Cautiously, I direct you to comment on Rachel Maddow's blog... DON'T BE A DOUCHE!!!!

[BenIsForRon]

So the comments on her blog are already stacking up, I think we need some reinforcements, I've already commented.

AND DON'T BE A DOUCHE!!! Don't accuse Rachel of "being a tool for the communist left". She is not, she is an independent reporter who really disagrees with Rand on this issue. We need to clarify Rand's position, and the way private citizens can deal with discrimination, outside of government force.

Once again....

WE ARE THE FACE OF THE CAMPAIGN, REMAIN CIVIL!!!

My comment:

Rachel, you should have handled this interview differently, knowing what political realities Rand is having to deal with. You want him to give a simple "Yes or No" question to a complicated issue on the proper role of government?

Do you know that the INSTANT he gives a yes or no answer, his opponents automatically have a soundbite to use against him in attack ads, out of context, making him appear anti-civil rights?

He simply believes that freedom of association, inherent in freedom of speech, should not be compromised in order to change the behavior of individuals. He believes societies should find other ways, outside of government force, to stop racism and discrimination. This includes the boycotting and protesting of businesses with discriminatory practices. Is this really such a terrible position?

Rand is a candidate who wants to reduce the size of our military empire, end memberships in anti-democratic "free-trade" organizations like the WTO and IMF, stop the never-ending flow of bailouts to corrupt multi-national banks and corporations. He also wants to actually restore habeas corpus by repealing the MIC, something Obama promised to do on the campaign trail, but has yet to do.

In your interview, you made him seem like the least progressive candidate in the history of the country. When in reality, he is truly one of the most progressive. I hope your future interviews bring this to light.

http:// maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/05/20/4313688-rand-paul-on-maddow-fallout-begins

[squarepusher]

commented

[silverhandorder]

Rand is right what right do we have to tell private individuals how to behave on their property? Discrimination is not a use of force. No one is hurt physically when someone refuses to associate. Are you anti freedom of association? I doubt but it seems like you are going that way if you advocate such attacks on individual rights.

What happens now to all Latino clubs or ethnic businesses that have to keep that appearance of ethnicity going with their employees. Are those businesses now forced to integrate or we are going to make an arbitrary law excluding them from CRA?

Jim Crow laws were passed because people were naturally coming together. Stop the hate support Rand in public desegregation and in private fight for private desegregation.


Can some one look over my comment before I post?

[BenIsForRon]

Sounds pretty good to me, maybe you don't need to accuse her of attacking individual rights. This is a complex issue, and it is completely understandable why people at the time wanted government to force desegregation of private businesses. It was an ugly time.

[Zoomer]

Commented. Great post. If Liberty Forest can stay on top of the latest blogs & articles about Rand Paul we can salvage some of these pages by posting in the comments.

So the comments on her blog are already
AND DON'T BE A DOUCHE!!! Don't accuse Rachel of "being a tool for the communist left". She is not, she is an independent reporter who really disagrees with Rand on this issue.

I don't agree that she is an indpendent reporter. Not after this interview. No independant reporter would shamelessly corner someone like she did with Rand Paul in her latest interview.

[sailingaway]

Commented. Great post. If Liberty Forest can stay on top of the latest blogs & articles about Rand Paul we can salvage some of these pages by posting in the comments.



I don't agree that she is an indpendent reporter. Not after this interview. No independant reporter would shamelessly corner someone like she did with Rand Paul in her latest interview.

I forget which issue it was that led me to conclude that at the end of the day she takes direction from Move on, but I have concluded that. this was organized. Check out Kerry's letter on 'Rand's position' sent nationwide even before the primary.

[Elwar]

should probably break the link

[BenIsForRon]

should probably break the link

Why?

I did, but I assume you have good reason.

[silverhandorder]

There is really no reason to break links unless you don't want to give them trafic or want to hide it like the dig sites. Maddow is neither, it is a blog and a well traveled one at that.

[paulitics]

I forget which issue it was that led me to conclude that at the end of the day she takes direction from Move on, but I have concluded that. this was organized. Check out Kerry's letter on 'Rand's position' sent nationwide even before the primary.

It was NPR from earlier in the day who drilled him. I listened to that interview and it was an interrogation more than an interview.

Once Rand gave an ambiguous answer on NPR, anyone remotely following politics knew about it.

[paulitics]

Sounds pretty good to me, maybe you don't need to accuse her of attacking individual rights. This is a complex issue, and it is completely understandable why people at the time wanted government to force desegregation of private businesses. It was an ugly time.

I'm going to have to agree with BenisForRon for once and perhaps go further. It is a complex issue, and I see why the Civil rights Act was necessary considering what was occuring in certain parts of the country. I respect the opinion of Rand and sticking to his guns which I hope he continues to do so, but I disagree with his analysis and conclusion.

[Dreamofunity]

I was surprised by the civility and intellegent discussion over there, unlike most liberal blogs, even though I disagree with their stance.

[dannno]

I hope Rachel reads the post in the OP, that was spot on.

[jmdrake]

From me:
================================================== =========
Rachael, a few gaffs you made in your interview.

1) You brought up Bob Jones university. Do you realize that it was never challenged under the Civil Rights Act? That undercuts your position that the CRA somehow ended all racial discrimination in private businesses that were public accommodations. And Bob Jones' policy was well known. The reason Bob Jones university finally ended its policy against interracial dating in 2000 was because of the public outcry against it. So if you think that public pressure can desegregate in the case of BJU, why do you (apparently) think it's ineffective in other areas? Or do you think special legislation should have been passed to force the change even though public pressure worked fine?

2) You kept bringing up Woolworth's lunch counters. Are you aware of the fact that most of the lunch counters desegregated before the civil rights act was passed based solely on the public pressure placed on them by the sit ins?

3) You brought up the question of a small town where a private business owner might want to open up a segregated swimming pool. Are you aware of the fact that a private owner could do that anyway? He would just have to call the swimming pool a "private club" and only let white people join.

4) You don't seem to understand what Rand was saying about the Interstate Commerce Clause. Most people don't. Please read a case called Wickard v. Filburn. That case is what set the stage for the ICC to be used in ways it was never intended. In particular in that case the court decided that the government could tell a farmer that he couldn't grow "excess wheat" even though he was only using it to feed his family and livestock. Most people who read this case are abhorred that the government would exert that much control over a private farmer. But this is the precedent that was later used to uphold the CRA. The ends of the CRA are indeed good, as Rand pointed out on your show and has now reiterated in his press release. But the means were indeed questionable. When Rand was saying that he would have tried to modify the language in that ONE title, he was, in my opinion, saying that he wanted to achieve the same ends, but under less questionable means.

Anyway, this is a red herring. I hope during the rest of this political season the media will focus on more substantive issues. If our economy ends up imploding due to the massive debt we keep piling on and we end up like Greece, nobody black or white will care what someone thinks about the particular phrasing of one piece of decades old legislation.
================================================== =========

[ivflight]

When Rachel said that in Paul's philosophy there would be nothing to stop racism she was dead wrong. Unfortunetly Paul didn't correct her. Market forces would stop racism rather well. Racism is pretty much always irrational, and therefor unprofitable. The business owners that act irrationally would do poorly against those that act rationally. The businesses that choose to discriminate would be weeded out by the market. This is where greed is a good thing - no white or black or yellow or red, just green.

Racism is generally irrational and would only be profitable in very specialized cases. An example would be a bar in a tiny racist town - if they started letting blacks in then maybe the other patrons would stop coming. But then, since the vast majority of the town would have to hate blacks in this hypothetical, I doubt there are any blacks living there anyways. This is surely an extreme case.

An alternative not-so-extreme is that we would have to regulate all strip clubs to make sure they're not discriminating based on age, sex, race, and disability.