Hey, I wrote on an earlier thread….Laura Ingraham gave him an opportunity to clarify all of this this am. He denies being racist/against the Civil Rights Act. She gave him alot of leads/lines to defend himself while she slammed liberals and Rachel. Im pretty sure that will not be his first stop. I heard a bit in the car, so they got to him fast.

The best way to discredit a libertarian is to let them talk. One moment what they are saying might almost sound reasonable. There might be a few points you even agree with, and then Vrooom! they are off in some place that looks a lot like an episode of the Twilight Zone.

Rand has Rove’s Playbook down pat …

OT but it’s time to start a groundswell for a primary challenge to Obama.

Here are some photos of the consequences of O’s fiddling while the oil filled the Gulf. Primary the fraud and failure. Dean, Sanders, DeFazio, Feingold, Whitehouse, Kuccinich, someone step up and challenge the first black Republican president.

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/coast-guard-and-bp-threaten-journalists-with-arrest-for-docume

The privately owned restaurants, etc. are places of public accomodation. They are not private clubs with entry requirements. This was addressed in the Civil Rights legislation.

I watched this entire interview with my wife last night, and was struck by how emotional and inflammatory Rachel was being. And how unwavering Rand was in his views. He did say that he supports the Civil Rights act, and embraces a lot of excellent things that come out of that legislation.

I understand his points, and can certainly see the logic in his argument. Rand wants us to believe that if we gave people the option of segregating, they wouldn’t take it. And if some whackos did, the community around them would be enlightened enough to stand up and batter said whackos back into submission.

The problem I have with this, as far as Civil Rights are concerned, is that … um … it won’t fucking work. We have, through multiple legislative battles, taken away peoples’ right to be racist. Rand is suggesting we should give it back, and trust in the goodness of Americans. I think we saw all we needed to see about the “goodness of Americans” in the Bush Administration’s response to Katrina. And I think it would do people in Kentucky well to remember that.

I think we probably ought to let Rand Paul talk all he wants all the way up to the election. Get all that Libertarian nonsense out of our system. There are libertarians around that aren’t racist. I think Bill Maher is probably one of them, but he doesn’t admit it any more.

The thing Libertarians don’t quite understand is what they claim they want already exists. The no-central governance model is Somalia. The small central government model is Afghanistan.

Little taxation. Little of no central authority. Very little in the way of business regulation. No gun control.

Somalia and Afghanistan should be heaven for Libertarians.

Is Paul a libertarian or a Teabagger? They don’t appear to be the same IMO and I can’t quite get a sense of this person.

God made you white ,black, Muslim or what ever to reward or punish you

depending weather he got any last night.

They’re both idiots.

Opportunist?

Here we go: Rand, the Mayberry toast,
The Mayberry toast,
The Mayberry toast.
Here we go: Rand, the Mayberry toast
On a cold and frosty morning.

Priceless !

*Bows To The Master*

I don’t know what you were watching. It wasn’t the Rachel Maddow Show interviewing Rand Paul. The Rachel Maddow interview of Rand Paul I saw was the same ultra calm, ultra collected Rachel Maddow I always see. Maddow goes out of her way to be fair and detached during interviews. She was just and fair and detached as normal last nigh interviewing Paul.

I watched this entire interview with my wife last night, and was struck by how emotional and inflammatory Rachel was being.

And I watched the entire interview alone.

You were struck by something, but it wasn’t Rachel.

:~)

I have read a few times here a recommendation to watch a Maddow interview–promoted as some great interview.

Like the other one I checked out, this one is pretty sorry as an interview.

First, Maddow’s only intention was to do everything she could to make Paul look like an out and out racist. When she couldn’t get him to actually say anything racist, she puts the words in his mouth–ending the interview by saying that he HAD said he was a racist.

This is the usual for a reporter; whether right or left. The “story” is really written before they even begin on it. Maddow wanted a “Paul is racist” headline, so to speak, and she said she got one even though she didn’t get anything. No matter what he said, or didn’t say, she concluded the interview as she had intended.

“There you heard, Obama says he wasn’t born in the US.” No matter what Obama says.

Paul is an inexperienced bumpkin, for sure. A fair listening to what he seemed to be trying to say was similar to what he said in the newspaper regarding the Disabilities Act. He generally agreed with the thrust and effect of it, but thought, where possible, a local approach was better. Not meaning, “Hey, if in Alabama they want to exclude blacks from restaurants, the ought to be able.” But, one size may not fit all.

His actual words regarding the section of Civil Rights Act in question was NOT that he wouldn’t have voted for it, but that he would have liked the opportunity to tweak it.

Of course, I know someone is going to write a post saying “tweak” means to repeal it. But, that isn’t what he said.

But, it really doesn’t matter, the story is written already. “Paul is a racist.” “The Tea Party are racists.”

Her questions lead with assumption and attempt to incite emotional responses. Questions like “So it’s okay to beat someone at the lunch counter at Woolworth’s?” (not her exact language, I’m sure, but something to that effect) or bringing up “people being beaten within an inch of their life.”.

I know these things happened, and are a terrible part of our history that has to be kept in mind whenever we consider Civil Rights. I’m just pointing out that the way Rachel was phrasing a lot of her questions, and the content of her questions, was designed to be inflammatory. She’s trying to get a reaction, not a response.

Aren’t you quippy.

I’m glad someone saw what I saw. Rachel wasn’t seeking information, she was trying to force him to say something reactionary that would discredit him. Same as her interview a few weeks back with the gentleman from the organization that authored the “papers, please” law in Arizona.

If you want to play around with some libertarian ideas in your head in way that can’t harm anybody, read Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson.

Oh my goodness! There are trolls here today.

Quippy? Did your wife give you that one?

That’s absolutely untrue. Did not happen.

She did not raise her voice or change her tone. She simple stuck to her questions and wouldn’t let Paul change to subject.

Why are you bringing up my wife?

While not explicitly stating it, Rand Paul believes that private businesses have the right to discriminate (and BTW Rand, there are TWO sections in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that deal explicitly with the private sector, not one). And Rand uses a clever tactic to get supporters of the CRA to give pause: should the owner of a private business, say a restaurant or bar, be allowed to deny service/entry to someone openly carrying a firearm?

But the funny thing is: such bans already are in place. Try openly carrying a firearm on an airliner or bus. Or try walking around the campus of most private universities with a gun on your hip. Of course, there are numerous bans in public buildings, including courthouses, schools, etc.

I’d be interested to learn if the SCOTUS has ruled on any such bans, and if it hasn’t happened, to see them challenged is inevitable.

Just because she didn’t raise her voice doesn’t mean she wasn’t being argumentative or inflammatory. She did interrupt Rand a couple of times, talking over him to try to get a question out.

Adam, we’re obviously not going to agree on this. I love Rachel, I think she’s an excellent journalist. I loved her when she was on NPR and when she was subbing for Keith O. Its just seemed to me lately that her interviewing, at times, has been based more on her opinion of an issue, and seeking information along the lines of her opinion, than trying to seek information in general about the topic.

Its my opinion, Adam. You don’t have to live by it.

Paul’s obfuscation prevented a more in-depth interview; it took so long to nail down the fact that he believed any demand for business to respect civil rights was unconstitutional that the interview timed out.

Rachel’s goal was not to expose Paul as a racist, but to expose his opinion that any regulation of private business is unconstitutional. Were it possible to grill Paul for three days and edit out his actual responses, I’m sure Rachel would have been more than happy to explore the further implications of his views.

If you are trashing Maddow’s interview of that AZ right wing org that funded all the anti-immigrant stuff in AZ, then YOU are a bigot. That guy was exposed by his own words as like, Ari McBigot.

…..when she was on NPR Air America….

(just trying ta help)

Given the ways in which every president since Reagan has abused the powers of our government, it’s no surprise that libertarianism is having a revival.

People are tired of the bong police breaking into thier homes, body slamming grandma and shooting the family dog.

They are tired of thier sons and daughters being sent off to die in foreign wars on behalf of corporations. The Exxon medal for bravery just ain’t cutting it.

They are tired of the Treasury funded Wallstreet Casino which is nothing more than a government subsidized McMansion factory.

They are well justified in being utterly disgusted with our government. But they do not realize that a lack of government is not the answer. We’ve been there before, back in the Gilded age, and it was none too pretty. So… good governance needs to be the answer.

What we have with the Paul’s is temporary allies. We can team up to stop some of our government’s worst abuses but we’ll have to part ways somewhere down the line.

For example, we team up to Audit the FED. But we part ways on Ending the FED. Progressives want a reformed FED, possibly a fully nationalized FED or even a national bank. But what they don’t want to just kill the FED and replace it with fully private banking.

Dude,
That is one of MY pups. Watch that shit.

Now you’re calling me a bigot? WTF? What happened to civilized discussion of multiple viewpoints on this website?

Anyway, in response to YOUR inflammatory statement, seeking a reaction, I am talking about that interview. Not to say that the interviewee isn’t scum, or a bigot, or a piece of shit waste of space, but to say that the focus of the interview was not gathering information about the law, or the motivation for the law, but to expose him as a bigot. Rachel wasn’t interested in his opinions, except as they pertained to him being a bigot. She went into the interview with a bias. I don’t think that’s fair journalism.

As a journalist, its her job to report information, right? If all of her fact-mining is tainted by her opinions, and her pre-established views of any given situation, then she’s presenting the “facts” in a slanted way. Like I said in an earlier response, I love Rachel. I’ve only seen her do this a few times. But I think it detracts from her professionalism as a journalist.

You’re right.

She went in to both interviews determined to expose the general audience lies told by her interviewees as exactly that, obfuscation and coverup of their actual views.

What she did was continue to follow up until the question she had actually asked was answered. It’s called journalism. I realize that as a likely Fox viewer, it is unlikely that you have ever been previously exposed to any of that.

Rand Paul and his father both hold extremist views that they must hide to get elected to higher office. Not a good idea to sit down with Rachel if you have something that big to hide.

My interpretation of that interview is different. It sounded to me like Maddow was asking a question and not getting an answer. The question was “Do you support the part of the Civil Rights Act that requires businesses to serve all customers without regard to their race, gender, or religion.” That’s a valid question, with significant public policy implications.

She went in to both interviews determined to expose the general audience lies told by her interviewees as exactly that, obfuscation and coverup of their actual views.

Agreed. Well said.

I realize that as a likely Fox viewer, that it is unlikely that you have ever been previously exposed to any of that.

Uncalled for. Off base. Wrong.

I agree, and from what I gathered from the interview it seems that he does not believe in equal rights for all in private business settings. What I noticed, after her initial question, was that she continued to devolve her phrasing of that question based on Rand’s responses and examples. She did not continue to reiterate the same question, but started adding inflammatory language. She was attempting to expose the same views held by Rand, regardless of the way she was phrasing her questions. However, I feel that some of her more emotional examples could have been left out in favor of intellectual reporting. It’s simple logic/philosophy stuff. The structure of her arguments were not necessarily relevant to the logic of the conversation, but relevant to the emotional responses people may feel about the conversation.

I do not recall Rachel being called a “journalist”? I can’t imagine suggesting that she is an unbiased interviewer. I am fairly certain that she views herself as a political commentator, who occasionally does interviews.
This interview was absurd in that the intentions of the parties was clear from the inception. Rachel wanted him to acknowledge, clearly and unambiguously, his disapproval of the laws that prevent private discrimination. Rand wanted to deny racism, which I am willing to assume he is not, but he wants to give legal cover to those who are.
He wants to equate that cover as “free speech” or freedom of association, but these constitutionally protected concepts are not the same as those the Rand backers would recognize.
Rand holds his ground and refuses to answer the obvious question. Rachel refuses to allow him to dance the subject away. KrisAinCA, I believe you have missed the point here as well. It is not based journalism to ask the subject of an interview to acknowledge the question being asked. Where she attempts to clarify to Rand, he cuts her off, and then goes off on another tangent.

I agree.

She went in to both interviews determined to expose the general audience lies told by her interviewees as exactly that, obfuscation and coverup of their actual views.

And her doing that is good work. I’m just saying that I hold her in higher esteem than she demonstrated by devolving the discussion into discussions of racially motivated beating. Her questioning and arguments could have been more intellectual and less emotional. She was attempting to escalate the emotional climate of the interview.

Like I told Adam above, its my opinion, you don’t have to live by it.

As for watching FauxSnooze, I don’t. I just possess the ability to emotionally detach myself from a political conundrum and examine it logically. If I couldn’t emotionally detach myself, uneasyone, I’d feel lost and hopeless. Our current political clime is so far fucked that I can’t see a way out.

Blue Texan is up with the same topic at the mothership.

Maddow has taught you well it seems. He never said:

“the fact that he believed any demand for business to respect civil rights was unconstitutional”

As Maddow, you put the words in his mouth. I didn’t get any inference that he felt as you say, even by implication. What you want to see, I suppose you will see.

I read Maddow’s blog this morning. Amazingly, it went on for a while with quotes from Paul that actually didn’t say anything like what the surrounding blog post said it said.

Kind of like:

“I’m not sure if it will rain tomorrow,” Joe said.

Maddow headline, “Joe says weather cannot be predicted.”

This interview was absurd in that the intentions of the parties was clear from the inception.

That’s what I’ve been saying.

Rachel refuses to allow him to dance the subject away. KrisAinCA, I believe you have missed the point here as well. It is not based journalism to ask the subject of an interview to acknowledge the question being asked. Where she attempts to clarify to Rand, he cuts her off, and then goes off on another tangent.

Rachel’s attempts to keep him on topic continued to grow further from the initial question. She was altering her language to fit the examples he was providing, thus allowing him to control the interview. If she had repeated, two or three or even four times, her initial question, the absurdity of his refusal to answer would’ve been what we’re all talking about now. There are better ways for her to get her point across without bringing up Woolworth’s lunch counters.

I went back and looked again at Rachel Maddow’s April 29 interview of Dan Stein of FAIR.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/04/29/4222854-post-show-factcheck-dan-stein-of-fair

I stand by what I said earlier.

I do not believe that Rand Paul is a racist. He is just oblivious to the consequences of his beliefs (as are most Republicans). If people were not racist (like he claims to believe), then we would not need the Civil Rights Act. And he would be right. But people are racist and therefore we need the law.

Rachel Maddow was just shocked that someone could be so oblivious. I believe that this will be his Maccaca moment. His 15 minutes of fame are rapidly dwindling.

I stand by what I said earlier.

What part? This part?

YOU are a bigot

or this part?

That guy was exposed by his own words as like, Ari McBigot.

I was really uncomfortable about how Rand Paul was getting uncomfortable evading the question. Rachel Maddow just wanted Paul to say whether he would have sided with the North Carolina Woolworth owner who would not let the young people sit at the counter (because they were black).

And what Rand Paul did was dodge around the answer like a lawyer. This guy’s an eye doctor? He picked the wrong profession. Lawyer.

And so, through the ten-minute evasion, he basically said everything but the clear fact that he doesn’t think it should be illegal for what is a “public accommodation” to discriminate. “Public accommodation” is a legal term meaning a private business that holds itself out FOR business. You are a restaurant or hotel, etc. holding yourself out for business (not a private club), you must take all comers who can pay. That’s well settled American law now, and in fact, as a generality, it was in the common law of England for centuries.

How sad that we have to re-argue the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which itself took 100 years to finally come to life.

I’m firmly convinced that some Southerners really just want to overturn the results of the Civil War, if not refight it again. “The North won the War but the South won the Peace” is only supposed to be sad commentary on the Jim Crow era. It wasn’t the actual terms of the surrender at Appomattox.

Well said.

Rand Paul just deeply, deeply empathizes with bigots, and dreams of a country where people’s expression of bigotry is enshrined as a basic civil right. Where racists and haters roam free in great unfettered herds as the bison once did across the vast open plains. A nation where Archie Bunker is not viewed as an embarrassingly ignorant, intolerant and narrow-minded bigot but instead held up as an archetype icon. Where men are men*, goils are goils, and meat-heads are…well, you know.

A country where men are free to dust off the old “Whites Only” and “No Coloreds” signs of their ancestors and hang them proudly in shop and office windows. Where instead of a water fountain for everyone, there’s one for white people and a hose around back for everybody else. A land where Baptists can once more refuse to serve Catholics and vice versa, and everybody hates the Irish as their great, great grandparents did.

Mmmm… can’t ya’ll just SMELL the freedom?

——————–
*white male fundamentalist Christians, of course; all others are foreigners and probable terrorist suspects

I listen to the BBC a lot. One big difference is how their presenters, as they are called, conduct interviews. Rand would not have made it through much of his first answer before he would have been interrupted and told the answer the question.

This is something that American audiences should demand, and American reporters/hosts would do well to learn. Those of you complaining about Maddow are blaming the wrong person. Maddow set up her initial question well, and Rand chose not to answer it. He repeated “institutional racism” like it was some sort of magic phrase that would get him off the hook, and one suspects that in most cases, it does.

But “institutional racism” is code for “government sponsored racism.” Rand would have us believe that Americans have more interactions every day with government bodies than we do with entities in the private sector, but nothing is further from the truth.

One last point: Title VII of the CRA64 deals with employers, and prohibits discrimination in hiring practices based on gender, race, etc. – even discrimination based on associating with someone of color, etc. It’s more than about riding in the back of a Greyhound bus or not being able to sit at the lunch counter.

I don’t have to hide what I’ve said in selective editing and parsing.

My whole quote was…

“If you are trashing Maddow’s interview of that AZ right wing org that funded all the anti-immigrant stuff in AZ, then YOU are a bigot. That guy was exposed by his own words as like, Ari McBigot.

I have to wonder if Rand Paul’s head would explode if you asked him what his position is on Nazi’s marching with swastikas through Skokie, IL?!! And should Jews (especially any who may have been survivors of a concentration camp like Auschwitz or Treblinka) feel free to wear firearms to the march? In fact, if both groups are armed, should the owners have to register their guns or in some way seek permits so that the gov’mint can track down like a dog anyone involved in the event that accidently gets an itchy trigger finger and feels compelled to scratch it? Talk about being set up to fail! Seems to me you’d have to be Pollyanna not to see this situation as a recipe for disaster. So what policy would he follow, or would he feel any responsibility to try to diffuse the situation if he were a Senator and both groups were constituents?

Last week, the American Association of Pediatricians noted that certain, ahem, “immigrant communities” were shipping their daughters overseas to undergo “female genital mutilation.” So, in a spirit of multicultural compromise, they decided to amend their previous opposition to the practice: They’re not (for the moment) advocating full-scale clitoridectomies, but they are suggesting federal and state laws be changed to permit them to give a “ritual nick” to young girls.

I wonder what Dr Paul would say about the above – where are the rights he would want to have in the law?

Rand Paul is quite obviously a racist – I heard the interview, and I do understand that Kris seems to think that Rachel interrupting him in order to not allow him to control the interview by answering an un-asked question instead of the one she asked might be construed as “emotional”. Problem is, once you let one of these guys get off on his talking-point tangent, you can NEVER get him back to where he needs to be without interrupting.

I think she did a great job of showing him to be the bigot he is. I can’t IMAGINE what he was thinking, comparing bringing in your skin, which you cannot change or put aside – to bringing in a gun, which you certainly CAN choose to leave at home.

Okay, so if I offer a contradictory opinion to the methods of an interview, (not the content) then I’m a bigot? Are you picturing me in a tshirt that says “Obama is a Muslim” just because I’m not worshiping Rachel? Where’s the logic in that, Adam?

That guy from FAIR is, at the very least, closed-minded and scared. He’s likely an outright racist. I’m not saying he isn’t. You’re arguing an issue here that I’m not raising.

Me believing that Rachel’s line of questioning was flawed does not make me a racist. You calling me a bigot because I don’t agree with you makes you a sensationalist.

IMHO

Well said. His arguments were seriously flawed. I think Rachel’s attempts to keep him on topic were necessary from a tactical interviewing standpoint. I just don’t agree with the way she chose to do so.

Wow, you prove the idea that “understanding precedes perception.

Maddow never accused Paul of racism. What she did was continually ask him the question of whether private business should have the right to discriminate.

Rand would counter by affirming again that he wasn’t racist, something he’d never been accused of, and also affirming that private business should be allowed to be private, but never actually stating whether that point of view means he affirms the logical conclusion that private businesses should have the right to discriminate.

So once again Rachel would reframe the question to attempt to get him to say either, “Yes, they should, even though it’s horrid, and we as a society should do all we can to change them short of government interference,” or “No, even though I think private business should be allowed to be private I agree that there are limits and so reluctantly I opt on the side of limiting their rights in this area because I like all civilized people abhor racism.”

But he didn’t have the courage to say the first, only imply it.

Now Rachel was actually being fair to him. She didn’t create this controversy for him. He did in previous interviews where the interviewer just never bothered with a follow up. That’s not a way to stop a controversy. The way to stop it is to answer every possible question honestly. (Remember that great scene in the West Wing where Alan Alda’s GOP candidate for President gave a press conference in front of a nuclear power plant after a nuclear accident that happened just days after he’d come out strongly for nuclear energy? He just tiredly asked every question honestly until the reporters had no questions left and that ended the controversy.) But Paul wouldn’t take the opportunity and weasled around, never speaking honestly what he really thinks.

A) I never claimed to be quoting Paul. It was, I believe, a valid paraphrase of what he actually said, in his obfuscating, mealy-mouthed way.

B) You and I both know damned well that it is also a valid and accurate representation of his views – especially if you are in fact a follower of father and son.

C) He knows that his extremist views are completely unacceptable to a general electorate; that is why it is necessary to ferret them out before he is considered for the office of Senator.

Rachel is probably the best today at digging out these righties hidden agendas. It is completely dishonest to run for or hold an office under false pretenses. If the voters of Kentucky want to elect this extremist knowing what views he actually holds and what his real agenda is, so be it. Until he admits that he is really shilling for unrestrained corporatism, however, I will applaud any attempt to expose his agenda.

Wasn’t Rachel beautiful last night, she just let him talk and talk and talk… she gave him all the time he might need to ‘clarify’ his answers! Nae doot aboot it! A full blown racist!

On something else. Has anyone seen or heard from our Dr. Dean?

So once again Rachel would reframe the question to attempt to get him to say either, “Yes, they should, even though it’s horrid, and we as a society should do all we can to change them short of government interference,” or “No, even though I think private business should be allowed to be private I agree that there are limits and so reluctantly I opt on the side of limiting their rights in this area because I like all civilized people abhor racism.”

But he didn’t have the courage to say the first, only imply it.

I am wondering that, maybe as a Libertarian, Rand Paul felt he was “free” to answer or not answer as he chose. Libertarians tend to be very good at invoking liberty when it suits them.

“OT but it’s time to start a groundswell for a primary challenge to Obama.”

NO! Chill out for chrissakes! Some of you are so impatient and over-reactionary.

That’s quite an accusation you’ve made based on no facts what so ever that KrisAinCA is a Fox Viewer, and Adom503, you are engaging in the unfounded name-calling. I see nothing bigoted.

The argument between Rand and Rachel is a false one.

First of all, IMO, Rand is a poor imitation of his father, and I’m sure he’s slapping up side the head today, especially for that “loony left” reference.
Rand Paul puts the rights of private property owners above that of civil rights. The problem is that business owners are participating in society and should follow the agreed upon moral and civil standards if they take profit from it – Not just if they receive government funding. In the libertarian world businesses shouldn’t receive gov. funding. Allowing states to make determinations between civil rights and property rights is equivalent to arguing in favor of Jim Crow laws basically. IMVHO.

Secondly, Rachel is a spin master and plays dirty sometimes and that’s not journalism, in fact she dumbs down the left. I still watch her because she does does have good guests, and does good expose work sometimes, but I have caught on to her democratic party cheerleading long ago. When it comes to R v. D USA v. another country, she’s not trustworthy.

Her tactics with Rand, to expose him was to build the framework before he even appeared, and then try to lead him into a corner.

This is not to say that Rand Paul didn’t trying to avoid answering the question, but he WAS under attack. She should have let him hang himself instead of trying to manipulate him. The interview was hostile and not cunning. She was quite emotional and not in control at the end.

Maddow’s style has been documented by a lefty site -The Daily Howler I recommend a visit, you’ll find more examples there.

Maddow runs us rubes again, this time about filibusters

MADDOW (4/9/10): The Republican Party [is] now threatening to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee who doesn’t yet exist.

The Supreme Court nomination battles have brought with them a little bit of everything over the past 100 years or so, but Republicans are ratcheting up for a fight for the sake of a fight, one that’s basically never been seen before—in the absence of President Obama even picking someone for the job yet. And that is worth remembering when they declare inevitably that the nominee is the worst communist, fringy, ideological pick ever!

It’s not about the nominee. It’s not about the nominee. They’re already pledging to filibuster before there is a nominee. They are just licking their chops for a fight for the sake of the fight.

We’ll be right back to talk potential nominees with Dahlia Lithwick.

They’re already “pledging to filibuster?” Maddow had played tape of two senators, Alexander and Kyl. Neither man had done any such thing, even after Maddow “edited” the tape of what Kyl had said. Indeed, in the passage posted above, Maddow jumps from a Republican “threat” to a Republican “pledge,” in just a few moments time. But so it frequently goes on this deeply disingenuous program.

Before we continue, take note of Maddow’s nugget statement: Republicans are ratcheting up for a fight for the sake of a fight, one that’s basically never been seen before. That exciting claim is just baldly untrue. Almost surely, Maddow knows it.
[...]

There was nothing wrong with what the Democrats said and did. There is nothing wrong with what Republican senators have said in the past week. But there’s something badly wrong with Maddow, one of the most disingenuous cable players we have ever seen. Madddow is in the business of running rubes. This is now how hustlers like Maddow earn millions of dollars—at the nation’s expense.

Referencing the filibuster and the parlimentaray tricks Reid has played during the Healthcare debate, powwow has done some good posts here trying to expose this, but Rachel contributes to our ignorance with her mischaracterizations and misrepresentations- she explicitly harms the left and most of us are completely unaware of it.

See Anatomy of a Backroom Deal’s Public Face: The case for letting Congress do the legislating on health care reform.

See comments here: Firing or Ignoring the Parliamentarian – It’s Called Leadership
powwow’s other comments on the filibuster can be found in the search.

OHHHH SNAP! Thank you. You said it better than I could, apparently. I watch Rachel all the time, I like her as a commentator. My argument here is that her methods are largely flawed. Thank you for providing links and analysis in demonstration of that shared opinion.

I feel that arguing from an emotional standpoint can, and usually does, muddy the waters. It does more harm than good. If our stance on any given political issue is “right”, logic will support that. So let’s argue the logic.

Your and the other right wing rhetoric sounds more like smoke to obscure the fact that Paul showed himself for what he is. No matter the interviewer or technique he is in charge of what he says and does.

I haven’t argued that he isn’t racist or bigoted. I’m a registered Democrat and fairly liberal lefty, btw. Rachel’s attempted line of questioning detracted from the conversation and completely wasted an opportunity to truly explore his viewpoints. When you throw “beaten within an inch of their lives” at someone, they tend to become defensive and shut down. Its not very conducive to logical discourse.

What I’m suggesting through my opinions is not a smoke screen, but that we are on the right side of this argument, and our logic is strong enough to carry the point home. We don’t need to badger people to make them look racist.

Rachel gets frustrated when she is stonewalled and will not allow herself to be filibustered. When Paul said that he would have marched with King but wouldn’t have supported the forced integration of lunch counters, it was perfectly appropriate for her to take it a bit further, to remind viewers of the exact implications of that position.

I can’t say I agree 100% with every journalistic decision of Ms. Maddow’s myself, but what “unemotional” issue should she have chosen to corner Paul on? Social Security? Medicare? Child labor? Workplace safety?

Every one of Paul’s “intellectual” positions have real world consequences, they affect real people and they deserve to be exposed for exactly what they are – but first you have to force him to admit exactly what they are.

Okay, you don’t watch Fox. I stand corrected.

Rachel gets frustrated when she is stonewalled and will not allow herself to be filibustered. When Paul said that he would have marched with King but wouldn’t have supported the forced integration of lunch counters, it was perfectly appropriate for her to take it a bit further, to remind viewers of the exact implications of that position.

Can you honestly say that Rachel accomplished anything with this interview? Did she “reveal” Rand’s true nature? Did she expose him for what he really is, or what he really believes?

He successfully evaded most of her questions and managed to repeatedly state that he wasn’t racist. More than likely outcome here is that all the Rand supporters are still Rand supporters, and all the people who were willing to see him as a racist now see him as a racist.

Instead of examining the issue in a logical way and exposing information previously hidden, which she had an opportunity to do, she simply reinforced existing opinions on either side of the debate. This makes her part of the political machine, and not an innovator or activist.

The means to the end do matter.
You are mischaracterizing KrisAinCA criticism of Maddow’s methods as “right-wing rhetoric” to obscure Paul’s odious views, which is just silly because he didn’t defend Paul at all.

If she hadn’t set him up as a racist before he even appeared the conversation would have gone much differently, I’m sure. Maddow is no David Frost.

but what “unemotional” issue should she have chosen to corner Paul on?

That sums up her whole strategy. It’s dishonest dialog.

A good interviewer would let them feel comfortable, giving them enough rope to hang themselves with gentle but leading questions, not try to aggressively “corner” them as though she’s grilling them on a witness stand.

Exactly. I’m simply arguing that in the face of irrational or flawed ideas, the best defense, or offense, is rational discourse.

No question that most Rand supporters still support him; they are true believers and fully aware what he really stands for.

Everyone in Kentucky isn’t so well informed, however. Between now and election day, it is important to expose the stealth beliefs and hidden agenda of RP. Holding the views he does, it doesn’t much matter if he is racist or not. I believe he is, but even if he were not, the implications of his corporate supremacy positions are that “racists have free speech too” – “free speech” being defined by him as the right to hang a sign refusing to serve anyone a businessman doesn’t like.

This was a first step in the exposure of an extremist radical as exactly that.

Even when it’s the ugly face of a barking mad, irrational and deeply flawed asshole? We know your argument doesn’t work on a practical basis. I cite human history as my case study.

I agree, this is as bad as asking Obama if he is going to do something effective to stop Iran from having the tools to instantly destroy Israel and all those Jews there. I’d way rather have Nazi’s walking through Skokie.

Let’s worry like hell about if Rand Paul might let Nazi’s march through Skokie, but, “What, me worry about Iran having the bomb?”

But, maybe here is a better question. Would you allow Hamas to march through Skokie?

With an honest interviewee, that is an option.

With a fundamentally dishonest, stealth radical like Paul, determined to filibuster and obfuscate, that isn’t an option.

What you want is a powderpuff of an interview to allow Paul to spread a ton of manure all over the audience. Rachel’s show isn’t the best forum for that.

Everyone in Kentucky isn’t so well informed, however. Between now and election day, it is important to expose the stealth beliefs and hidden agenda of RP. Holding the views he does, it doesn’t much matter if he is racist or not. I believe he is, but even if he were not, the implications of his corporate supremacy positions are that “racists have free speech too” – “free speech” being defined by him as the right to hang a sign refusing to serve anyone a businessman doesn’t like.

This is exactly the type of rational discourse that’s necessary. You aren’t calling anyone a racist or bigot, because that label doesn’t matter. What matters is how his policy will effect civil rights.

Rational discourse requires two rational and intellectually honest individuals.

It does not allow for mind-numbing and endless repetition of talking points to the exclusion of all else.

Maddow’s persistence would have been completely unnecessary had Paul simply
honestly stated his position in the first place instead of ducking, dodging, and filibustering throughout the entire interview.

Assuming the entire body of human history to be an example of failed politics is kind of narrow-minded, eh? And talk to Dr. King’s descendants about my argument, or Nelson Mandella. Or Harvey Milk, if you could. People shut down and stop listening when the arguments trend toward the extreme. Our goal here is to educate people about the potential ramifications of his policy, not alienate people to the message, right?

(and no, I’m not comparing myself to King or Mandella or Milk, or any other human or civil rights activist. I’m just a dude with a computer. I’m simply citing people whose protestations over civil issues were largely non-violent and rational, not filled with emotional rhetoric and aggressive browbeating.)

I’ll agree that he’s a horrible interview subject, and seemed very dishonest. But given enough rope to hang themselves with, don’t these talking-points spewing morons usually do so? If given the opportunity to talk about his utopian ideology and libertarian ideals, I believe he would’ve made himself look like a fool.

Again, I want to point out that Paul didn’t exactly volunteer that stuff; Rachel had to pry it out of him with a virtual crowbar.

No. He would have simply given a ten minute campaign speech. He sure as hell tried, anyway.

But are you satisfied with what she “pried” out of him, or would you rather have heard more about his beliefs and ideas? We still don’t really know what he’s proposing. He hasn’t pledged legislation or called anyone to action. He simply revealed some very shallow facets of his general ideology. I stand by my belief that given room to speak about the topic, instead of attempting to defend himself against perceived attacks, he would’ve provided more information about his plan of action. Then we would have a much better picture of what we’re dealing with.

You’re assuming that he’s smart enough to stick to the talking points, and not get a stiffy over 10 minutes of national airtime and the opportunity to talk about what he wants.

In your mind, you can think whatever you want. But,the guy did not say what you say he did. You are getting way ahead of the curve extrapolating the guy’s position on a lot of matters in a very specific way.
It’s all conjecture on your part. I didn’t see what he said in the way you did.

He actually gave a specific example in his newspaper interview that goes right along with what I said.

Maddow didn’t get anything out of anybody. In fact, the interview can be marked as a great example of her not getting anything.

At least when Tim Russert badgered someone, he GOT something eventually. Rachel got nothing, then tried to take credit for actually getting something by doing the same extrapolating as you.

This is a big to do about nothing. Paul will easily be able to layout what his position is in detail since he didn’t say anything on Maddow’s show.

If he is comes out and says what he really thinks and it matches what you say, he is toast. If he says it was more like what I took it to be, it will blow over.

And, if he’s weasily, then he falls into that fine Democratic tradition we saw all fall and winter. Say you are for public option, but not have the balls to say you really want single payer.

Like I said upthread, what Rachel got is a start. Only that because of time constraints.

Let me give an extreme example here to illustrate my point that what Rachel did was more important than hearing what he claims is his agenda.

Suppose he was the Grand Dragon of the KKK but running on a very moderate platform. (He’s not, and he isn’t – but considering dad’s connections and the extremism of his views, that isn’t so very divorced from reality. Still, it is only for the purpose of illustration.)

Wouldn’t you be a bit dubious about his moderation and want to explore his core beliefs rather than his purported platform? I would assert that it is far more important to understand where the man is coming from, ideologically, than to examine his immediate agenda. If elected, his future decisions – and votes – will be guided by that ideology, not his current platform. Will he vote to fund school lunches – or even schools? If you know where the man is coming from, you know how to answer that.

And what Rand Paul did was dodge around the answer like a lawyer. This guy’s an eye doctor? He picked the wrong profession. Lawyer.

Or tap dancer! Rand was doing so much tap dancing through his answers and burning through Rachel’s air time that it’s not even funny. Then he seemed to be having problems avoiding some of his own word bombs. But my take is that he would like to erase the words “public accommodation” from the legal lexicon. He wants our laws to be used to restrict government and possibly private individuals, but no business should ever be restricted by gov’t in any way, EVER, in Rand’s world.

IOW, he didn’t say it and he can spin away what he didn’t say so what he didn’t say won’t bite him in the ass.

Sorry, doesn’t work that way. Now that Rachel has opened the door and he is a candidate for national office, the scrutiny will only intensify.

He’s gonna get clobbered in November.

Yes, I think businesses should be allowed to just mow down people as they like. If they want to live, let them buy “protection.” You come, you complain about that lamp not working? Boom! We’ll take care of your complaint instantly. You don’t like your eggs? BAM!! How do you like that with your bacon?

By the way, Rachael didn’t open any door. Which goes to show something else is going on.

The paper opened it. Give credit where credit is due.

Face, Maddow is not that great an interviewer. Give me Russert any day.

You’re one of those “Alan Combes” Democrats, huh?

Don’t ever want to take any chances of offending anyone. Don’t want to say anything controversial. Let’s right winger interrupt you in mid-sentence and talk-over you.

Rachel Maddow studied at Oxford twice, on a Rhodes Scholarship, and the when she was getting her DPhil. She learned some parlimentary debate skills while she was there. Those exposed to much of it would spot it. It’s not combative, but there is confrontation.

I’ve gotten tired of Democrats who run away from anything remotely confrontational.

I didn’t say I would prefer a powderpuff interviewer. I said “cunning”. you said “force” and “corner”. If she were to ask enough good questions and they will lead themselves into the noose. Instead she painted a picture for us before he came on, and then was confrontational. When he wouldn’t bite she got upset.

You are making the argument that Rachel had to pigeonhole him, because somehow you or she knew he Paul would conduct his interview dishonestly, and you basically the same thing again here. :

No. He would have simply given a ten minute campaign speech. He sure as hell tried, anyway.

then you said this:

Rational discourse requires two rational and intellectually honest individuals.

Well, which is it?
None of us know how Rand Paul would have answered because we don’t have a looking glass.

You should stop making excuses for Rachel Maddow’s poor interview. She didn’t prove her case. Telling her listeners after the fact about him amounted to pontificating.

I’m not sticking up for Rand Paul at all. I think he’s awful.

Rachel Maddow is leading the left by the nose and she’s taking us down a bad road by not exposing the whole truth, trying to spin things and providing a bad example. (she does this all the time. (See dailyhowler)
She entered that interview not to explore and expose, but to confirm the opinions she already held.

post hoc, ergo propter hoc

There was not a right-wing ass wide enough that Tim Russert couldn’t cover both butt cheeks with one huge smooch.

Ah yes, St Timmeh, Cheney’s go to guy when he wanted his spin put out unquestioned by anyone.

After all, how many other “journalists” automatically assume that anything they are told is OFF the record unless specifically told otherwise.

Yeah, he was a GREAT journalist.

or not.

At least he could conduct an interview and not be dishonest enough to claim he got something when he got nothing!

He actually got something. This was the second interview I’ve seen of Maddow’s where she kept on one line of questioning and got nothing. Even you could do that.

If you are going to bear down, at least get an f’ing answer to your question!

But, don’t fail and then make like you got something.

He was a great interviewer, more often than not, which I believe is the point cregan was trying to make.

No, he was a “gotcha” interviewer rather than a “great” interviewer.

There is a difference. And a great interviewer would not have allowed folks to tell him when they were on the record and set the rules in that fashion. A great interviewer does follow up questions when the ‘guest’ was spouting BS, which was also an area where St Timmeh was lacking.

Appealing to her education? That’s irrelevant. Her debate or discourse skills are on display and I’ve found them lacking.
Call me an “Alan Combes” Democrat? (Ad hominem)

My political affiliation is none of your business. I am against partisanship based on political parties. both are enemies of the people at this point.

I don’t have a problem with pointed questions. I have a problem with dishonest discourse. She provided her opening comment as if she were a prosecutor in court and then let the accused only respond to her questions with yes or no answers. He knew he was under attack before he ever opened his mouth. If she hadn’t have approached the interview in that fashion she would have gotten a lot further with him.

I’ll check out Daily Howler, no problem. But I watch Rachel every night and feel quite competent to judge for myself, thank you.

The rest of your comment is pure opinion. You have a perfect right to the several opinions expressed there, but I just couldn’t disagree more.

I think that’s permitted here.

Sometimes in the interview, the information forthcoming is what the interviewee did NOT say, which is the information that Maddow as able to glean from Paul.

He could not give a straight answer to the question she asked. Simple question and he started into the babbling BS which is why she kept going back to the original quesiton trying to get a straight answer which was not forthcoming.

I don’t know if Tim Russert was the person most harmful to the field of journalism, or one of a few who was most harmful to the field of journalism… but he’s right up there at the top.

And cregan, you’re just [Edited by moderator. Do not call other commenters names.]

AT LEAST HE “GOT” SOMETHING!!

Which was the point. In my book, any interviewer who can get Joe Wilson to admit he wasn’t telling the truth is pretty good. And you thought Paul was dancing, you should have seen Joe. But, Russert nailed him down.

I’m still waiting for that great Maddow interview when she actually ‘gets’ something.

Thank you for the (so far) two most intelligent comments I have seen on this thread.

Okay, several more than two – sorry, but you are quick.

Russert was a great interviewer like Denny’s makes a great steak

Sorry but being in Dick Cheney’s pocket pretty much destroys any credibility Russert might have had. Especially since Cheney and crew were doing there best to destroy the career of a NOC CIA agent who happened to be Wilson’s wife.

And please provide a link for how he managed to “get” Joe Wilson. I assume you’re referring to how Mrs. Wilson supposedly “got her husband the trip” to check the Niger stuff which was quite easily refuted in the court testimony.

Maybe I’m a doofie, but at least I can tell the difference between an interviewer getting a real answer from the dancing, dodging politician and an interviewer who can’t.

And worse, covers up their failure by making like they got something.

She got that Paul didn’t answer her question, but the real test of an interviewer, and what separates the pros from the also rans is GETTING AN ANSWER DESPITE THE DODGES.

The good ones can do it, the bad ones can’t, and the really bad ones just back off. Somewhere below that is the ones who can’t and still try to claim they did by making up answers as if the person had answered.

I’m sure you noticed that he was nowhere near as relentless with his Republican buds. His “gotchas” were almost exclusively reserved for Democrats. Cheney knew that MTP was a safe place to play.

> Assuming the entire body of human history to be an example
> of failed politics is kind of narrow-minded, eh?

I didn’t include the entire body of Martian and Venusian history in the interest of brevity. Are we square now?

> And talk to Dr. King’s descendants about my argument, or
> Nelson Mandella. Or Harvey Milk, if you could.

I did. They said America is still a racist, homophobic society. They also said that folks who sit around demanding tea-party propriety and finger sandwich-daintiness didn’t help them, or anybody else, at all.

> People shut down and stop listening when the arguments trend
> toward the extreme.

Maybe you do. I shut down and stop listening when the arguments come from someone I consider to be a concern troll, who is apparently not overly concerned about the content of the information, but is decidedly overly concerned about its presentation.

> Our goal here

Please don’t presume to speak for everyone here, and don’t presume to speak for Rachel Maddow. In fact, just speak for yourself, OK? Different folks have different goals. I think I know what your goal is.

She did expose him as a dissembler, but she also exposed herself. Thats’ the point I’m trying to make.
We should view even Rachel Maddow with a critical eye. I watch her everyday too. It took me a while to figure out what was going on with her, at first it was just an uneasy feeling, or I’d see her leave out part of the story which gave it a much different spin from the objective truth.

Maybe she should have had him in the studio so she could pull out the thumbscrews.

Jeez.

No.

Dec. 5, 2003, Meet the Press. Wilson claimed in his NYT op ed that he found nothing in Niger.

During that interview, Russert pressed him for what he had been told by one of the Niger ministers about Iraq. Wilson danced, dodged and tried to change the subject for about 5 minutes or more. finally, he said that the minister had told him that Iraq had tried to arrange a meeting with his department. Pressed further, Wilson said the guy told him that the only reason he could think of that Iraq would want to meet with him was about uranium. No other reason.

I TIVO meet the press and had it recorded that day. Watched it a number of times just because of the sheer technique of interview. I am sure there is an archive of it.

Again, you can say all kinds of things about Russert, but at least he got his question answered.

Or, maybe, just get an answer to her question.

I am sure someday I will see a good Maddow interview. I haven’t seen it yet, but I’ve only seen two.

I’m just saying, this interview wasn’t a Pulizter Prize winner.

I love how this has devolved into a shit-slinging session over opinions of a dead man’s skills as an interviewer.

OK Gotcha… you’re a neocon that still trying to sell that ridiculous Niger nonsense.

Why do I have a feeling this isn’t the first thread you’ve been on that devolved?

I’ve never suggested that America isn’t racist and homophobic. The fact that a lot of America still is racist and homophobic is what makes the premise of Rand’s ideology invalid.

who is apparently not overly concerned about the content of the information, but is decidedly overly concerned about its presentation.

I’m not overly concerned with the information in this case, because Rachel didn’t reveal anything that couldn’t be found through a google search, or by bothering to listen to Rand talk for 20 seconds. I’m concerned with the presentation because Rachel is one of the few voices that reaches a large portion of the liberal base without her opinion being tainted in the eyes of that base by a political abbreviation in front of her name. She has a wonderful opportunity to act for the greater good with interviews like this, and she kinda blew it.

Please don’t presume to speak for everyone here, and don’t presume to speak for Rachel Maddow. In fact, just speak for yourself, OK? Different folks have different goals. I think I know what your goal is.

My presumption there was that “Our goal here is to educate people about the potential ramifications of his policy, not alienate people to the message, right?” Is there a problem with me presuming that we are all concerned with the best way to influence the greater good? I thought Rachel’s attempt to expose Rand as a fraud was to educate people about the potential ramifications of his policy. And I thought you arguing for her position and her tactics put you in the camp. My Bad.

I’ve got a feeling this isn’t the first time you’ve found yourself without a relevant thought in your head, and instead covered that up by personally insulting people.

So, having one person in the Niger gov’t claim that Saddam wanted to meet somewhere and somewhen, presumably about uranium (with no actual evidence that Saddam did in fact do so) means Wilson “lied” about not finding anything when he was in Niger?

That’s the evidence that Russert elicited that makes him a great interviewer?

My professional field is Software Quality Assurance. One of the things we look for before saying something is a fact is called “objective, VERIFIABLE evidence.”

Nothing in that statement of Wilson’s contradicts the Op-ed claim of nothing found in Niger.

If you are trashing Maddow’s interview of that AZ right wing org that funded all the anti-immigrant stuff in AZ, then YOU are a bigot. That guy was exposed by his own words as like, Ari McBigot. -Adam503@52

I rest my case.

And with that, I’m off! Thank you firedogs for another spirited discussion! Namaste.

Can you honestly say that Rachel accomplished anything with this interview? Did she “reveal” Rand’s true nature? Did she expose him for what he really is, or what he really believes?

She exposed him as a simple minded person.

Per Rand he is not a racist. Yet he believes Govenrnment should not have the right to tell a business they can not refuse entry based on race. He wouldn’t goto that businesses but he understands they should have that right. Bullshit.

Who in their right mind is so pro business that you want a business to have the right to practice racial discrimination.

Your not pro business at all.

Your a racist. Would a person who is not a racist think like that. Honestly. Where is that line.

I guess Rand knows some people that would benefit business wise if they could practice racial discrimination at their place of business.

Rand thought Liberals would understand him when he tried to compare denying a person entry into a private business based on race to someone carrying a gun and being denied entry.

That is fucking insane.

You can’t leave your blackness in the closet like a gun. Even though Amy Homes tries real hard. It’s a choice to carry a gun. You could leave the gun in the trunk of your car. You can’t put your blackness in the trunk sweety.

If nothing else did you at least get that out of the interview.

That’s when Rachel started shaking her head and Paul had no idea how stupid he sounded. I guess you didn’t either.

I’m so glad you were able to emotionally detach yourself.

Your focus seemed to be so much on Rachel that you missed what Rand was saying.

Otherwise you would have never asked these questions.

“Can you honestly say that Rachel accomplished anything with this interview? Did she “reveal” Rand’s true nature? Did she expose him for what he really is, or what he really believes?”

I ask you. Is it possible for someone to be so gung ho for private business that they would defend the right of that business to practice racial discrimination. Without being a racist. Where is that line.

I’ve never heard a sane person espouse those views on national TV.

When the racist Jim Demint disagrees with you you may have gone too far.

Exclusive: DeMint Says He Disagrees With Rand Paul On Civil Rights, Needs To ‘Talk To Rand About His Positions’

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/20/demint-rand-paul/

Looks like Rachel accomplished a lot last night.

I’ve read this whole thread and have to say that uneasyone put the whole discussion to bed with two sentences in comment #36:

Rand Paul and his father both hold extremist views that they must hide to get elected to higher office. Not a good idea to sit down with Rachel if you have something that big to hide.

Is KrisAinCA your strawman of the day? Because he doesn’t stick up of Paul at all. It’s Maddow’s methods that he questions, as do I. She got a few nuggets out of him, but could have mined a ton of gold.
Reread the thread.

Wow. I’m a racist. And a bad observer. And not pro business.

I’d ask you to cite specific things I said that back up your statements. Please reread all of the comments in this thread. You’ll find that I asserted in multiple posts that Rand is a tool. I followed that assertion by saying Rachel is also a tool for focusing her interview on the fact that he is a tool. We all know he’s a tool. She had the opportunity to go further. All of my arguments were to the effect that this was a bad interview because she didn’t publicize any issues that weren’t already public.

Anybody with the time and motivation to read Rand’s platform can see he’s a fucking nimrod. I expected better from Rachel. This is why I was struck by her inflammatory badgering. She blew her opportunity to force him into a frank discussion of the merits of his platform, and instead chose to focus on whether or not he’s racist.

I think I haven’t made clear that I’m upset because Rachel did not attempt to go deeper into this issue. I’m not saying Rand’s ideology is rational. I’m saying that upon rational examination, his logic obviously falls apart and is revealed for its maliciousness and hatred. Best case scenario, the guy is ignorant. But I believe him to be racist. Either way, he’s just as dangerous if elected.

I felt that Rachel came across as hostile. If it jumped out at me, it probably jumped out at others. That hurts her argument against his policies, and gives him a leg to stand on in his arguments for his policy. This is why I feel the interview was wasted.

I jumped to the end here, so forgive me if I’ve missed something I should have read before responding.

It’s discouraging to see the left (if the people here actually deserve that label – most leftists elsewhere in the world would probably say we don’t) being as knee-jerk as the right so often is. Political correctness appears to have blinded them to what Paul was actually saying.

What he was saying is that there’s a balance between social responsibility and individual liberty, and that in his opinion requiring private businesses to refrain from racial bias favors the former at possibly undue (or perhaps merely unnecessary) expense to the latter. Likening this to free speech is entirely appropriate: we allow reprehensible speech because curing it would be (at least in the view of our founders) worse than the disease, and Paul believes that the cure for private racism (curtailment of individual liberty in running a privately-owned business) has at least a somewhat similar drawback – even though he agrees that it may have been appropriate at the time and may even remain so today (he’d simply have liked to have had the opportunity to have tried to tweak it a bit to lessen the impact on liberty without diluting the impact on movement toward a non-racist society).

Rachel proved again tonight that either she just doesn’t get this or is attempting to make sure that her listeners don’t (depending on whether you believe that she’s nowhere nearly as bright as she appears to be or very bright indeed, but unscrupulous). And I agree that this behavior of hers seems to be a recent development – another time I saw it was when she was dismissing Kucinich’s principled opposition to the health-care reform sham.

I’ve seen no inconsistency, back-tracking, or racism in Paul’s statements reported here and by Maddow (which are about the only statements of his that I’ve ever heard). Nor anything remotely characterizable as extremism. A lot of people here seem VERY sensitive to infringements on individual liberty in other areas: why is it so difficult to understand why someone might feel a desire to investigate whether it was the only available option in this one?

Political correctness may not favor such investigations, but I for one value them.

Thank you, billtodd. Your comment is a breath of fresh air.

As a 22-year-old black female who is generally neither politically right-wing, left-wing, or centrist, I think Rand Paul makes a valid argument, albeit poorly defended. To quote Zora Neale Hurston, an acclaimed black author from the civil rights era who rejected the Brown vs. Board of Education decision, “How much satisfaction can I get from a court order for somebody to associate with me who does not wish me near them?”

There are a number of other blacks, then and now, who share similar views (see for instance, issues-views.com), and I think their views deserve to be included in this discussion.

As I understand it, these people do not support the Jim Crow laws (i.e. racial segregation by force of law); what they are saying is that the opposite (racial integration by force of law) may be ineffective and even counterproductive.

To this day, segregation exists in certain businesses, schools, churches, etc. and there are places where black people are not welcome. Why not let racists display their true colors? At least then people will know who to support. What happened to the spirit of self-help, community solidarity, and black enterprise that was once so prominent?

Why should I beg the government to force people to admit me into an organization made up of racists? Why should I be used as a statistic to boost their affirmative action quota? If there have been thriving black businesses in both the North and South even before the Civil Rights Act, how much more power and choice do we have now, in the 21st century, among people who elected a black president?

Thoughts are appreciated–I’m not interested in fighting anyone, but in deepening my understanding.

One more thing (too late to edit the previous comment):

What I heard from Rachel tonight was clear MISstatements about what Paul had said (at least according to the accompanying video from last night and what I’ve read here). THAT is either incompetence or deliberate misrepresentation – and it’s hardly the first time recently that I’ve heard her do that kind of thing.

Either she really is a lot less bright than she appears to be, or she’s a ratings whore pandering to her perceived clientele and/or political cronies. I’d actually welcome a third option, because I used to enjoy watching her and likely could again if I could get past this impression of her.

Please detail her misstatements.

Had I remembered them verbatim I would have provided them. Fortunately, Rachel appears to have made all of today’s relevant material available at her blog, so here goes:

1. (Not germane, but:) The first statement by Buckley was overtly racist and repugnant. The second statement by Buckley sounds like the core of what Paul seems to be talking about.

2. (Closer to germane:) She ran the video of the reporter claiming that Paul had said that “he would oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act” – which from what I’ve seen reported he did not: he merely said he had reservations about one of its 11 sections. Not HER assertion, but it does help cement this impression in her viewers’ minds nonetheless. The video continued with the claim that Paul “wants to abolish” the Americans with Disabilities Act. Same observation applies.

3. However, she did then follow with a video from C-Span that seems to have characterized Paul’s statements much more accurately.

4. Then she began commenting herself. “When asked if Senator Sessions agreed with Dr. Paul’s conclusion …” but I’ve not heard any statement from Paul which REACHED any ‘conclusion’, just statements which made it clear that the particular handling of private business relationships concerned him, along with other statements to the effect that he did agree that SOMETHING along those lines was probably warranted (he’d just like to have had the chance to try to reduce its impact on individual prerogatives).

5. “He would have preferred that it be settled in the other direction.” First, that’s easily misinterpreted as a generalization about the act in its entirety. Beyond that, he does not appear to have said that he would have argued to completely reverse even that single portion of it, just that he would have tried to soften its impact on individual prerogatives without sacrificing its goals.

6. In this running commentary (where she went through the litany of all the legitimate reasons that government has for regulating business – none of which she had bothered to ask Paul whether he supported) she also kept asserting that Paul was backing away from his earlier statements. I see no evidence of that: he may have been backing away from her biased interpretations, but not from what he had actually said. In particular, there’s nothing inconsistent about his statement that he would have voted for the act, because across the entire political spectrum politicians do that all the time when they feel the good outweighs the bad (which he made clear that he did).

7. “a candidate who says that while he personally abhors – this – anyone who wants to do this today is within their rights to do it…” Absolutely incorrect. Paul made no such claim: he said clearly that well-established law PROHIBITS such discrimination, hence he cannot possibly believe it’s a ‘right’. At worst (if you’re making value judgments here), he may believe that absent compelling reasons to the contrary it SHOULD be a right (but then a great many people here believe that health care SHOULD be a right: it’s just an opinion), and even then he makes it clear that this belief in no way signifies his approval of such behavior (any more than a belief that even odious speech should be free signifies approval of its content).

8. “… and the government was wrong to stop it when they did.” See point 5 above: while it’s clear that this part of the act concerns him, it’s not clear that he thinks it simply should have been omitted – just that he’d like to have seen it handled differently (I’d be interested in hearing exactly how, but Rachel didn’t seem interested in exploring that).

9. Wonder of wonders, while the NAACP president (who repeated Rachel’s dubious charge of ‘flip-flopping’) was talking about how those awful Republicans and Tea Baggers were attempting to revive a long-dead issue (I’ve never even remotely qualified as either, but it’s always bothered me – which is not to say that I have a better solution to offer off the top of my head) a banner below him stated “Spokesman: Paul supports govt. blocking businesses from discriminating”, thus clearing up the point on which she had based her previous 15 minutes of diatribe. Wonder if anyone noticed that? I sure didn’t at the time, and Rachel certainly didn’t comment on it.

I otherwise liked what the NAACP president had to say: he makes the case FOR regulating business in this manner very powerfully. The problem is that there IS a legitimate case to be made on the other side and that case should not just be shouted down: rather, an informed balance should be the goal (I’m tempted to compare it to Roe v. Wade in this respect).

10. When talking about Paul and McConnell Rachel apparently gratuitously editorialized the on-screen quote “… Glad to hear Dr. Paul supports the Civil Rights Act of 1964″ into “Glad to hear that Rand Paul NOW SAYS he supports the Civil Rights Act of 1964″ – thus reinforcing her dubious contention that his position had changed, possibly only as a matter of political convenience. I suppose that the on-screen quote could have been the incorrect one, but I have my doubts. Followed immediately by her parody of a McConnell comment “Now that you’ve been forced to change your position on segregation” – as if Paul had EVER said anything to suggest he supported segregation as a government policy rather than, (again) at worst, an unfortunate prerogative of those private persons and their businesses who chose to exercise it.

Thanks for getting me to look at my initial impressions in greater detail (and with more time to examine them carefully). Rather than just being disappointed in Rachel, I’m now verging on being actively disgusted with her.

One more thing, as Rachel would say:

You piqued my interest sufficiently that I went back to look at her Wednesday night show with the appearance by Paul, which I had missed. Near the start on Thursday night Rachel made the unequivocal statement that “Dr. Paul said last night on our air that the Courier Journal never endorses Republican candidates. That is not true…” followed by a scrolling list of a few Republicans that paper had endorsed as direct and damning evidence of Paul’s prevarication.

The problem is, it was Rachel’s statement that was not true. On Wednesday night Paul said, “When the Courier Journal does not endorse a Republican that’s not something very unusual in our state. They typically don’t endorse Republicans…”

Perhaps she’s simply really sloppy (to the degree of near-incompetence).

I appreciate your comments and I’m glad I checked back in on this thread today. If you have the time, please read through the entire thread. You’ll see the conversation, on the part of myself and shekissesfrogs, was focused on the way the interview was conducted. As for Paul’s policies, I personally believe they may be racially motivated, which could make him a racist. I don’t agree with his policy regardless because I believe it opens the door for the worst factions of our society to start Jim Crowing people again.

I watched Rachel’s show last night and was kinda turned off by the fact that she spent the first 30 minutes of the show talking about this. With the cloture vote on finreg yesterday and the Deep Horizon disaster still ongoing, I think there were more relevant things that could’ve taken more time. It felt that she was tooting her own horn a bit for stirring up controversy with her interview.

Don’t get me wrong, anyone who bothers to come back in here and read this. I love Rachel. I admire her as a person (what I know of her) and as a member of the press. I’ve just noticed what seems to be a trend toward towing the party line lately, instead of coming up with innovative ideas and asking the right questions.

Rachel is certainly easy to like, especially if that affection developed prior to, say, this past March (when she indeed projected the impression of being seriously progressive).

For me, however, her behavior since then has pretty much eroded that earlier respect. While she still often sheds progressive light on SOME issues, when it comes to a choice between party and progressivism her choice is clear.

(The expression, by the way, is “TOE the line”. It comes from obedience to a rule relating to positioning one’s feet, though in practice often does involve lending active effort to a cause – hence the confusion with ‘towing’.)

Beg pardon, but I asked for misstatements. I expected a list or catalog of untruths or falsifications, not a critique of her editorial style. What you did was divine assumptions she made, weave it together with a fine mesh of Paul’s own lack of clarity, and presto – untruth.

Thanks for playing, though.

Your enthusiasm seems to exceed your ability to read. Items 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 were examples of misstatements (material either actually contrary to her presented material or unjustified by it).

And my comment 131 above describes an outright, bald-faced lie.

The no-central governance model is Somalia. The small central government model is Afghanistan.

Just curious how you would describe the United States from 1800-1900.