Morning Joe taking a step back away from Rand Paul

[orenbus]

Scarbarough before basically said and I'm paraphrasing, "he thought Rand Paul was his kind of candidate, but if he (Rand) can't in the year 2010 answer clearly saying "no" to a question being asked about against businesses turning down individuals from their lunch counters based on the color of their skin then we have a problem.

Rand Paul can't seem to give a straight answer to the question of whether he would have voted for the Civil Rights act and in a political campaign that is a very basic mistake, it's the type of mistake a student would make in a debate club and get put in a corner.

Yesterday I was saying Kentucky was a clear cut win for the Republicans but now this has turned into a battle that will be fueled like in AZ about race/discrimination issues of the worst kind."

Video to come...

[itshappening]

He answered the question but he's not going to give a yes or no answer which can be played as a soundbite

MSNBC are playing games, forget them

When the issues that are on the voters mind (hint: it's not Civil rights act or national security despite what opponents want) come to the fore Conway will be the one in trouble

[pacelli]

I'm sure it is just a coincidence that Maddow played the same bullshit last night on the same network.

I expect other networks to follow the agenda.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Good going here, Rand...

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The Civil Rights act was wrong. We already had anti-crime laws, the Civil Rights act was a symbolic gesture, and nothing more. I haven't read it, but I can tell you that it was bs. No one race should have a "civil rights act," because all races should be treated as equals. It's like hate crime legislation. It gives one class more rights than other classes, it's simply not right.

[Bman]

Fuck these guys. They know it's a principled stance and like always they are trying to play the race card. One can only hope that minorities start to realize that the Democratic party is no friends of theirs.

Democrats: keeping the flames of racism burning strong since 1828!

and fuck Joe for playing along with this liberal nonsense. He knows the argument and could say he disagree's but to try and play it as a race issue is complete intellectual dishonesty.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

That's why Joe is on MSNBC. He has to suck the [insert here] of his libtard bosses. It's totally in the job description and not beneath him to do so.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The civil rights and disabilities acts are monumental infringements on private property ownership under the commerce clause. If Rand backs down and we get our ass kicked in the private property philosophical debate it is going to be a major setback to the liberty cause.

Private property is a cornerstone of liberty.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

One thing to keep in mind: Kentucky is 92% white. It's not the most susceptible state to desperate race card tactics.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The civil rights and disabilities acts are monumental infringements on private property ownership under the commerce clause. If Rand backs down and we get our ass kicked in the private property philosophical debate it is going to be a major setback to the liberty cause.

Private property is a cornerstone of liberty.

Yep. Americans with Disabilities Act? ADA? Yeah, I've been talking about it for years. I am opposed to it. It's a useless thing that violates property rights .

[Bman]

The civil rights and disabilities acts are monumental infringements on private property ownership under the commerce clause. If Rand backs down and we get our ass kicked in the private property philosophical debate it is going to be a major setback to the liberty cause.

Private property is a cornerstone of liberty.

This is a very winnable fight. It's also a very important liberty issue. We just have to put the shoe on the other foot and expose the liberals for the true racists that they are, so that they dump the race issue and actually debate the philosophy.

Of course this is the problem Rand was talking about, but you have two choices at this point.

Ignore it and hope that it doesn't effect votes by that much, or take it head on.

[YumYum]

One thing to keep in mind: Kentucky is 92% white. It's not the most susceptible state to desperate race card tactics.

92% of Imus's listeners were white. We see where that got him. Rand is going to have to spend the rest of his campaign defending his "can't eat at the lunch counter" position instead of sticking to more important issues.

[sofia]

Scarborough sold out after that cute intern was found dead in his office....


something to think about

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Scarborough sold out after that cute intern was found dead in his office....


something to think about

He's a murderer.

[sailingaway]

Scarbarough before basically said and I'm paraphrasing, "he thought Rand Paul was his kind of candidate, but if he (Rand) can't in the year 2010 answer clearly saying "no" to a question being asked about against businesses turning down individuals from their lunch counters based on the color of their skin then we have a problem.

Rand Paul can't seem to give a straight answer to the question of whether he would have voted for the Civil Rights act and in a political campaign that is a very basic mistake, it's the type of mistake a student would make in a debate club and get put in a corner.

Yesterday I was saying Kentucky was a clear cut win for the Republicans but now this has turned into a battle that will be fueled like in AZ about race/discrimination issues of the worst kind."

Video to come...

That is because Scarborough is a Constitutional squish and always has been. He just likes to be on the winning side, and has been, I think, positioning HIMSELF for a run for office when the time is right.

The real culprit in this whole debate (besides the Think Progress / Move On types who started the race baiting when clearly this is not an 'agenda' item on Rand's platform?): Public schools.

[seeker4sho]

This is a very winnable fight. It's also a very important liberty issue. We just have to put the shoe on the other foot and expose the liberals for the true racists that they are, so that they dump the race issue and actually debate the philosophy.

Of course this is the problem Rand was talking about, but you have two choices at this point.

Ignore it and hope that it doesn't effect votes by that much, or take it head on.

I agree with taking this fight head on but Rand must choose the forum. He cannot go on the MSM and expect to get a fair hearing -- those folks are the enemy and his campaign will die of a thousand cuts. The attacks in the MSM will continue regardless of what Rand says or does. He must keep his campaign local and get his message out to those that will be voting in Kentucky. No doubt he will be compared with David Duke by the MSM before this is all over.

His argument is sound whereas that begs the question: How much government intrusion in private businesses and personal affairs is acceptable? He must overcome the powerful images of blacks having a sit-in at counters in restaurants during the 60s. Segregation and discrimination was correctly addressed by First Amendment rights under the Constitution. Folks have free speech and the right to boycott people and businesses they do not agree with.


That question should be put to his opponent and the local news media. He can use their answer to validate his position on the issue.

The Maddow attack on Rand was a Glenn Beck - Debra Medina moment. Rand was in a no win position because Maddow controlled the agenda. My advice is to stay the hell off these MSM shows -- these bastards are not our allies or friends. Period :mad:

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Joe also apparently said it changes the race from "leans republican" to toss-up, which shows that he doesn't know what he is talking about and MSNBC in general is full of crap. I bet this didn't change one percentage point of the electorate, despite what Joe and MSNBC wishes.

[Brett85]

It's a good thing that only 3 people watch Joe's show.

[teamrican1]

One thing to keep in mind: Kentucky is 92% white. It's not the most susceptible state to desperate race card tactics.

And Obama lost Kentucky by nearly 20 points. Let the Left drone on about this as much as they want. Left wing racial BS doesn't work in Kentucky, and will only improve Rand's standing in the polls.

[ItsTime]

Who gives a rats ass what MSNBC thinks?! Only hardcore left wing ass hats watch that channel. Lets just hope Rand learned his lesson and will be better prepared for bigger channels.

[itshappening]

92% of Imus's listeners were white. We see where that got him. Rand is going to have to spend the rest of his campaign defending his "can't eat at the lunch counter" position instead of sticking to more important issues.

No he isn't, this isnt a relevant issue. During the campaign Conway is the one who's going to have to explain being pro-Amnesty, Pro-obamacare and pro-cap and trade.

I am sure the Grayson campaign would have liked the primary voters to have looked at Rand's comments about Iran not being a threat with a nuke a bit more closely but look how that worked out

[ItsTime]

No he isn't, this isnt a relevant issue. During the campaign Conway is the one who's going to have to explain being pro-Amnesty, Pro-obamacare and pro-cap and trade.

I am sure the Grayson campaign would have liked the primary voters to have looked at Rand's comments about Iran not being a threat with a nuke a bit more closely but looked how that worked out

Question is will Conway even get as much national attention as Rand? Will anyone even tune in to watch him? And if he does, will the media actually ask him hard questions?

[MRoCkEd]

Question is will Conway even get as much national attention as Rand? Will anyone even tune in to watch him? And if he does, will the media actually ask him hard questions?
CNN and MSNBC will go all in for Conway.
Fox News will be our only hope; we need to become good friends with them.

Thankfully, way more people watch Fox.

[itshappening]

Trust me, when the focus is on Conway during the campaign he is going to be exposed, in the debates and during the actual campaign ON THE ISSUES

And yes, Rand's campaign will make sure he is given an examination if we raise enough money. Also, there will be a few outside groups like NRSC who have pledged to help expose Conway

[TheeJoeGlass]

One thing to keep in mind: Kentucky is 92% white. It's not the most susceptible state to desperate race card tactics.

I'm still holding out hope that this will help Rand in Kentucky. I have a hard time believing that the people who would vote for Rand will now change because of his theortical stance on a 1964 bill. So far the MSM has been pretty quite as only MSNBC has been running it.

[Matt Collins]

Good going here, Rand...
He had about 45 minutes of sleep that day, and not much more the day before. You might consider cutting him some slack :)

Just sayin'

[ninepointfive]

He had about 45 minutes of sleep that day, and not much more the day before. You might consider cutting him some slack :)

Just sayin'

good point. he looked tired

[teamrican1]

92% of Imus's listeners were white. We see where that got him. Rand is going to have to spend the rest of his campaign defending his "can't eat at the lunch counter" position instead of sticking to more important issues.

First, the cultural and political views of Imus' listeners and the voters of Kentucky couldn't be any more different. Second, the majority of Imus' listeners were on his side. If it came down to a vote (like it will in Kentucky), Imus would have been retained in a landslide. It was the corporate elite he works for that did Imus in. If Jack Conway thinks he's going to ride in to office on the back of his support for the 1964 Civil Rights Act he's sniffing glue. Most Kentucky voters could care less, and those that do side more with Rand on this issue than Conway.

[orenbus]

YouTube - Joe Scarborough rips into Rand Paul on his Civil Rights Act opposition (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHUykzw8060)

[jmdrake]

The Civil Rights act was wrong. We already had anti-crime laws, the Civil Rights act was a symbolic gesture, and nothing more. I haven't read it, but I can tell you that it was bs. No one race should have a "civil rights act," because all races should be treated as equals. It's like hate crime legislation. It gives one class more rights than other classes, it's simply not right.

Important part in bold. If you want to effectively argue against something you have to actually read it first. Just ask Eric Holder.

At the time the civil rights act was passed the whole fight was over having one race treated the same as the other. Decades later it's easy to forget that. In the years leading up to it's passage segregation was forced by law. Such laws had been struck down by the time of its passage through decisions like Brown v. Board. Certainly telling a business that it can't serve blacks is wrong. So is taking everybody's tax money and then saying "You can go to this school and you can't". When a city is running a business (like Montgomery was running the bus system) it can't say certain customers can sit here and other customers can't and "We're going to arrest you if you don't give up your seat".

The problem is that the CRA went beyond truly public acts and went into private acts deemed "public accommodations" and it used the interstate commerce clause to do so. The ICC is the most abused part of the U.S. constitution. Businesses can still discriminate based on race in 2010 if they aren't considered "public accommodations". (That's why some country clubs are still all white.)

Anyway, this will be an interesting battle. I don't think it will cost Rand the general election. It could be a problem if/when he runs for president depending on how handles the issue. Ron had the highest support among blacks for republicans despite his position on the civil rights act. But a lot of that was for stances Ron took on the wars on terror and on drugs. That's what convinced me to stick with Ron despite the newsletter fiasco and initial disagreement on the CRA. (I still disagree with Ron somewhat on his analysis of the CRA, but I fully understand and can live with his position because I so detest the abuse of the ICC.)

[TheFlashlight.org]

Hmmm, Howard Fineman, Ezra Klein, et. al., appear so upset about this issue, yet, yet they fully support institutionalized racism and apartheid in Israel. Perhaps they are really worried that Rand will turn down the flow on the massive dollar siphon that goes from the US Treasury to our welfare kids in the Middle East.

[John Taylor]

The civil rights and disabilities acts are monumental infringements on private property ownership under the commerce clause. If Rand backs down and we get our ass kicked in the private property philosophical debate it is going to be a major setback to the liberty cause.

Private property is a cornerstone of liberty.

+1776. I know we've disagreed about the political rally thing, but I'm with you 100% here.

You guys should look up Heart of Atlanta v. United States (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_515?sort=ideology)...

Rand is spot on here, and hopefully this horrid charge won't stick. We need to start organizing the get Rand money, bunches of it. If everyone who donated before just matches their donations this month, and donates as much in July, he'll have 6 million, and will be in "ok" financial shape for a bruising election against a Move-On.org funded leftie.

[klamath]

Important part in bold. If you want to effectively argue against something you have to actually read it first. Just ask Eric Holder.

At the time the civil rights act was passed the whole fight was over having one race treated the same as the other. Decades later it's easy to forget that. In the years leading up to it's passage segregation was forced by law. Such laws had been struck down by the time of its passage through decisions like Brown v. Board. Certainly telling a business that it can't serve blacks is wrong. So is taking everybody's tax money and then saying "You can go to this school and you can't". When a city is running a business (like Montgomery was running the bus system) it can't say certain customers can sit here and other customers can't and "We're going to arrest you if you don't give up your seat".

The problem is that the CRA went beyond truly public acts and went into private acts deemed "public accommodations" and it used the interstate commerce clause to do so. The ICC is the most abused part of the U.S. constitution. Businesses can still discriminate based on race in 2010 if they aren't considered "public accommodations". (That's why some country clubs are still all white.)

Anyway, this will be an interesting battle. I don't think it will cost Rand the general election. It could be a problem if/when he runs for president depending on how handles the issue. Ron had the highest support among blacks for republicans despite his position on the civil rights act. But a lot of that was for stances Ron took on the wars on terror and on drugs. That's what convinced me to stick with Ron despite the newsletter fiasco and initial disagreement on the CRA. (I still disagree with Ron somewhat on his analysis of the CRA, but I fully understand and can live with his position because I so detest the abuse of the ICC.)

Well said JM.

[jmdrake]

+1776. I know we've disagreed about the political rally thing, but I'm with you 100% here.

You guys should look up Heart of Atlanta v. United States (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_515?sort=ideology)...

Rand is spot on here, and hopefully this horrid charge won't stick. We need to start organizing the get Rand money, bunches of it. If everyone who donated before just matches their donations this month, and donates as much in July, he'll have 6 million, and will be in "ok" financial shape for a bruising election against a Move-On.org funded leftie.

Well someone might read the "Heart of Atlanta" case and think "those racists got what was coming to them. People should read the case it was based on Wickard v Filburn (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_59). That case held that the interstate commerce clause could be used to fine a farmer for growing "excess" wheat to feed to his family and livestock. Worst case in American history IMO.

[Andrew-Austin]

This clearly is way too abstract an issue for blind emotional liberal turds to grasp.

I couldn't be angrier. Implying someone is racist just because they are too stupid to understand what he is saying. That or they are dishonest, which makes it even uglier.

Anyways Rand shouldn't back down, he should clarify if it comes up again, if possible we should let the buzz around it die down. It won't die down though, if liberals can find an excuse to attach the "racist" label to someone then they will keep using it.

[constituent]

The civil rights and disabilities acts are monumental infringements on private property ownership under the commerce clause. If Rand backs down and we get our ass kicked in the private property philosophical debate it is going to be a major setback to the liberty cause.

yep.

i don't know if it will be major, but it will be unfortunate.