Maddow Tears Into Rand For Denying He Questioned Civil Rights Act

[anaconda]

...

 

[Dogsoldier]

Ron Paul said he wouldn't have voted for it and rightly so. The further Rand drifts away from his dad the less support he will get.

 

[jtstellar]

Ron Paul said he wouldn't have voted for it and rightly so. The further Rand drifts away from his dad the less support he will get.

you count yourself multiple times?

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

That remains to be proven. To date, he's only been elected to the Senate once in a medium size southern state.

He won a statewide election, something Ron Paul never did.

 

[georgiaboy]

never misunderestimate the ability of these MSM hacks to twist facts, ask loaded questions, misinterpret the answers, and attack anyone who does not agree with their warped mindset.
remember, this is just 2013, imagine what will happen till 2014-15.

my advice to Rand, start talking about this issue, RIGHT NOW, in small doses. even if not asked about this.
once he does that, this issue will be de-sensitized in the people's minds. thus WHEN someone attacks him about this later in an interview when he has good ratings, things won't nosedive.
do not avoid this issue, take it head on.

Agree. What's the old adage? "There's no such thing as bad press". This controversy will get him more interviews, more airtime, and guess what? He's on the right side of this issue.

Rand, here's a freebie for you: "There are people out there that are still trying to divide this nation along racial lines, and will use any spin or smear tactic to do it. The moss is creeping up on them, too. I am doing what they dare not even try - I am reaching out to everyone with a plan to empower us all. I am part of a new vision for America that isn't seeking to divide us by race or class, but to bring us together under the banner of real civil liberties, freedom, peace, and prosperity. The shrill voices trying to stifle this don't want this to happen because they have the most to lose atop their grandiose perches."

 

[robert68]

He won a statewide election, something Ron Paul never did.

That hardly means "Rand also really, really knows how to play politics..." which was the statement I was responding to. Also, Ron Paul's Texas is the 2nd most populated state in the country, Rand's Kentucky is the 26th most populated.

 

[robert68]

It's not a lie. He always said he would have voted for the CRA. He made it clear numerous times he supports it and he has never wavered in his support of the act.

He questioned one title out of 10. So he supports 9/10th's of the Act and has never wavered in that support.

So it's not a lie.

Perhaps you ought to read and understand what he's saying.

He said "he never wavered" in his support for "civil rights", and Title II of the CRA, which he's said he objects to, is far from insignificant.

 

[RonPaulMall]

He said "he never wavered" in his support for "civil rights", and Title II of the CRA, which he's said he objects to, is far from insignificant.

Yeah, it may just be one provision, but the one Rand and all lovers of liberty object to also happens to be the most important one in the eyes of the left. The whole topic is a trap. Repeal of the CRA isn't going to happen anytime soon. And the public is far too stupid and ill informed on the matters of Constitutional Law and political philosophy to even understand why no true Civil Libertarian would have voted for the CRA.

 

[jct74]

Man we missed a good night of MSNBC. Maddow's twin brother had some thoughts of his own.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/...eRawStory+(The+Raw+Story)&;utm_medium=twitter

Conor Friedersdorf with a pretty good rebuttal to Chris Hayes:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-as-racially-unenlightened-in-america/274939/


excerpt:

The irony is that Hayes' segment and most coverage of race in the establishment media treats conversation about race -- it's earnestness, tone, and sophistication -- as a proxy far more important than hard fought policy changes. Awkward moments during a speech at Howard can get you labeled as hilariously backward about race in America in analysis that totally ignores your policy efforts.

Whereas Mayor Bloomberg, who has presided over Stop and Frisk and spying on innocent Muslim Americans, would never be labeled "worse than Braid Paisley on civil rights." And Barack Obama, who gave a superb speech about race in America, is judged, by virtue of his rhetorical sophistication, to be the epitome of enlightenment on the subject. Hayes is truly a vital voice, in part because (unlike many others on MSNBC) he consistently and admirably criticizes the Obama Administration for its transgressions against civil liberties. Insofar as there's any chance of stopping indefensible drone strikes or inane drug policies, it's because of people like Hayes, and I really can't overstate how much I appreciate that about his work. Yet he would not do a mocking, glib segment that portrayed Obama's outreach to blacks and Muslims as laughable and "cringe-inducing," no matter how badly Obama's policies transgressed against justice. That's because in America we cringe at awkward moments more than indefinite detention. Paul's rhetoric on race is thought to be more "unsophisticated" than Stop and Frisk.

Even people who criticize establishment abominations can't quite bring themselves to mock and ridicule them.

Ridicule is for folks outside the tribe.

The rest of the Paul-mocking media wouldn't criticize a Bloomberg or Obama on civil rights or racial policy at all, not because Bloomberg and Obama have more enlightened racial policies -- they're presiding over the ugliest of what we've got at the local and national levels -- but because Bloomberg and Obama know how to talk about race in the way it is done at liberal arts colleges. They'd be far better than Paul at being sensitivity trainers or diversity outreach coordinators.