Rachel Maddow demolishes Rand Paul

[babylonsister]

Rachel Maddow demolishes Rand Paul

The Tea Party favorite says he'd have marched with Martin Luther King Jr., but he opposes the law that forced businesses to serve him. Video at link~

By Joan Walsh

*

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.

You've got to watch the whole interview. At the end, Paul seemed to understand that he's going to be explaining his benighted civil rights views for a long, long time – but he seemed to blame Maddow. "You bring up something that is really not an issue…a red herring, it's a political ploy…and that's the way it will be used," he complained at the end of the interview. Whether the Civil Rights Act should have applied to private businesses – "not really an issue," says Tea Party hero Rand Paul.

It's going to become increasingly clear that the Tea Party movement wants to revoke the Great Society, the New Deal and the laws that were the result of the civil rights movement. Paul may be right that his views are "not really an issue" with his Tea Party supporters, although I have to think some of them won't enjoy watching him look like a slippery politician as he fails, over and over, to answer Maddow's questions directly. It's a long way to November, but I'd be pretty happy to be Kentucky Democrat Jack Conway right about now.

Here's the interview (at link). Don't watch if you can't stand to see a politician sweat.

http://www.salon.com/news/rand_paul_kentucky_senate_republican/index.html?story=/opinion/walsh/politics/2010/05/19/rachel_maddow_demolishes_rand_paul

[Skidmore]

Rachel is brilliant.

I adore Rachel. Rachel is such a skilled interviewer. She does us all proud. Ole Rand thought he was safe because he announced his candidacy on her program. Rachel doesn't play FOX games, she expects answers from all guests. She let him speak is mind and his mind is the problem. Nothing the man said was not what he thinks or believes. Just now MJ is talking about the Republican Party's "Rand Paul problem."

[Hubert Flottz]

1. If "private businesses" can't abide by the law of the land they should

move to a place like North Korea. If a company is so "Private" it's race biased, they shouldn't be allowed to have any contact with the public in a "free country".

Edit...If Kentucky sends that prick to Washington, I won't be shopping or spending a dime in that state. Mitch is bad enough.

[Barack_America]

4. I believe their plan is to move to someplace known as "Galt's Gulch".

That'll show all of us!

:rofl:

[Hubert Flottz]

22. Pretty soon everyone in the GOP will be a registered pervert...

so their addy will be on the WWW!

[Dr Fate]

26. Isn't that in China? n/t

n/t

[Dappleganger]

2. Rachel's brilliance is knowing how to hand people like Paul the right size shovel...

so they continue to dig themselves into a hole during the entire interview.

Sadly, it usually doesn't take that much effort.

[Barack_America]

3. Aw, he's trying to promote Objectivism as a valid political philosophy. How cute.

His namesake would be so proud.

:rofl:

[zipplewrath]

5. I work with this guy

Not literally of course, but I work with a guy who stated virtually the same thing.

We were talking about hiring and firing at our company and he says "I think companies should be allowed to hire and fire whomever they what for whatever reason". I responded "You'da loved 1950's Mississippi". His response, I kid you not was, "Hey, that'd be alright, let the market decide". I decided not to pursue politics in the work place and just rolled my eyes. I shoulda referred him to HR for "diversity retraining".

[Myrina]

10. ... you should have told him that if 'the market decided' ...

... he'd be unemployed because there are always immigrant workers of all races who will (unfortunately) do his job for half the wages and no benefits.

[zipplewrath]

12. Reason rarely works with this guy

"Yes but..." is his most common response to anything. He can be a pain to work with and I have to be very "instructional" with him or all I get is an argument. You can never ask him "can you do this" or "I need this" or any instruction like that. I always have to be careful to say "we are required to..." It's the only way to get work out of him.

[Myrina]

21. Blahhhh .. I used to have one of those ...

... was a RWinger, too. Damn near sent me into therapy, but I quit the job instead.

What is it with those folks? :hurts:

[zipplewrath]

23. Answers in the past

We are all motivated by some belief that things "could be better". The vast majority of us tend to think that is somewhere in the future. A certain set effectively believes that it is "in the past".

A certain amount of mythology and interest in the occult is connected with this concept. "Secret Knowledge" that was "lost" because of our move into science and logic. To some extent it is at the root of organized religions. "Ancient knowledge" whether it's Budda, Moses, Jesus, Mohammand or Ron Hubbard, is "out there" to be just picked up and solve all your problems. No need to actually have to "figure it all out" yourself. Even better, things are bad BECAUSE all these people just won't follow these "simple rules".

Some where along the line most of us stop looking under our pillows for money from the tooth fairy and start realizing that future is the only "future" we have.

[IndianaJoe]

16. Libertarians are wierd. This "let the market decide" stuff

was pretty much refuted in books like "The Jungle". Untrammelled free market capitalism has already been tried in the U.S. It was called the "Era of the Robber Barons" for a reason.

[zipplewrath]

18. Several times

"The wild west", feudal europe, and to some extent, the US in the mid 1700's are all examples of how unregulated markets are a bust. Really, if you look at history, and the current state of the world, the "markets" that are working the best are something between heavily regulated capitalism and nominal socialism. We're all gonna look more like China in about 50 years than anyone wants to acknowledge. The government is the only entity that can really "afford" the kinds of "risk" that certain investments and development requires, they are the only ones with the capacity for the long term expenditures, and as such should be the entity that also receives the "return" on those investments. There's no reason for a "corporate" middle man in those activities.

[MadMaddie]

33. Even with verifiable Evidence like the stock market fiasco

oil gusher and exploding oil mines they are unwilling to accept the truth!

[Javaman]

24. his moronic stance cuts both ways...

and that's the part these racist pricks fail to understand.

By his logic any minority owned business could do the same to him.

Their argument has absolutely nothing to do with business' right to decide whom they can serve, it has everything to do, with white power. These racists believe that they can do what ever they please.

Do you honestly believe this moron co-worker would be just fine and dandy if a minority owned business denied him service? hell no.

It's not racism to them until it effects them.

The failure of the right wing blow hards is that they fail to realized that the civil rights act of 1964 effects everyone not just minorities.

I have a deep and entrenched loathing for racists.

[JerseygirlCT]

31. Let me guess: white male, yes?

The one who would benefit most from a trip back to the "good old days" and "letting the market decide".

[lunatica]

6. Rachel basically set the debate for his political career at least near term

Remember how the Republicans control the narrative? Rachel did that last night.

[stray cat]

7. Paul is at least consistent in his beliefs and honest

people should know who they are voting for or against - I wish more politicians were as consistent or straightforward

[redqueen]

19. How far back have you observed his record? (nt)

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. He'll get votes with those comments.

The interesting thing is that the code words are now being dispensed with.

[customerserviceguy]

14. It's true

his words will resonate with a lot of people, and not just in Kentucky.

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. I'm relieved it's finally out in the open.

I was getting tired of their denials.

[get the red out]

17. And he will loose votes

Kentucky isn't all a rural backwater. I hope this gets a LOT of discussion in Louisville and Lexington.

As for the rest of the state, they need to know that he opposes the Americans with Disabilities Act and Medicaid, among other things that help disadvantaged Kentuckians along. Rand Paul provides enough ammunition to use against him for everyone's tastes, I just hope Conway capitalizes.

[GoneOffShore]

25. Lose not loose

Please.

[Javaman]

27. they will first loosen, then finally fall away. LOL nt

[BootinUp]

9. I wish Rachel had just pointed out to the dumbfuck

that a federal law that might allow bringing a gun into a private place of business against the owners wishes is nothing like discrimination based on race and to try and equate them even in an intellectual hypothetical debate is beyond stupid. One is a safety/security question the other is well a racism question. Then to try and tie it all into a First Amendment right. How utterly stupid.

I do applaud her work in exposing the atrocious positions of the teabaggers nonetheless.

[Loge23]

11. The libertarian philosphy just doesn't work

I watched the interview also. I felt that Rachel stuck too close to the racial aspect of the argument (as heinous as it is), while Paul was basically preaching the libertarian mantra of hands off private industry. Besides the glaring example of segregated lunch counters, what about Wall Street? The Oil drilling industry? Health Care? Pharmaceuticals?
Time and time and time again we have seen that perhaps the best reason for having a government is to assure accountability, fairness, and adherence to law.
Paul's position of hands off private industry is absolutely ridiculous on any measure.
This argument should not get bound by a discussion of racial preference. In that measure, I felt Rachel missed a golden opportunity to shred the entire concept of libertarianism.

[Skidmore]

13. The patronage of business is the very weapon that can be used

to unseat this philosophy, particularly in its most pernicious form as outlined by Paul last night. It is the same nonviolent weapon that the Civil Rights movement used against Jim Crow a half a century ago when states rights was the hue and cry. It is still there and all it takes is a willingness to step up to confront the modern incarnation of Jim Crow using its same old vulnerability. You have to be willing to discharge the salvo once loaded.

[Little Star]

28. Much as I enjoy Rachel's show I thought she

could have done much, much better.

[CanonRay]

15. Rand Paul just spouts the usual half-baked and half-thought out libertarianism

that his mindless followers eat up. When you carry libertarianism to its logical conclusion, if fail miserably.

[bridgit]

29. Rand Paul is one condescending self centered little snip

[JerseygirlCT]

32. That's what I was thinking, too

All that well-spoken, seemingly intelligent stuff - wasted on a bizarre political philosophy and a racist upbringing. Self-centered and smug. Just as you say.

[newtothegame]

30. These posts are a little sensational.

Every day, there's at least 5-10 posts about our side DEMOLISHING someone, or DECIMATING someone or SLAUGHTERING someone. Besides the disturbing rhetoric, it's hard to take seriously. If all political debate and argument were as one sided as DU makes it appear to be, there would be no two parties, no 52%-47% Presidential elections, and no Fox Snooze.