Maddow Tears Into Rand For Denying He Questioned Civil Rights Act

[supermario21]

http://www.me diaite.com/tv/maddow-tears-into-rand-paul-for-denying-he-questioned-civil-rights-act-you-did-question-it-on-my-show/

Remember when Rachel Maddow interviewed then-Senate candidate Rand Paul in 2010 over whether he supported the Civil Rights Act? It was one of the first times Paul got national media attention, since he admitted to having some serious issues with the landmark legislation. So it was with some shock that Maddow reacted to Paul’s claim during an event at Howard University today that he “never came out in opposition to the Civil Rights Act.” Maddow slammed Paul for trying to run away from something she still remembers very well.

Maddow reminded viewers that Paul had a somewhat awkward time reaching out to Latino voters in a speech at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce last month, only a day after the GOP released its “autopsy” report recommending they need to do better with minority voters. And Maddow pointed out how Paul had a similarly awkward moment at Howard, when his attempt to call out the crowd for not knowing enough about black history backfired.

But then Maddow ran the clip of Paul stating quite ardently, “I’ve never questioned the Civil Rights Act, never came out in opposition to the Civil Rights Act.” He mentioned “one interview” he did about it, a clear reference to his interview with Maddow three years ago, in which he said that he has concerns with the idea of ordering private business owners to implement non-discriminatory practices. Maddow explained tonight that she “never got a straight answer” from Paul about whether or not he supported it.

But with the GOP only weeks removed from its new plan to reach out to minorities, Maddow asked if Paul is really the “outreach director” the party needs at this time.

 

[itshappening]

He never questioned the whole act. He questioned a part of the act. An important distinction that the dishonest liberal hack will not make.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Wouldn't the fact that he questioned a part of the act be inconsistent with "Never questioning the act" though? Granted, I don't blame Rand for this, he's under a ton of pressure, but that does seem like at least a partial lie. Ron would have stuck to his guns without any apologies. And IIRC, Ron rejected the whole thing because of state's rights as well as property rights.

 

[supermario21]

Rand's trying to destroy the right-left paradigm but the left is just hell-bent on destroying Rand. I think they're scared of him.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Of course they are. They're neo-progressives to the core.

Rand also really, really knows how to play politics...

 

[Rudeman]

Did anyone expect anything different? The left will throw everything at Rand to prevent him from making any inroads.

 

[Brett85]

"Maddow reminded viewers that Paul had a somewhat awkward time reaching out to Latino voters in a speech at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce last month"

How exactly did Rand have an "awkward time" reaching out to Latino voters? That's just BS.

 

[sailingaway]

Wouldn't the fact that he questioned a part of the act be inconsistent with "Never questioning the act" though? Granted, I don't blame Rand for this, he's under a ton of pressure, but that does seem like at least a partial lie. Ron would have stuck to his guns without any apologies. And IIRC, Ron rejected the whole thing because of state's rights as well as property rights.

No, Ron said he was in favor of getting rid of the Jim Crow laws, but not on the expansion of federal power over private action which should be at the state level, at least now, that this issue was not about to come again, because up to that point it was well settled constitutional law that federal control ended there.

That culture after Jim Crow laws was the one place where I can see undoing it actually took something affirmative, because the states had enforced the unequal Jim Crow laws. but the means taken was bad for representation of individuals who are best represented, TYPICALLY at the local level. That arson is bad doesn't make fire bad, and states' rights aren't bad because racism found an outlet there at one point in our history.

But yeah, if he said he never questioned it, that is a bit loose, people do mispeak though.

 

[supermario21]

"Maddow reminded viewers that Paul had a somewhat awkward time reaching out to Latino voters in a speech at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce last month"

How exactly did Rand have an "awkward time" reaching out to Latino voters? That's just BS.

Maddow is a useless troll...But it makes no difference, the only people that watch her show are already on her side.

 

[Christian Liberty]

No, Ron said he was in favor of getting rid of the Jim Crow laws, but not on the expansion of federal power over private action which should be at the state level, at least now, that this issue was not about to come again, because up to that point it was well settled constitutional law that federal control ended there.

That culture after Jim Crow laws was the one place where I can see undoing it actually took something affirmative, because the states had enforced the unequal Jim Crow laws. but the means taken was bad for representation of individuals who are best represented, TYPICALLY at the local level. That arson is bad doesn't make fire bad, and states' rights aren't bad because racism found an outlet there at one point in our history.

But yeah, if he said he never questioned it, that is a bit loose, people do mispeak though.

I knew Ron was against the Jim Crow laws but I figured he might have been consitutionaly consistent to the point where he was unwilling to use Federal power to stop it. Which, short of a constitutitonal amendment, is honestly the correct answer. I don't expect them to talk about it, or really care, but as a matter of consistency, I think (I could be wrong) FEDERAL repeal of Jim Crow laws is in fact unconstitutional without an amendment.

 

[MRK]

Maddow was just pouting because he didn't namedrop her show during the entire speech and Q&A.

 

[trey4sports]

rand did question a part of the act.

Doing so was a huge political error so he had to backtrack.

Thus, he has to play dumb and pretend there was some big misunderstanding or mischaracterization. I'm not hatin', I'm just sayin...

 

[supermario21]

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/...wStory+(The+Raw+Story)&utm_medium=twitter

On his show Wednesday night, MSNBC host Chris Hayes mocked Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) speech to Howard University by comparing it to the new country song “Accidental Racist.”

Both attempted racial outreaches were admirable, he said, but that didn’t prevent them from also being cringe-worthy.

In his speech to black students at Howard University, Rand appeared to assume that his audience didn’t understand the history of the civil rights movement. The Republican from Kentucky also attempted to rewriting his prior statements about the landmark Civil Rights Act.


“Both Rand Paul and Brad Paisley seem to think the way to bridge the racial divide is a double helping of sheer earnestness,” Hayes remarked. “But earnestness, as nice a trait as it is — believe me, I know of where I speak — is no substitute for a sophisticated understanding of how our past relates to the present, or a commitment to policies that would bring about material improvement.”

“Contra Paul and Paisley, achieving racial progress in this country isn’t just a matter of having the right conversations, it’s about bringing about genuine equality, and if history has taught us one thing, it’s that equality comes from struggle, not from group hugs.”

 

[itshappening]

rand did question a part of the act.

Doing so was a huge political error so he had to backtrack.

Thus, he has to play dumb and pretend there was some big misunderstanding or mischaracterization. I'm not hatin', I'm just sayin...

He never questioned THE Act. He later made it clear he would have voted for it .

He raised questions about a PART of the act, specifically one title out of 10. That's not questioning "the" Act, that's questioning "part" of the act.

That's a very important distinction and a honest journalist would make that clear.

But we know she's not an honest journalist so she says "THE" Act instead of "parts of". She is using language that conveys he's against the Act when he's not. It's in her political interest to perpetuate that myth.

 

[Cowlesy]

Let her burn *shrug*

 

[jkr]

freedom
of
association

 

[satchelmcqueen]

spin as always

 

[itshappening]

Did Weird Al cover it? I dare look.

 

[anaconda]

He never questioned the whole act. He questioned a part of the act. An important distinction that the dishonest liberal hack will not make.

Questioning part of it is questioning it, IMHO. Rand should stand behind why the property rights section sucks. If you say team X sucks in their defensive secondary you are commenting on the overall team in some capacity.

 

[itshappening]

Questioning part of it is questioning it, IMHO. Rand should stand behind why the property rights section sucks. If you say team X sucks in their defensive secondary you are commenting on the overall team in some capacity.

It's not an accurate representation consistent with common vernacular.

He would have voted for IT. He was never questioning IT. He questioned a PART of IT. Maddow will keep hammering that he's questioning IT and she may even slip in there that he's against IT (or someone else will) or use other inaccurate language to perpetuate the myth that he's against IT when he's not or that he's a raging racist and re-incarnation of Thummond and wants to repeal IT.