Rand on Maddow

[BenIsForRon]

Why couldn't Rand just say "Yes" and then go on to describe why? It's not a hypothetical. Private businesses did discriminate, some continue to discriminate. The issue is whether the benefits of government intervention outweigh the precedent it sets for other intrusions into private business.

Rand could have handled this way better.

[bucfish]

Yeah Rand could have mentioned there are "Gay" night clubs and bars, "Black" night clubs and bars, "Latino" nightclubs and bars, etc...

[Bergie Bergeron]

Rand should have said: "I do not support private business allowing segregation, though I feel that they have the right to. But at the same time, people have the right to not go there, boycott their establishment, and either force them to desegregate or to close down."

[Schmitto2121]

Rand did fine and he certainly should not have said the word 'yes'. Conway would have used that soundbite alone to win the election. I wish Rand would have said somehting like Bergie did.

[new momentum]

This could be bad news. This interview was a total ambush. I'm afraid he just gave the dems lots of ammunition to use against him. He really needs to come up with a way to explain this away. I totally understand his view on the rights of private business. I'm afraid that his message will get twisted and used against him. Hope I'm wrong though.

[BamaFanNKy]

I think he did perfect.

He's now the liberals:
YouTube - AmeriKKKa's Most Wanted - Ice Cube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dNPsXwLlK8)

[BamaFanNKy]

This could be bad news. This interview was a total ambush. I'm afraid he just gave the dems lots of ammunition to use against him. He really needs to come up with a way to explain this away. I totally understand his view on the rights of private business. I'm afraid that his message will get twisted and used against him. Hope I'm wrong though.

Thanks Mr. Six posts.

[Jeremy]

YouTube please

[cmasslibertarian]

Thanks Mr. Six posts.

no need to be a dick

[driege]

Thanks Mr. Six posts.

You're better than judging someone by their number of posts, especially when all they did was express concern about one of the candidates we all support.

[Schmitto2121]

no need to be a dick

Agreed..this is why we have a tough time converting people. What if that had been a former Grayson supporter coming to support Rand?

[new momentum]

Ha! Sorry I can't dedicate as many posts as most of you guys. I'm new to the whole liberty movement. I fully support the Pauls. I've sent money to Rand's campaign. I'm on here just trying to learn as much as I can.

[Cowlesy]

Why couldn't Rand just say "Yes" and then go on to describe why? It's not a hypothetical. Private businesses did discriminate, some continue to discriminate. The issue is whether the benefits of government intervention outweigh the precedent it sets for other intrusions into private business.

Rand could have handled this way better.

I know.

Keep in mind Rand has slept 45 minutes in the past 48 hours. He's usually quicker on his feet.

He could have explained how he and Rachel could use their free speech to combat the free speech of a restaurant owner with a segregation policy by letting people know of the policy (meaning no one would go eat at the restaurant).

It was a wonkish topic to pick at, and Rand was just too tired to volley back. I imagine he'll clear it all up shortly. Philosophical, wonkish points are tough on such a heart-string issue like racism.

[MsDoodahs]

Hi, new momentum. Some of us are a little on edge tonight.

[Schmitto2121]

Ha! Sorry I can't dedicate as many posts as most of you guys. I'm new to the whole liberty movement. I fully support the Pauls. I've sent money to Rand's campaign. I'm on here just trying to learn as much as I can.


Dont worry about it, not everyone is like that on these boards and it should not be condoned. Its the last way to keep new people in the movement.

[Epic]

Why aren't liberals for free speech / free association again?

I mean, if people can say what they want, then a natural extension of that is being able to perform voluntary exchanges with who you want.

Portions of the Civil Rights Act were blatantly unconstitutional and prohibit free association.

[hillertexas]

I think he nailed it....he never gave her what she wanted. He remained stoic and she was the only one worked up.

[BamaFanNKy]

Ha! Sorry I can't dedicate as many posts as most of you guys. I'm new to the whole liberty movement. I fully support the Pauls. I've sent money to Rand's campaign. I'm on here just trying to learn as much as I can.

Oh. Sorry my man. I'm getting tired of hearing pundits (why I changed the channel to the Lakers) saying Rand is to out of the mainstream. This is Kentucky. Those in the mainstream are the freaks in this state.

[ronpaulraps]

Rand Paul Is Not Ready For Prime Time Yet. He Needs To Study More Because Pop Ron Paul Would've Nail It

[Brett85]

Is this really going to hurt Rand in Kentucky? I'm not criticizing the people of Kentucky here, but aren't there a lot of older Democrats there who are somewhat racist?

[BenIsForRon]

This interview was a total ambush. .

No it wasn't. Maddow repeatedly said "Dr. Paul, this is an issue you will see come up again and again from your opponents". She was giving him the opportunity to clearly define his position.

It's not like if he had said "Yes", she would have said "Ok, that's all the time we have, thank you Dr. Paul". She was obviously willing to let him explain his position. He should have said "Yes, but it is then society's responsibility to boycott that business and insure it goes out of business or changes its policy."

[JamesButabi]

Those who were worried about Rand compromising his principles to appease would be very proud. I personally think he should have confronted it with explanation, but I support him for showing the historical irrelevancy of the question, and not compromising his real belief of freedom to appease the talking point.

[lx43]

Welcome to the forum New Momentum!

I'll wait to see the tube before I comment.

[BamaFanNKy]

Pike Co. in 2008 voted huge against McConnell for the Democrat. They even went bigger against Obama. That should tell you about the Kentucky democrats.

[cmasslibertarian]

Those who were worried about Rand compromising his principles to appease would be very proud. I personally think he should have confronted it with explanation, but I support him for showing the historical irrelevancy of the question, and not compromising his real belief of freedom to appease the talking point.

but if you're going to compromise on principles anywhere, i'd say that pretending to support the civil rights act would be the time to do it...

[sailingaway]

No it wasn't. Maddow repeatedly said "Dr. Paul, this is an issue you will see come up again and again from your opponents". She was giving him the opportunity to clearly define his position.

It's not like if he had said "Yes", she would have said "Ok, that's all the time we have, thank you Dr. Paul". She was obviously willing to let him explain his position. He should have said "Yes, but it is then society's responsibility to boycott that business and insure it goes out of business or changes its policy."

I agree kind of. He could send her the Courier Journal interview. She would not have phrased what he said as they did. However, he was the one under the gun, not us. We know what he means.

To someone above saying 'won't he be fine because kentucky is kind of racist', (paraphrase) that isn't it at all. The older folks grew up knowing that sort of freedom to serve whom you want was a private property issue. The 1960s wasn't before all of them were born, and that sort of government intrusion when first allowed went against all prior teachings on the limits of the federal government. Rand is saying what they grew up with as a matter of Constitutional law, not a matter of racism.

[BenIsForRon]

but I support him for showing the historical irrelevancy of the question, .

It wasn't historically irrelevant. There were many southern businesses that did not serve blacks, and there are still many today that don't (a country club near me wouldn't give Michael Jordan a membership because he was black). So it is a question that at least deserves a straight answer.

Rand needs to refine his strategy in dealing with these complex issues.

[mello]

Well that was brutal. You know that on just a theoretical argument Rand would have
said yes on first amendment grounds that a private business could be racist assholes
but that would be political suicide. Rand wouldn't support those racist businesses but
when you believe in the constitution you know that it protects the rights of everyone
including racist douche bags.

What makes this interview complete bullshit is that this all a theoretical argument
about 40-year old legislation. It's not like Rand or anyone else in their right mind is going to
introduce new legislation to remove the 10th part of the Civil Rights Act. He wants to
introduce laws like a balanced budget amendment, term limits, & etc. By introducing
this esoteric topic though it ends up being a negative talking point for his opponent to
repeatedly focus on due to Rand's belief that the first amendment protects everyone
from Rachel Maddow, climate deniers, anarchists, racists, & etc.

They did the same thing to his father during the presidential campaign when he was
asked that theoretical question about the Civil War.

[new momentum]

Definately, I'm proud of him for sticking to his principles. To me, it was almost like Maddow was trying to get him to flip-flop. I like Maddow overall. She's been pretty cool with Ron.

[itshappening]

Rand's answer to ANY question about the civil rights act:

"I prefer to discuss the debt and our fiscal issues, did you know that.... "

talk about something else. dont even address it. these people aren't interested in coherent answers and it's not a campaign issue so why trip yourself up

[AuH20]

Well that was brutal. You know that on just a theoretical argument Rand would have
said yes on first amendment grounds that a private business could be racist assholes
but that would be political suicide. Rand wouldn't support those racist businesses but
when you believe in the constitution you know that it protects the rights of everyone
including racist douche bags.

What makes this interview complete bullshit is that this all a theoretical argument
about 40-year old legislation. It's not like Rand or anyone else in their right mind is going to
introduce new legislation to remove the 10th part of the Civil Rights Act. He wants to
introduce laws like a balanced budget amendment, term limits, & etc. By introducing
this esoteric topic though it ends up being a negative talking point for his opponent to
repeatedly focus on due to Rand's belief that the first amendment protects everyone
from Rachel Maddow, climate deniers, anarchists, racists, & etc.

They did the same thing to his father during the presidential campaign when he was
asked that theoretical question about the Civil War.

That's exactly was she was digging for. An affirmative on letting racists do as they please, which would be played ad nauseum throughout the Kentucky airwaves. He did an admirable job fleshing out his argument under the circumstances.

[Cowlesy]

Remember that Rand said about eight times that he abhors racism and supported the use of laws to ban institutionalized racism.

So if anyone out there calls hims a racist, they're being dishonest.

Make the argument about property rights into a teaching moment, and how free speech can be use to penalize those who have such nasty policies.

[BamaFanNKy]

It wasn't historically irrelevant. There were many southern businesses that did not serve blacks, and there are still many today that don't (a country club near me wouldn't give Michael Jordan a membership because he was black). So it is a question that at least deserves a straight answer.

Rand needs to refine his strategy in dealing with these complex issues.

You just made the point that the legislation didn't do dick.

YouTube - Malcolm X Exposes White Liberal Jews (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp1yfWT9d6M)

[itshappening]

Remember that Rand said about eight times that he abhors racism and supported the use of laws to ban institutionalized racism.

So if anyone out there calls hims a racist, they're being dishonest.

Make the argument about property rights into a teaching moment, and how free speech can be use to penalize those who have such nasty policies.

why even bother? it's nonsense.

Rand should just change the subject and ramble on about the debt. dont even address it. cable shows are limited for time and if he changes the subject and rambles on about the debt, finishes his point then the host has to move on, if she badgers him he can continue to talk about the debt or something else. dont even engage, steer the interview until time has ran out

it is stupid to get involved in a technical or theorectical artgument, change the subject and talk about something relevant to the election and the campaign

If Maddow asked me about the civil rights act i'd respond :

"You know what Rachel, I think what's more relevant today is the rights of those Afghans who are being assassinated by drones ordered by Obama, will you join me Rachel in condemning these drone attacks and will you be prepared to ask the tough questions of the president?"

[JamesButabi]

Make the argument about property rights into a teaching moment, and how free speech can be use to penalize those who have such nasty policies.

EXACTLY....they do this so effectively on Free Talk Live. I remember the other day this exact topic came up. They were telling the woman "Wouldn't you want to know if the business you were supporting was being run by bigots? Thats not the type of business I want to support, and I would never know that guy was a bigot unless he had the freedom to express it!"

[BenIsForRon]

You just made the point that the legislation didn't do dick.

I never said it did, I'm saying that it did have a reason for being there. People were tired of being treated as subhuman when they went to get a sandwich. Forcing private business to comply with the Civil Rights Act was their way of dealing with it.

They should have focused on public institutions, and I think the private problems would have faded over time. Besides, as Rand said, it sets bad precedent.

[pacelli]

Ha! Sorry I can't dedicate as many posts as most of you guys. I'm new to the whole liberty movement. I fully support the Pauls. I've sent money to Rand's campaign. I'm on here just trying to learn as much as I can.

Welcome. Post count means nothing.

[angelatc]

Ha! Sorry I can't dedicate as many posts as most of you guys. I'm new to the whole liberty movement. I fully support the Pauls. I've sent money to Rand's campaign. I'm on here just trying to learn as much as I can.

Welcome!

[itshappening]

Make the argument about whether Maddow supports Obama's drone attack policy, TURN IT ON THEM , dont address civil rights questions (memo to David Adams and the Rand Paul campaign)

do not get into technical dicussions on this, ask the hosts if they support drone attacks instead

[AuH20]

The vultures are circling. A victory will be all the sweeter:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2010/05/19/rachel_maddow_demolishes_rand_paul

Also, did I tell you that I really really loathe progressives:D?

[DeadheadForPaul]

Man, I am just sick to my stomach over this one

Do you know how embarrassing it is for everyone you know to KNOW that you are a HARDCORE Rand supporter and then this hits the cable media

ugh

Already seen a few "Rand Paul opposes civil rights?" tweets and facebook status updates. I'm going to wait till Rand comes up with a solid, frequent response before posting it

I have personally asked in the main forum about how we would end segregation without federal intervention and really haven't been impressed with the answers

This goes even farther than that though - it's not a matter of pragmatism...it's charges of racism

shameless and yet, when I heard that part of the CJ interview, I knew it was coming sooner or later

[AuH20]

Man, I am just sick to my stomach over this one

Do you know how embarrassing it is for everyone you know to KNOW that you are a HARDCORE Rand supporter and then this hits the cable media

ugh

Already seen a few "Rand Paul opposes civil rights?" tweets and facebook status updates. I'm going to wait till Rand comes up with a solid, frequent response before posting it

I have personally asked in the main forum about how we would end segregation without federal intervention and really haven't been impressed with the answers

This goes even farther than that though - it's not a matter of pragmatism...it's charges of racism

shameless and yet, when I heard that part of the CJ interview, I knew it was coming sooner or later

Don't take it so personally. This is how the game has always been played.

[Romulus]

I would dodge the question or issue.. face it head on and dumb it down.

I liked MRocked suggestion.. free speech can be racist, no one supports that, but we must have that right in a free society.

[rprprs]

For what it's worth, this little anecdotal tidbit:

My neighbor, who is the epitome of a "bleeding-heart liberal", just called me on the phone. She was not at all familiar with Rand, and her first real introduction was tonight on the Maddow show. Believe it or not, she called to tell me how impressed she was and thought he sounded "brilliant" (her word). Overall, she thought it was a great interview until the end, and then blamed Maddow for turning it sour. I did not see the show, but from what I read here, I certainly would not have expected that type of reaction. I was amazed.

[mello]

Remember that Rand said about eight times that he abhors racism and supported the use of laws to ban institutionalized racism.

So if anyone out there calls hims a racist, they're being dishonest.

Make the argument about property rights into a teaching moment, and how free speech can be use to penalize those who have such nasty policies.

He could have said something like:

"Rachel, I know what you want me to say but it would be political suicide that would
be repeatedly run in commercials by my opponent. If I win the election, I will put my
hand on the bible during the inauguration & swear an oath to uphold & protect the
constitution. As abhorrent as racists are I am not going to be like most politicians that
pick & chooses only the parts of the constitution that they agree with. But this is just
a theoretical argument that doesn't actually matter since I along with every other
politician have no plans to ever amend the Civil Right Act today or in the future."

[DeadheadForPaul]

Don't take it so personally. This is how the game has always been played.

Yeah I know

It's just that I run in very culturally and racially diverse circles

I've managed to convince people that our movement is in no way racist (despite MSM claims) but this really set it back

What a terrible thing that such an outdated non-issue is issue #1

We'll recover

Chris Matthews, Kos, Olbermann, and DU are all snakes

[RP Supporter]

Overall I think Paul did a good job under the circumstances. The one thing I disliked was his constant bringing up of the guns in restaurants argument when Maddow pressed him on lunch counters. He could have maybe explained that better, or thought of a better example. to me that was the one weak part of the arguement.

Still, this whole fixation on Rand's views on the Civil Rights act is mixed. I suspect Conway's going to focus most of his campaign attacks on Paul using this as a theme. This is bad news if it resonates with voters, but I don't think and I hope, that it will not. In the year 2010, in this bad economy, if Conway wants to run a campaign on the merits of a law that was passed when Rand was a little kid, I say let him. Rand will have plenty of time to explain that he's not a racist and that he merely favors allowing tax paying owners of their businesses to do whatever they want with their own businesses. And more importantly, Rand can attack Conway for his plan for amnesty, his support of cap and trade, and his embrace of president Obama and the healthcare bill. By pointing out that these policies would actually hurt all Kentuckians, Black and White, more then some fearmongering over a law that was already passed 50 years ago, Paul will hopefully able to defeat Conway, even if the national media insists on trying to turn this into a discussion of racism.

[Mini-Me]

For what it's worth, this little anecdotal tidbit:

My neighbor, who is the epitome of a "bleeding-heart liberal", just called me on the phone. She was not at all familiar with Rand, and her first real introduction was tonight on the Maddow show. Believe it or not, she called to tell me how impressed she was and thought he sounded "brilliant" (her word). Overall, she thought it was a great interview until the end, and then blamed Maddow for turning it sour. I did not see the show, but from what I read here, I certainly would not have expected that type of reaction. I was amazed.

This is heartening. :)

You know, I think sometimes we get so used to liberal pundits and Internet liberals - the really hardcore death adders looking to ensnare prey - that we forget that real-life liberals are not so partisan and deliberately malicious about smearing anyone they disagree with. The same goes for real-life conservatives vs. Hannity and NoLibertartians on digg. ;)

[BenIsForRon]

Overall, I see this as more of a missed opportunity than a gaff. Rand could have strongly stood on his principles, then hopefully move on to another topic.

[SilentBull]

I'm watching the interview right now, and I have to say... I think Rand Paul did an excellent job explaining his position!

[trey4sports]

rand did a GREAT job.

He did something his father wouldn't have, yet stayed true to principal.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Hmmm well maybe it's because I agree with him but that interview didn't go as bad as I thought

Then again, that won't stop the 30 second attack ads, whisper campaign, and racist/kooky tag added to Rand by pundits

[mello]

Or he could have said something like:

"Rachel, I know what you want me to say but my position about this is irrelevant since I
nor any other politician plans to amend the Civil Rights Act. What this reminds me of though
is my father's 2008 presidential campaign. The mainstream media was desperate to find
something negative about my father but since he's been voting with the constitution as
his guide for over 30 years they asked him a theoretical position about the Civil War.
Now my father doesn't have access to a time machine so he can't affect what happened
over 130 years ago but his theoretical response was one of the few things that the
mainstream media repeatedly showed to his detriment. So if you don't mind I'd like to
talk about issues that America is dealing with today that I actually have plans to change
or improve upon."

[BamaFanNKy]

Hmmm well maybe it's because I agree with him but that interview didn't go as bad as I thought

Then again, that won't stop the 30 second attack ads, whisper campaign, and racist/kooky tag added to Rand by pundits

The attack ads would not have his voice. He didn't give a sound bite.

[MsDoodahs]

Hmmm well maybe it's because I agree with him but that interview didn't go as bad as I thought

Then again, that won't stop the 30 second attack ads, whisper campaign, and racist/kooky tag added to Rand by pundits

Still haven't watched it - I may not. But I'm feeling a little better about it as some of y'all are saying it was NOT the horrible thing I imagined at first, lol.

And the 30 second attack ads, whisper campaign, and racist/kooky tag added by the pundits was going to happen REGARDLESS of what Rand did/does.

[CheezItsRule]

He did Ok in this interview. He lacked spark but I think it was because he was exhausted.
By the way people were talking, I had a Medina-Beck flashback for a moment.
We still got a ways to go and as long as Rand has the funding and makes the effort to reach out to the people of Kentucky like he has done in the primary, he'll win this thing.
If KY Dems are anything like WV dems, this will be a non-issue.
Rand can clarify that he is not a racist and doesn't believe in discrimination if he needs to but if he sticks to the issues & plays the 'non politician' card, he'll be our next senator from Kentucky.
My .02... FWIW.

[MsDoodahs]

Welcome and great first post.

:)

[CheezItsRule]

Thank you, MsDoodahs.
I was scared to watch it, too. But Rand did a good job at defending himself. Rachel was the one who was getting hot and flustered because she couldn't corner him on it. Our man is like Muhammed Ali...what else can I say?;)

[BamaFanNKy]

Remember, mainly the people watching Maddow are progressives from the coast. Not really the dems and independents we are looking for.

[obijuan]

I'm frankly glad that the issue came up now. It gives the campaign five months to put it to rest. I don't think it will take that long, actually. I have the utmost confidence in Rand's ability to communicate effectively, and I think he will do so once he gets some sleep.

I think it would be much worse for it to come up the last week in October. But that's just me.

[SimpleName]

OUCH! That was really tough to sit through. It was a train wreck. Rand refused to answer any question without an abstraction. Rand lost quite a few potential supporters. He sounded just like every other politician, avoiding the tougher questions. He had 10 minutes to explain the ideology, but instead repeated the same thing over and over. He got in a few good points. But in the bigger scope of things, I can't imagine the average person understanding what was going on. Ugh...I'm disgusted. Both at Rand's strategy and the idiocy of Americans who surely won't understand what Rand is saying.

[..PAUL4PRES..]

Do you all realize how much attention this is going to bring to Paul. People will want to know what he thinks about it and will listen to his logic and position. I think it will have good results. The Paul's are not dumb. I believe they know EXACTLY what they are doing.

[DeadheadForPaul]

I'm frankly glad that the issue came up now. It gives the campaign five months to put it to rest. I don't think it will take that long, actually. I have the utmost confidence in Rand's ability to communicate effectively, and I think he will do so once he gets some sleep.

I think it would be much worse for it to come up the last week in October. But that's just me.

I agree 100%

They will drop some bomb right before the election, I'm sure but thankfully it wasn't this one

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Does Rand Paul really want to throw away a winnable race by running against popular things like the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

The vultures are circling. A victory will be all the sweeter:

hXXp://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2010/05/19/rachel_maddow_demolishes_rand_paul

Also, did I tell you that I really really loathe progressives:D?

LOL. Salon, DU, Daily Kos....all the right enemies. Kentucky has no use for any of them or Obama.

It sure didn't take the DSCC long to pull out the race card.

[silverhandorder]

Does Rand Paul really want to throw away a winnable race by running against popular things like the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act?

He is not running against them. We had a ton of purists here spasing during the Rep primary we got that put down. Now running away is not an option, you fight and frame debate.

[TER]

Does Rand Paul really want to throw away a winnable race by running against popular things like the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act?

If it looks like Rand Paul is running against the Civil Rights Act and the American with Disabilities Act, its because that's what his enemies want him to do. Rand needs some rest, he needs to talk to his father, he needs to go on one 1 or 2 more major news shows to finally explain his position in a better way- that he is NOT a racist but rather a defender of property rights and freedom, and then take a break from these shows and start focusing on his strategy to win the hearts and minds of Kentucky voters.

He needs to pray some more too if he hasn't been doing it much lately.

[Cynanthrope]

Oh boy.

I think Rand should've said that he'd modify the CRA & ADA instead of opposing them but I doubt that anyone could've seen those issues coming.

Rand needs all the financial and political support he can get because it's going to be an UPHILL battle.

[7402]

I too oppose all so-called "Civil Rights" legislation that violates an individual's right to include or exclude whomever he desires, as rationally or irrationally as he desires. Maddow cannot claim to support "minority rights" while at the same time upholding the violation of individual rights (for all the reasons the Rand of the Ayn variety explained.) I'm glad Rand Paul took the right stand on this issue. If he gets damned, let it be for standing up for justice, peace, and property rights. Don't apologize or back down Rand! We all need to go out on Facebook, Twitter, comments sections, emails, call-ins, and letters and have Rand's back.

[bchavez]

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2010/05/19/rachel_maddow_demolishes_rand_paul

video at end.... rand did OK... but it would be nice if he gave a straight answer... OR counter it with a different question, like he did with guns... but more of a stronger counter question.

[CUnknown]

Does Rand Paul really want to throw away a winnable race by running against popular things like the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act?

The thing is, this is at the core of our philosophy. Rachel was defending big government. She says big government is necessary, even, because without it people would be beaten at lunch counters. He can't compromise on this, it is absolutely at the core of everything. Private property v government-owned property. Individual rights v government control.

And besides, it is not his choice to bring these issues up, remember. Would you have him say that, yes, he supports government intrusion into private property? Completely give up on libertarianism?

I have to admit being a liberal libertarian and not entirely sure of where I stand on this issue in all cases. But I do know that if the champion of this ideology suddenly caves, that he might as well cave on other things too. Why not have him become a socialist if that's what's popular?

Don't we believe that freedom is popular? Do we? If that's true, than he did the right thing here.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Don't we believe that freedom is popular? Do we? If that's true, than he did the right thing here.

The problem is, 90% of people think that bill expanded freedom.

[devil21]

Who cares what MSNBC viewers think? Maddow isn't a KY household name so who gives a shit. It's her job to make him look like a racist to the NY liberals who will donate to his opponent, whether it's intellectually dishonest or not. And for the record, I can't see KY voters really caring if some uber liberal doesn't like that Rand isn't 100% about forcing private property owners to kowtow to special interests. Only HuffPo and their ilk care about that nonsense. A big nothing burger for the voters that matter.

[DeadheadForPaul]

You guys realize that the average voter is easily influenced, right?

This is BAD for us

[CUnknown]

The problem is, 90% of people think that bill expanded freedom.

I know it's an uphill battle. But would you really have him compromise on big government? Even if that is the tactically correct thing to do, I don't think Rand is capable of something like that. He is too principled.


DeadheadforPaul:

You guys realize that the average voter is easily influenced, right?

This is BAD for us

Yes, it really is. :( We need to support Rand more than ever, because this is all we're going to be hearing from here on out.

[Natalie]

I don't think it is bad. I was just in the political section on yahoo answers. Some people tried to ask questions associating Rand with being a racist, and I was surprised to see most of the answers defending him. See here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100519202148AAE7rZR&r=w&pa=EJFyD3bpBV_MdvjDf6rs4yNhVD5ORVvvoEtYdCZXsTXy9fU sE7i9168KGw--&paid=deleted_answer#answers

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100519204132AA6uSvt&r=w&pa=EJFyD3bpBV_MdvjDf6rs4yNhVD5ORVrmLGAVJY3WC09ifmD UMWNyai0KOQ--&paid=deleted_answer#answers

[devil21]

You guys realize that the average voter is easily influenced, right?

This is BAD for us

The "average voter" isn't watching MSNBC. As if anyone is surprised that the libs are already trying to label Rand as a racist Tea Party type. That's all they've done to EVERY person that doesn't kiss Obama's ass since he was elected. It's old hat by now and Rand is way too smart for it to matter in the long run. There's a long time left before the general election and Rand will steer clear of the racism memes from here on out. Hell, I'd tell MSNBC to fuck off from here on out. They don't deserve the ratings if they aren't going to be intellectually honest about their questioning. There's no law that says Rand has to go on their partisan channel and get set up with gotcha questions week after week.

[BamaFanNKy]

Just a reminder of 2008 Kentucky results:
McCain 1,048,462 58%
Obama 751,985 41%

[The Patriot]

The "average voter" isn't watching MSNBC. As if anyone is surprised that the libs are already trying to label Rand as a racist Tea Party type. That's all they've done to EVERY person that doesn't kiss Obama's ass since he was elected. It's old hat by now and Rand is way too smart for it to matter in the long run. There's a long time left before the general election and Rand will steer clear of the racism memes from here on out. Hell, I'd tell MSNBC to fuck off from here on out. They don't deserve the ratings if they aren't going to be intellectually honest about their questioning. There's no law that says Rand has to go on their partisan channel and get set up with gotcha questions week after week.

I think they ought to have Rand do the Fox News Circuit the solidify republican, independent, and conservative democrat support in KY. Have him go on friendly shows like Hannity, Beck, Huckabee, Van Sustren, O'Reilly(I thought O'Reilly gave a tough but fair interview and Rand did well), and Fox News Sunday with Wallace. He can stay away from the GE subsidiaries known as PMSNBC and NBC(unless they are local KY affiliates).

[sailingaway]

I don't think it is bad. I was just in the political section on yahoo answers. Some people tried to ask questions associating Rand with being a racist, and I was surprised to see most of the answers defending him. See here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100519202148AAE7rZR&r=w&pa=EJFyD3bpBV_MdvjDf6rs4yNhVD5ORVvvoEtYdCZXsTXy9fU sE7i9168KGw--&paid=deleted_answer#answers

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100519204132AA6uSvt&r=w&pa=EJFyD3bpBV_MdvjDf6rs4yNhVD5ORVrmLGAVJY3WC09ifmD UMWNyai0KOQ--&paid=deleted_answer#answers

Natalie, a large contingent on Y/A love Ron, and either love, or want to love, Rand.

[TXcarlosTX]

Rand Paul is da fuckn man!!!!!

I think he did great!!!

Bringing up the gun point was perfect!!!
Ron always brings up the principal about
people doing whatever ever people want in
their homes should be the same for property.
And that always made sence to me.
But im a Ron Paul voter so I get it.
Bringing up the gun issue makes alot of sence
in regular peoples mind.

Trust me!!

He did badass!!

[Jeremy]

Rand Paul is da fuckn man!!!!!

I think he did great!!!

Bringing up the gun point was perfect!!!
Ron always brings up the principal about
people doing whatever ever people want in
their homes should be the same for property.
And that always made sence to me.
But im a Ron Paul voter so I get it.
Bringing up the gun issue makes alot of sence
in regular peoples mind.

Trust me!!

He did badass!!

Yeah but now some leftists are saying he thinks African Americans are the same as inanimate objects.... WTF...

[0zzy]

I'm sick reading these comments, and I don't want to watch the video, 20minutes about the civil rights act? aghhhh sickening.

but I have to watch it :[.

[BamaFanNKy]

Here it is in an ad. Just replace Goldwater with Paul.
YouTube - Lyndon B Johnson 1964 TV Ad - LBJ Goldwater KKK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWusOhZpq7w)

[LibertyMage]

I think he handled that perfectly.

[The Patriot]

Here it is in an ad. Just replace Goldwater with Paul.
YouTube - Lyndon B Johnson 1964 TV Ad - LBJ Goldwater KKK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWusOhZpq7w)

The funny thing is, Goldwater was of Jewish descent, shows how much of a liar and distorter Johnson was, along with the infamous nuclear bomb ad.

[AuH20]

Here it is in an ad. Just replace Goldwater with Paul.
YouTube - Lyndon B Johnson 1964 TV Ad - LBJ Goldwater KKK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWusOhZpq7w)

It's literally a replay of the '64 election. The same despicable tactics are being used when they face off against another constitutional conservative. They simply select the controversial topic, extract the answer and send it through the echo chamber of the MSM. They went nuts when Barry opposed titles 2 and 7 of the Civil Rights Act. When he suggested that Social Security should be voluntary, the media created mass hysteria as well. It's funny that to a man, many liberals to this day confess that LBJ was a tyrant, and Barry should have been president.

[Jeremy]

Wow, a 20 second ad! And I thought keeping it down to 30 was hard...

[squarepusher]

wow, Rand had an amazing conversation about race, which is ironic since nothing nearly as substantive has come out of Obama, which is supposed to be the "race candidate."

Maddow tried to nail him with a "yes or no" answer so she could plasters a 3 second clip on every blog and youtube channel on the web, and he fought very well.

he did very well, I am pumped on Rand now! Randslide!

[TXcarlosTX]

I just used the rands gun point on this on my liberal father
and he had no defense. it was clear to him. rand just took this
conversation to the next level. the senate level that is. ron was never
ready for primetime like rand on this issue. tomorrow i hope everyone
defends paul with their local radio talk shows. i will.

[0zzy]

wow, Rand had an amazing conversation about race, which is ironic since nothing nearly as substantive has come out of Obama, which is supposed to be the "race candidate."

Maddow tried to nail him with a "yes or no" answer so she could plasters a 3 second clip on every blog and youtube channel on the web, and he fought very well.

he did very well, I am pumped on Rand now! Randslide!

I agree. he won't allow soundbytes. When they used the recordings from the Courier journal he didn't even sound bad.

I think he did a great job but I'm sick that this is such an issue. IT IS HYPOTHETICAL. THIS IS 2010 DAMN IT NOT 1964! Why the hell is this being brought up? He never said he was going to repeal this at all.

[mello]

Some of the posts here say that this interview won't matter because Maddow doesn't have a large
audience but that won't stop Rand's opponent from using a snippet of this interview for negative
campaign ads that would be run on a loop 'til November.

[BamaFanNKy]

Some of the posts here say that this interview won't matter because Maddow doesn't have a large
audience but that won't stop Rand's opponent from using a snippet of this interview for negative
campaign ads that would be run on a loop 'til November.

Which Snippet? He never gives a sound bite.

Also, is Hot Topics broken?

[TheFlashlight.org]

Yeah, I'm kinda upset about this, but I know it happened at the best time possible, the furthest possible day from the election. Rand did great, and I expect it'll be water under the bridge.

Kinda surprised they did this so early. they must think that that's their ONLY hope, destroy him with nuclear bombs on day one after getting no sleep, or else he's basically won and they're screwed cause he's a juggernaut of liberty who appears to be invincible. He certainly comes off as rather innocent and sincere. I think people will see his goodness and realness shining through.

This will be an attack ad though. Conway's fairly opportunistic, being a slimeball attorney career politician and all. It's possible. Won't give em any specific ideas. I've done some reasearch on Jack. He's the perfect establishment asset, bland on the surface, and keeps the raunchy scum totally hidden. Do we miss Greyson yet?

[RM918]

Oh no, we get close to a big success and all of a sudden some interviewer asks some absurd question having nothing-to-do-with-anything except old theory, and they're painted as a wacko! What is this, the 5th motherfucking time? You'd think we'd get the goddamn idea. Rand's made a number of concessions to water down pure libertarian ideology like Guantanamo and military tribunals, but he couldn't just do the same with Civil Rights when it was pretty obvious what they were trying to do? I'm hoping this doesn't turn out bad, but one thing I've learned since skewing libertarian is that the people in this country are goddamn stupid. My pessimism reaches sky-high levels with every day.

[0zzy]

Oh no, we get close to a big success and all of a sudden some interviewer asks some absurd question having nothing-to-do-with-anything except old theory, and they're painted as a wacko! What is this, the 5th motherfucking time? You'd think we'd get the goddamn idea.

:,( I can't read the internet comments on this anymore from non-RPFers. makes me sick.

[Bman]

I hope the Dems try to use this as an attack. I think Rand stuck this one in Rachel's face and said "how did that smell!?!"

It's a simple question. (Not the one Rachel was asking, which Rand answered fairly early on, just not with the words Rachel wanted.)

Who owns you and your property? Do you own yourself and your property or does the government own you?

If the Dems want to go down this road I don't think the term Randslide will be powerful enough to explain what happened.


Lets take the Dem argument to extreme's as they were trying to do to Rand.

If a person at a steak house decides to stab someone with a steak knife should we prevent restaurants from using silverware. Would you then prefer that they use plastic ware. Of course this cannot be acceptable to Dems because platic ware comes in various colors and could incite racial tensions, lets also not forget that you need petrol to make plastic. So now government mandates that you have to eat with your hands. Someone could get smashed with a plate or slammed into a table better get rid of those also. Hell, someone could grab someone, drag them into the kitchen and burn them to death on the grill.

So we are left with the final option which is a government mandate to outlaw all restaurants.

You see. Socialism wins!!! Now you get to eat at home every night!!! :eek:

[TigerPrwn]

I think Rand Paul did extremely well. He refused to be taken by a census worker on his own property. lol. He refused to be backed in to a corner. I am a tad bit stunned at RM, I thought she'd be okay. I'm sure this is one reason Rand picked her show knowing full well that he would be dead tired, and not at his best.

Regardless, Rand should challenge her to read the Civil Rights Act. She obviously had NO CLUE about it, but "pulled it off". I'm sure she will read up on it, but no amount of Keynesian bs will give her the knowledge she will need if she TRULY means that she is "leading the challenge" on the punting of midgets. :D

[RM918]

I think Rand Paul did extremely well. He refused to be taken by a census worker on his own property. lol. He refused to be backed in to a corner. I am a tad bit stunned at RM, I thought she'd be okay. I'm sure this is one reason Rand picked her show knowing full well that he would be dead tired, and not at his best.

Regardless, Rand should challenge her to read the Civil Rights Act. She obviously had NO CLUE about it, but "pulled it off". I'm sure she will read up on it, but no amount of Keynesian bs will give her the knowledge she will need if she TRULY means that she is "leading the challenge" on the punting of midgets. :D

This torpedo interview tactic, talking about some controversial libertarian position that takes deep thought to understand the reasoning of (Which is something you won't get in a world of political sound-bytes and vague emotional outreach) and targeting one of our people for either 'waffling' or being honest, has been going on for as long as we've been around. How long are we going to keep falling for it?

[TigerPrwn]

This torpedo interview tactic, talking about some controversial libertarian position that takes deep thought to understand the reasoning of (Which is something you won't get in a world of political sound-bytes and vague emotional outreach) and targeting one of our people for either 'waffling' or being honest, has been going on for as long as we've been around. How long are we going to keep falling for it?

well, if it makes you feel any better, I am "new" around here. I fell for it no less than 3 years ago. :)
I pretty much see right through it now. That is the glory, imo, if you have lived in the dark, your eyes get used to it, and when you are given a tad bit of light, you suddenly realize that you have been given predator eyes. :)

[runningdiz]

Ugh.....
Like Rand I need some sleep. I believe he will be able to handle this gracefully in the future when he thinks it through more and comes up with better examples to express his point. Too many people are having knee jerk reactions on here. this is not the end of the world.

[TigerPrwn]

Ugh.....
Like Rand I need some sleep. I believe he will be able to handle this gracefully in the future when he thinks it through more and comes up with better examples to express his point. Too many people are having knee jerk reactions on here. this is not the end of the world.

I think he did fine.
The people who will discount this, will ALWAYS discount this. The people who listened, will listen again. It doesn't matter if Rand was tired, he still did just great. I am PROUD of him for REFUSING to turn a debate in to a yes no question. This is what Charlotte Iserbyt has written about AT LENGTH in her book "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America".

[RM918]

well, if it makes you feel any better, I am "new" around here. I fell for it no less than 3 years ago. :)
I pretty much see right through it now. That is the glory, imo, if you have lived in the dark, your eyes get used to it, and when you are given a tad bit of light, you suddenly realize that you have been given predator eyes. :)

Unfortunately the majority of people don't see through it, they don't pay enough attention. It's like watching Wile. E. Coyote repeatedly falling off the same cliff, except it's not very funny when he's the only one trying to defend your future and your family's futures.

[TigerPrwn]

Unfortunately the majority of people don't see through it, they don't pay enough attention. It's like watching Wile. E. Coyote repeatedly falling off the same cliff, except it's not very funny when he's the only one trying to defend your future and your family's futures.

I can't agree. I feel that the American People have the potential. I have endless hope. How can I have hope for myself, being "newly awakenened" if I can't have hope for others?
It's impossible.


How about stop treating Americans like they are dumb and they might stop acting like they are dumb?

[axiomata]

Looks like he's going to need some talking points on this issue.

Next time he should ask his interviewer if he/she supports federal prohibition of ladies night at bars and senior pricing on menus.

[TigerPrwn]

Looks like he's going to need some talking points on this issue.

Next time he should ask his interviewer if he/she supports federal prohibition of ladies night at bars and senior pricing on menus.

That is ridiculous. QUOTAS ARE RACIST. PERIOD.
we are talking COP QUOTAS, RACE QUOTAS, all QUOTAS, they are inherently RACIST and most Americans know this.

Quotas suck and they remind me of that creature stiking out that belly that Ahhhhnold was trying to save.
QWWWWWAYYYYYDDDD!

[itshappening]

Remember Grayson tried to focus the election on national security - another largely irrelevant issue this time around - and he failed miserably, just like the dems will if they make this about the civil rights act.

Honestly, this is not what voters want to hear, they want to hear about the issues that affect them. look at the polling and the top issues are the debt, healthcare, immigration all of which Conway fails big time on and if Rand works hard on those issues the people will ignore the civil rights act distorted attacks just like they did with over $3 million of attacks from Grayson and co. on national security

[TigerPrwn]

Remember Grayson tried to focus the election on national security - another largely irrelevant issue this time around - and he failed miserably, just like the dems will if they make this about the civil rights act.

Honestly, this is not what voters want to hear, they want to hear about the issues that affect them. look at the polling and the top issues are the debt, healthcare, immigration all of which Conway fails big time on and if Rand works hard on those issues the people will ignore the civil rights act distorted attacks just like they did with over $3 million of attacks from Grayson and co. on national security

true, much ado about nothing, but it is my argument that Rand shouldn't underestimate people. IMO, he has done NOTHING to prove that he has, he is CONFUSING peole with the ISSUES rather than the INCONSISTENCIES, this is what people like Rachel Maddow are having a problem with. i welcome it with open arms.

[itshappening]

From a Hotair commenter on CRA:

The correct answer was “I realize you work for the government news organ and may not have heard this yet, but the Civil Rights Act passed like 45 years ago when I was about 10. Has NPR ever asked Senior Democratic Senator and former Klansmen Robert Byrd why he actually personally voted against & filibustered the CRA?



Rand should definitely use that Byrd point if he asked about it by liberal journalists