Young Turks: Rand Paul Pre & Post Rachel Maddow Interview Analysis

[CherylK]

Run time: 08:15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0RnnrdKGlg   Posted on YouTube: May 21, 2010 By YouTube Member: TheYoungTurks Views on YouTube: 2654   Posted on DU: May 21, 2010 By DU Member: CherylK Views on DU: 1224

 
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/2010_Elections/rand-paul-fires-back-critics-civil-rights-act/story?id=10705651

[ejbr]

1. k & r

Ben is so hot.

[Tx4obama]

9. I agree :) n/t

[HisTomness]

2. This guy (Ben) is a bit grating

What he's trying to do is transparent enough - He's trying to paint Rand Paul as being in favor of racial discrimination.
This is a classic straw man argument.
Paul's assertion is that a federal law banning discrimination in private enterprise is inappropriate.
The straw man is the assertion that it is appropriate to discriminate against people in private enterprise.

If you are in favor of the Civil Rights Act (as I am), then man up and cop to its real implications:
We are in favor of the federal government banning certain behaviors, even in private enterprise e.g. racketeering and fraud.
It's just a question of where we draw the line, and our democratic society has decided that we would rather include discrimination on invalid criteria (like race or religion) under that umbrella.

I don't know Rand Paul - I suspect we wouldn't agree on much - but I know a smear job when I see it. This reminds me of all the arguments I've heard in the last few weeks from supporters of that asinine immigration bill in Arizona that basically assert that if you're against the bill you must therefore support illegal immigration. I don't agree with Rand Paul's opposition to the private enterprise aspect of the Civil Rights Act, but I'll maintain the integrity to see his argument for what it is rather than leaping to the conclusion that he is pro-racism.

- His Penultimate Tomness

[HisTomness]

3. However, I just read up on his comments about Obama and BP

So let me make clear that this guy Rand Paul seems like a jackass.
I'm definitely not a fan - I just like keeping the discussion honest.

[ejbr]

4. If you were keeping the discussion honest

you would have signed this post "The Penultimate Tomness" too. :)

[Karenina]

6. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[droidamus2]

5. I'm confused

Number one Rand's point seems to define every business as private which on its face is wrong. Everyone of these businesses has to have a license to do business, meet zoning laws and any number of other 'government requirements'. Just because somebody 'owns it' doesn't make it private! Rand tries to separate those laws directly dealing with Government and discrimination from those that deal with 'private enterprise' and discrimination. If you say (no matter how ridiculous it may be) that 'private enterprise ' has a right to discriminate then what happens if a group of blacks, Jews, gays or whatever decide to go to you business, let's say a restaurant, and occupy all the seats and order., again lets say a cup off coffee. By Rand's ignorant point of view these people would be essentially trespassing as the owner has stated in some way that they are not welcomed. Who is then going to enforce this owner of a 'private enterprises' right to discriminate. Gee could it be the police? How the hell is that any different than the 'Jim Crow' laws that the Civil Rights act got rid of.

[chillspike]

7. Is not about smearing Paul a racist

It's about the repercussions of his ideas. The fact is, if Rand Paul's idea that a business has a right to racially discriminate is applied we will be seeing segregated lunch counters again. That's what this is about. Not about calling Paul a racist. That is beside the point.

[WhoIsNumberNone]

10. Agreed-

And if he thinks that segregated businesses in the south wouldn't be able to stay in business, then he doesn't understand the South. You can be sure there are parts of the country where enough whites would give all their business to a "whites only" restaurant, or hotel... or HOSPITAL to keep it afloat.

[Capitalocracy]

12. and even if they do fail

because people can't stand their racism, if they buy a few congressmen first, they can just get a bailout

[Capitalocracy]

11. Rand Paul supports your right to discriminate at your business

That's not a characterization or a strawman argument, that's what he says. Now, what that means is that Rand Paul, in a position of power and having eliminated the Civil Rights Act (or that one pesky little part of it), would send in police to forcibly remove anyone of an undesired race/religion/sexual orientation etc. from your business if you asked them to, and count on the free market to make sure you went out of business.

Also, Rand says he's 100% in favor of eliminating discrimination from the public sector. Yet, he is against repealing don't ask don't tell. Now, is it that much of a stretch, given that information, to question whether or not Rand might actually not abhor discrimination in both the private and public sector as much as he claims to? Or are we supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt even when logic is not on that side?

This is coded race language to build "big tent" support, getting people to say no, it's not that he's racist, it's that he's in favor of freedom to the logical extreme, while telling racists come on in, the water's fine, vote for me.

Calling Ben's analysis of a very controversial statement with serious implications in the public dialogue (this is circling around and around the conservative echo chamber and could stick and really move us in the wrong direction) a smear campaign is way off the mark. I'm sorry, but I have to call it like I see it. Randy stepped in $hit and all Ben's doing is saying something smells funny. I don't see the problem here.

K&R for the OP.

[HisTomness]

13. @Capitalocracy

You are absolutely correct - that is Rand Paul's position. I find his position abhorrent and wrongheaded.

However, the straw man argument is to move from his supporting your right to discriminate at your business to his supporting the discrimination itself. Maybe he does secretly support that, maybe he is a racist - I don't know. But on the face of it that is not the position he is advocating, and to claim otherwise is journalistically disingenuous.

To be clear, here are two quotes from Ben that I found inappropriate:

"So what you're saying, Dr. Paul, is it is okay, you would have thought it was okay for Woolworth's not to serve Dr. King or any of those kids who engaged in the sit-in. And what Rand Paul said was, if I may paraphrase, is 'yeah, that's right.'"

"If the water fountain were in a private restaurant, Rand Paul would think it was okay that blacks could drink at one fountain and whites at another."

While he may in his secret mind actually think that is okay, while he may be pandering to the racist element on the right, the fact is that Paul explicitly stated that he did not think these things were okay. Rather, he says he believes that it is not okay for the federal government to regulate these activities.

Am I looking to defend Rand Paul? Absolutely not. But I love TYT and I think this kind of shoddy treatment of a news item reflects poorly on them.

[Capitalocracy]

14. Rand Paul is trying to become a legislator.

I think Ben is speaking in those terms... and I'm not sure if it was in this clip or the rest of the show, but he did specifically state that he didn't know or assume that Rand is racist. But in his potential role as a legislator, in terms of legislation, yes, he's OK with it. He may "hate" it, but as a legislator, it's perfectly safe to say he's OK with it.

I don't think it was shoddy at all, I think it's perfectly fair to criticize someone very harshly for saying they will defend not just racist speech, but state-backed racist action, a right to racial discrimination enforced by police.

Plus, TYT is a talk show. Opinions are permitted. Ben is allowed to come right out and say I'm convinced this guy is a goddamn racist, but he didn't, showing more prudence and restraint than he even really had to.

[HisTomness]

15. I'm just going by what he said

I get the criticism and the motivation behind it - I'm with him on that. I don't have a problem with harsh criticism, just with criticism that moves past the truth (which I believe was the case here).

Offering opinion is fine. Being misleading or stating falsehoods is not fine, even if you are a talk show. I don't think those at TYT would disagree with that.

To say that Paul's position is in support of state-backed racist action is like saying that opposition to gun control laws is tantamount to support for state-backed gun violence. You can go there if you want, but I think it's disingenuous.

[suzanner]

8. Randy's whole premise is intellectually silly

and makes him look like a stupid buffoon. The only thing he's thinking about are his tea party supporters- the ones with the ridiculous signs, the birthers, the fringe. The logic is that flawed.

[silenttigersong]

16. Why doesnt he just say

no blacks no jews in my private country club?