination on the basis of race in sales and rental of housing. This is all tantamount to turning the page back to the Jim Crow era.
His out is apparently that he would not permit discrimination by the government. But as a libertarian, he would like to see the government shrink and thus he would apparently like to see the right to discriminate expanded as much as possible.
He blames this on the 'hard part about believing in freedom'. In other words, rather than questioning the juvenile assumptions of his Ayn Randy libertarian wet dreams, he has to conclude that being a racist scumbag/and/or racist scumbag facilitator is the only logical path he can take.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barney
May 20, 2010 1:30 PM
Laura Ingraham asked Rand Paul if he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
Said Paul: "Yes, because I think the preponderance of the evidence was that we had some abhorrent things going on in our society--segregation, the Jim Crow laws...I think the south had failed and that the federal government did have a role in ending discrimination in all of these practices."
...it's time to move on to the next smear campaign, libtards.
Se. Rand Paul (R)-KY...get used to it
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
clemenceau
May 20, 2010 1:33 PM in reply to Barney
That appearance last night was the Deepwater Horizon of republican re-branding.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barney
May 20, 2010 1:43 PM in reply to clemenceau
That almost made sense. Keep trying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
May 20, 2010 2:02 PM in reply to Barney
"Keep trying" what? Trying to convince you that up is up and down is down would be an impossible task even for the most persuasive person.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
clemenceau
May 20, 2010 2:05 PM in reply to commie atheist
He's just repeating what governor McDonnell stamped on his essay.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
May 20, 2010 2:03 PM in reply to Barney
Alternate Paul: "Yes, because my campaign did a post-mortem after my appearance on The Rachel Maddow Show last night and my advisers strongly urged me to reverse course and pretend that I'd never said what I said."
How come whenever you take a right-winger's words and rub his nose in them, his defenders call it a smear job? Oh, I guess you're right. It is sort of smeared, isn't it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
May 20, 2010 2:38 PM in reply to chimpale
Technically, it wasn't "Jim Crow" he was objecting to, it was "Jim Crow" LAWS. So he didn't like the government requiring businesses to discriminate.
He hates discrimination, but he'll defend to the death the right of private businesses to discriminate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 20, 2010 6:33 PM in reply to Cal Gal
I hadn't thought of it that way, but you're absolutely right about that. I realize now: that's why he keeps harping on how bad the South was, and completely ignores that at the same time there was, for example, blatant housing discrimination in Boston and Chicago and Detroit and Los Angeles. The difference is that in the South, discriminatory practices were de jure; in the rest of the country they were simply de facto.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mixalot
May 20, 2010 2:21 PM in reply to Barney
That's silly. What are we now supposed to do with his current "thinking" upon these facets of the Civil Rights Act, whether he "would have" voted for it or not (unverifiable, of course)? His thinking is pretty freakin clear and on display NOW, right? So the next question for ANY voter would be "How is this guy going to be thinking about all the upcoming legislation coming to his Senate desk - and then acting upon them - especially in relation to any and all civil rights issues??" I've now got a very crystal view into his thinking and philosphical mindframe. THAT's what the "smear campaign" is all about. Get used to it, Barney. This ain't going away, no matter how hard Laura Ingraham and her crew try.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 20, 2010 6:42 PM in reply to mixalot
Absolutely right. The real problem here is that Rand Paul takes an absolutist view of rights, or at least some subset of rights, like those protected in the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I think that is an unsustainable position; no right can be considered absolute. There is no absolute right of free speech: "free speech" does not allow you to slander or libel someone; it does not allow you to disturb the peace; it does not allow you to commit perjury; it does not allow you to incite riots. There are any number of restrictions on speech that are not considered violations of the guarantees of the First Amendment.
The art of government in a free society is to balance individual freedoms against what is necessary for the good of the society as a whole. Absolutists cannot admit this, and if Rand Paul is, as it appears from this, an absolutist in this regard, then voters need to know that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BillSoo
May 20, 2010 2:58 PM in reply to Barney
In my opinion, Rand Paul is not a racist in that he supports civil rights. It's just that he supports private property rights more.
It's not a smear job to observe this and to suggest that perhaps his priorities are backwards....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RKT
May 20, 2010 4:02 PM in reply to BillSoo
But that's the entire problem with Libertarianism -- we can no longer practically separate society and government.
Libertarianism was perhaps a good idea in 1787 when the Constitution and the U.S. government contemplated serving perhaps a couple hundred thousand U.S. citizens. Then the citizenry dealt with African Americans expediently -- through slavery. Latinos and Asians probably no more than a few thousand.
Had people of Rand's mindset played nicely with others, the Civil Rights Act may not have been necessary. But when by 1964 -- nearly 200 years after the Constitution was drafted, and nearly 100 after slavery was abolished (by government action) -- it was probably safe to assume that those of Rand's ilk were never going to play nicely without government coercion. It was undoubtedly better for the health of the nation to legislate for civil rights than to continue to weather along hoping against hope that Rand's ilk would miraculously become democratic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RKT
May 20, 2010 3:47 PM in reply to Barney
So, because he either doesn't know his position, is attempting to find the most politically thing to say, or is lying it is politically incorrect to challenge him?
Yes, come to think of it, that is the prevailing "conservative" mindset.
How is it all the intellectually challenged are "conservatives"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hey norm
May 20, 2010 1:31 PM
What I took from the interview was that civil rights and ADA regulations are over-reaches. Well if telling a business that they cannot discrmininate based on race, and tha you have to provide for the disabled is over-reaching then how do you regulate the BPs and the Goldman Sachs of the world? You don't and that is the danger of these folks. Theylive in this world that expects the fre market to do the right thing. But we know the free market will not do the right thing. It sounds good and makes for good bumper-stickers but is totally unrealistic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Davran
May 20, 2010 1:53 PM in reply to hey norm
You don't have to regulate Goldman Sachs or BP. The 'Invisible Hand of the Marketplace' will do that. Or something.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
May 20, 2010 2:41 PM in reply to hey norm
He was also contradictory on the ADA laws. He said that if a business had ground floor offices as well as those upstairs, maybe they SHOULD be required to give a disabled person a ground floor office, didn't he?
Or was he just saying it was "nice" of a business to accommodate a disabled person that way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whataretheysmoking
May 20, 2010 3:06 PM in reply to Cal Gal
don't hire disabled people. that's how rand paul would solve the "problem".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
May 20, 2010 4:14 PM in reply to Cal Gal
Yes he did say that. I did think he was getting close to losing it at one point in the interview.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 20, 2010 6:52 PM in reply to Cal Gal
He was saying something to the effect that the business sholdn't be required to spend $100 grand on an elevator if they can do something like supply a ground floor office. But that ignores you need more than just a ground floor office to accommodate someone in a wheel chair: you need ramps up into the building in the first place, you need doors wide enough for the chair to fit through, you need rest rooms that can accommodate wheel chairs and water fountains that are low enough to be reached from a sitting position. And what would keep the business from locating all the rest of the offices on upper floors and isolating one lone disabled person on an empty ground floor where it was difficult to interact with the rest of the staff?
I know sometimes those laws seem like overkill, but they are written that way to try to avoid leaving loopholes that people who are looking for ways to discriminate can crawl through.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ankhorite
May 20, 2010 11:16 PM in reply to slb
@SLB, I'm a person with a disability, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart for the clarity (and brevity) of your analysis.
If I got started on this tonight, I'd still be typing tomorrow. :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
clemenceau
May 20, 2010 1:31 PM
How many times did he mention Tea Party in his acceptance speech?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
teapot37
May 20, 2010 2:31 PM in reply to clemenceau
I believe it was 8 or 9 times (vs. once for "Kentucky" - guess who he's *really* running to represent).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 20, 2010 6:45 PM in reply to teapot37
Nine times, according to MSNBC.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toomuchpr
May 20, 2010 1:33 PM
Rachel Maddow just scored the journalism equivalent of a hat trick or a grand slam all by just doing her job... see what happens when you let a smart person ask the questions... I wonder if she'll ever get to network.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 20, 2010 6:57 PM in reply to toomuchpr
It's not just that Rachel Maddow is smart; she is smart AND she does her homework. Thoroughly. When she interviews people about a book they have written, she has read the book cover to cover, and she can challenge them with exact page references when they try to make it seem that what they have written is not as extreme as it has been portrayed. She'll have a copy of the book in front of her, with pages marked that she can turn right to and read the passage directly from the book. It always amazes me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zuch
May 20, 2010 1:34 PM
Two titles of the 1964 CRA deal with private behaviour: the prohibition on discrimination in public accommodations (Title II) and the prohibition on discrimination in employment (Title VII). Titles I, III, IV, and VI deal with prohibiting government discrimination (or funding of discrimination by the government). The remaining four deal with mechanisms for helping in enforcement and compliance.
So Paul is wrong in claiming that only one of ten dealt with priviate discrimination, and furthermore in insinuating that all the others dealt with prohibitions against government discrimination.
Not to mention, government discrimination was already illegal (thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment); the CRA just gave teeth to the amendment (and was in fact in part done pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment).
But the singular advance of the 1964 CRA was the addition of the prohibitions on private discrimination as part and parcel of efforts to uproot the pervasive segregation and discrimination in the South.
Cheers,
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
May 20, 2010 1:35 PM
You do realize he is a creationist, pro-life, and a die hard Christian.
He represents the ideals put forth in the Bible. This is what you get when you take away rational humane laws and govt. and supplant it with pure biblical ideology shrouded in the US Constitution.
Rand Paul represents the ideals of millions of Americans. Just think about that for a moment.
I was not here on the website during the 08 race, but Ron Paul has the exact same ideology and I find it surprising that everyone is all of a sudden waking up to this barbarism on this website.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mgmonklewis
May 20, 2010 2:09 PM in reply to rbeats
No, Rand Paul does not represent the ideals put forth in the bible. Granted, the book is pretty big, and you can find almost everything in it. However, Jesus was pretty socialistic, and I don't think that's Rand Paul's brand of "Christianity."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
May 20, 2010 2:43 PM in reply to mgmonklewis
But but but but ... isn't wearing cloth of mixed fibers a First Amendment issue? Free expression and all?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sharecropper
May 20, 2010 1:38 PM
Doggone it, TPM. Do some reporting on what a libertarian really is. Nobody has a clue: opposing Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, public schools, public highways, regulatory agencies, and for an unrestrained Wall Street and financial sector. What is it going to take to get reporters to ask the obvious questions?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
engine
May 20, 2010 1:39 PM
It's awfully convenient for a proponent of terminally-small government to claim to be "all for" eliminating discrimination in public institutions. So, heck yeah, 9 out of those 10 titles are juuuuust fiiiiine by him -- since, in his ideal universe they would basically apply to a non-existent entity. Since the only public institution Paul really believes in is public support for private sovereignty, that 10th title is the only one that has any actual affect at all.... and therefore must be "modified".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LFC
May 20, 2010 2:00 PM
I have a direct yes/no question for Rand. "If it is OK for a business owner to discriminate and refuse to serve a customer because they are black, is it equally acceptable for that same business owner to refuse to HIRE a person because they are black?"
I really, really want to hear what Rand has to say on that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 20, 2010 7:04 PM in reply to LFC
Good luck. He would say that he is personally opposed to either sort of discrimination, and he would turn backflips to avoid saying that it should not be illegal for the business to refuse either to hire or to do business with someone on the basis of race, etc.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lorraine
May 20, 2010 2:04 PM
Are you wondering why Rachel gets these people caught in tongue and truth twisters? She does her homework. She knew enough about Rand Paul and his statements to ask the right questions, the tough questions. It's as simple as that. This guy and the tea party need to answer these questions in depth or we can be fooled back into the the 18th century. I agree with Sharecror. We need an expose on what exactly is a libertarian. Reporters have got to get off their corporate paid asses and give the people honest, factual information
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
colonpowwow
May 20, 2010 2:05 PM
As much fun as this is to expose this crackpot, it actually plays into teabagger hands somewhat - in that it allows them to argue their "affirmative action is reverse racism" and "ADA poses unfair cost burdens on small business" type of nonsense.
I think we need to go after something that shows Rand Paul to be a threat to his own base - like his position and record on Medicare. Here's my ad text:
In 197-, Democrats proposed and passed Medicare to help you face medical costs in your advancing years.
In 200-, Republicans added a prescription drug benefit that enhanced Medicare.
Most Democrats and Republicans agree that Medicare is a good thing for our older Americans and their families.
But Rand Paul doesn't think so. He calls Medicare "socialized medicine" and suggested that requiring a $2,000 deductible on Medicare insurance might be the way to go to cut costs.
Now, maybe Rand Paul has a couple thousand dollars lying around so he can send his mom to the doctor about that kidney pain she's feeling, but does this sound like a good thing to you?
Reject Rand Paul's attacks on your Medicare and vote for Jack Conway for Senator.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
clemenceau
May 20, 2010 2:11 PM
DeMint probably stayed up all night helping Paul re-adjust his dog whistle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
marcusmarcus
May 20, 2010 2:16 PM
The Tea Party presents Rand Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJDztqCG91g
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
clemenceau
May 20, 2010 2:28 PM in reply to marcusmarcus
ok, that made me laugh
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
May 20, 2010 2:17 PM
I wonder if Rachel Maddow had been on in 2003 whether we'd be in Iraq today.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 20, 2010 7:07 PM in reply to Max Thrax
Nobody was listening to dissenters in 2003. We were shouting into a hurricane-force wind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
May 20, 2010 2:19 PM
Well, he really did explain his thinking very clearly: If you can keep a private restaurant from discriminating on the basis of race, you can't allow it to people from bringing their guns into it.
He said this several times, so I guess he thinks he has a point to make, but he surely did not make it. With his repeated mention of people bringing in guns, I guess he was trying to connect with those who favor gun control, but there is some kind of serious logic problem in there that he doesn't have a grip on AT ALL.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
May 20, 2010 2:35 PM
I'll go out on a limb and say that these crackers probably wouldn't be so in favor of legalized racial discrimination right around 2030 when they lose majority status. Jus' sayin'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Altbob
May 20, 2010 3:02 PM
One word for this - "Ma-ka-ka"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
riceroni
May 20, 2010 3:14 PM
Rand Paul & The Teabaggers are who we thought they were!! Last night was just proof of it!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RKT
May 20, 2010 3:40 PM
To stray off topic a bit, has anyone ever heard a Libertarian or Tea Partier attempt to explain where the revenue to run the country will come from when they eliminate they income tax? I've heard only a national sales tax mentioned which, of course they would like, because they're affluent and a sales tax is regressive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 20, 2010 7:11 PM in reply to RKT
Well, they're not consistent about that, either, because in a radio interview with Sue Lowden that I was listening to yesterday, she was decrying discussions of a VAT. And all along I had thought that instituting a consumption tax was a conservative wet dream!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hidden Oak
May 20, 2010 3:51 PM
"Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking?"
Would that not outlaw the Tea Party?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DrewDell
May 20, 2010 3:54 PM
"harbor in"??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ankhorite
May 20, 2010 10:28 PM
Oh, for cryin' out loud. Will ANYONE, I mean ANYONE -- Maddow, any pundit, any commenter here -- point out that the First Amendment right Rand Paul is fumbling to assert is freedom of association and not freedom of speech?
GAAAAAH. I am so sick of hearing from creeps like Paul and other Republicans, teabaggers, whatever, who claim to be defending the Constitution but clearly have never read it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?