Rachel Maddow's Devastating Interview with Rand Paul
Man oh man... Rand Paul did not do himself any favors by appearing in this interview with Rachel Maddow. His remarks about the Civil Rights Act might go over alright with his Tea Party crowd, but as his opponent Jack Conway said on Hardball tonight, that's not "going to be acceptable across the country". He just got a small dose of what he's in for until the election in November with this interview.
Joan Walsh summed up the interview nicely at Salon -- Rachel Maddow demolishes Rand Paul:
Kentucky GOP Senate nominee Rand Paul is squirming under the bright lights of national media attention since he toppled Mitch McConnell's handpicked candidate Trey Grayson Tuesday night. On Wednesday, an interview he gave to the Louisville Courier-Journal, in which he seemed to say he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, hit the Internet and cable television. Wednesday night MSNBC's Rachel Maddow interviewed him and tried to get him to clarify his remarks, and Paul tried to talk his way out of siding with the terrible folks who wouldn't let black students sit at those Southern lunch counters in 1960.
But Paul basically sided with the terrible folks. The Tea Party hero said he thought the Civil Rights Act was fine when it came to desegregating public institutions, but not private businesses. He called the issue of desegregating lunch counters "obscure," and implied the First Amendment gave business owners the right to be racist. Read on...
As Joan noted, it's going to become very apparent to voters in Kentucky that the tea party crowd just wants to dismantle the Great Society, the New Deal and the civil rights movement. Any of us that have been watching them in action have known that for some time now.
Dave N.: Wow. That was a devastating interview. Next, I'd like to see someone ask Rand's dad the same questions ...
Maddow puts up a great front, but she was the one flustered and confused because she couldn't browbeat him the way she does most of her guest.
"...glad to talk with this about you..." was the way she ended the interview. She'd clearly met her match and been outdone by a cool, sophisticated, and intelligent politician.
The democratic establishment has no idea what to do with someone like Rand Paul. He obviously knows what he's talking about and he is right on most of his opinions.
Maddow needs to learn how to be an honest interviewer. And it's about time someone stood up to her.
She was trying to get a yes or no answer. She was asking about broader discrimination, but he kept saying that the civil rights act is a government overreach but discrimination based on race is bad. He kept bringing it back to race. He did his best to dodge other discrimination, like homophobia, antisemitism, and the rising religious and political xenophobia. She was trying to pin him down on an intellectually substantive answer, but he kept narrating his pastiche of catch phrases and vague sentiments.
Just because everything he says sounds good doesn't mean it's intellectually cogent.
Personally, I also think the Civil Rights Act has caused a few problems as well as fixing many others (with a predominantly good fix-to-flaw ratio). That doesn't mean I would support someone argues against it with blurts of "small government!" and "federal overreach" and "state sovereignty!" One should criticize it by addressing *specific* issues and opening them to debate for improvement.
Personally (my opinion), I think he is trying to appeal to the Tea Party need to feel like they are not racist, while still giving them an out for "thugs" (low income / education Blacks), "illegals" (low-acclimation Latino / Mexican immigrants), Teh Gay, "terrorists" (Muslims), atheists, the well educated, and "Amurica hatin' libruls!".
I can't help but remember the video of the Tea Partier (I believe at Washington DC) chasing and harassing a [the only] black woman shouting, "She's ACORN!!! She's ACORN!!!".
You're a sadly obvious troll. I'd say nice try but there's nothing nice about it.
If he's so right on his opinions, why is he unwilling to answer the question about how he would have voted for the CR Act? And this is not a red herring: voting on legislation is exactly what he would have to do if elected, and finding out how he would have voted is an excellent way to find out his character.
As it stands, it's clear that he is not sufficiently confident of his opinions to answer a simple question.
If you want an "honest" interview, you need an honest interviewee.
It's pretty obvious that this guy thinks that government should not be segregated, and he believes that any company that deals with the government should be required to not discriminate. At least that's what he's pounding into the ground. But his comment about blurring public and private is interesting. He's pretty slippery during an interview, so Rachel never got him to definitively answer the main question. Should lunch counters, gas stations, private clubs, or Bob Jones University be allowed to descriminate? Based on his "blurring" comment, I believe he thinks they should be allowed to descriminate. Of course, this is all in the name of libertarianism. Just as there is a spectrum of conservatives in the Republican Party and a spectrum of liberals in the Democratic Party, there must be a spectrum in the Libertarian Party or in that movement. For example, I would think that Ron Paul would not necessarily agree with everything this man says. It is sad to think that there may be a lot of people in his state who agree with his stance.
However, I have come to the conclusion that people aren't voting now-a-days based on a politicians stance. Look at New Jersey. They voted out a good governor, and look at what they've got. A man who is destroying the public schools and the police and firefighters of his state - all in the name of smaller government and less taxes. Did the people of New Jersey know what this guy was like? As a person who lives across the border from New Jersey, I can say that they should have known. I think it was pretty apparent. But they voted him in anyway. Old saying, "Cutting off your nose to spite your face." They may have been dissatisfied with Corzine, but Cristy is much worse.
So if the voting public depends on the right-wing media, or if they are simply completely uninformed, the country will suffer.
Comments are closed on this entry