Rand on Maddow

[DeadheadForPaul]

Man, I am just sick to my stomach over this one

Do you know how embarrassing it is for everyone you know to KNOW that you are a HARDCORE Rand supporter and then this hits the cable media

ugh

Already seen a few "Rand Paul opposes civil rights?" tweets and facebook status updates. I'm going to wait till Rand comes up with a solid, frequent response before posting it

I have personally asked in the main forum about how we would end segregation without federal intervention and really haven't been impressed with the answers

This goes even farther than that though - it's not a matter of pragmatism...it's charges of racism

shameless and yet, when I heard that part of the CJ interview, I knew it was coming sooner or later

 

[AuH20]

Man, I am just sick to my stomach over this one

Do you know how embarrassing it is for everyone you know to KNOW that you are a HARDCORE Rand supporter and then this hits the cable media

ugh

Already seen a few "Rand Paul opposes civil rights?" tweets and facebook status updates. I'm going to wait till Rand comes up with a solid, frequent response before posting it

I have personally asked in the main forum about how we would end segregation without federal intervention and really haven't been impressed with the answers

This goes even farther than that though - it's not a matter of pragmatism...it's charges of racism

shameless and yet, when I heard that part of the CJ interview, I knew it was coming sooner or later

Don't take it so personally. This is how the game has always been played.

 

[Romulus]

I would dodge the question or issue.. face it head on and dumb it down.

I liked MRocked suggestion.. free speech can be racist, no one supports that, but we must have that right in a free society.

 

[rprprs]

For what it's worth, this little anecdotal tidbit:

My neighbor, who is the epitome of a "bleeding-heart liberal", just called me on the phone. She was not at all familiar with Rand, and her first real introduction was tonight on the Maddow show. Believe it or not, she called to tell me how impressed she was and thought he sounded "brilliant" (her word). Overall, she thought it was a great interview until the end, and then blamed Maddow for turning it sour. I did not see the show, but from what I read here, I certainly would not have expected that type of reaction. I was amazed.

 

[mello]

Remember that Rand said about eight times that he abhors racism and supported the use of laws to ban institutionalized racism.

So if anyone out there calls hims a racist, they're being dishonest.

Make the argument about property rights into a teaching moment, and how free speech can be use to penalize those who have such nasty policies.

He could have said something like:

"Rachel, I know what you want me to say but it would be political suicide that would
be repeatedly run in commercials by my opponent. If I win the election, I will put my
hand on the bible during the inauguration & swear an oath to uphold & protect the
constitution. As abhorrent as racists are I am not going to be like most politicians that
pick & chooses only the parts of the constitution that they agree with. But this is just
a theoretical argument that doesn't actually matter since I along with every other
politician have no plans to ever amend the Civil Right Act today or in the future."

 

[DeadheadForPaul]

Don't take it so personally. This is how the game has always been played.

Yeah I know

It's just that I run in very culturally and racially diverse circles

I've managed to convince people that our movement is in no way racist (despite MSM claims) but this really set it back

What a terrible thing that such an outdated non-issue is issue #1

We'll recover

Chris Matthews, Kos, Olbermann, and DU are all snakes

 

[RP Supporter]

Overall I think Paul did a good job under the circumstances. The one thing I disliked was his constant bringing up of the guns in restaurants argument when Maddow pressed him on lunch counters. He could have maybe explained that better, or thought of a better example. to me that was the one weak part of the arguement.

Still, this whole fixation on Rand's views on the Civil Rights act is mixed. I suspect Conway's going to focus most of his campaign attacks on Paul using this as a theme. This is bad news if it resonates with voters, but I don't think and I hope, that it will not. In the year 2010, in this bad economy, if Conway wants to run a campaign on the merits of a law that was passed when Rand was a little kid, I say let him. Rand will have plenty of time to explain that he's not a racist and that he merely favors allowing tax paying owners of their businesses to do whatever they want with their own businesses. And more importantly, Rand can attack Conway for his plan for amnesty, his support of cap and trade, and his embrace of president Obama and the healthcare bill. By pointing out that these policies would actually hurt all Kentuckians, Black and White, more then some fearmongering over a law that was already passed 50 years ago, Paul will hopefully able to defeat Conway, even if the national media insists on trying to turn this into a discussion of racism.

 

[Mini-Me]

For what it's worth, this little anecdotal tidbit:

My neighbor, who is the epitome of a "bleeding-heart liberal", just called me on the phone. She was not at all familiar with Rand, and her first real introduction was tonight on the Maddow show. Believe it or not, she called to tell me how impressed she was and thought he sounded "brilliant" (her word). Overall, she thought it was a great interview until the end, and then blamed Maddow for turning it sour. I did not see the show, but from what I read here, I certainly would not have expected that type of reaction. I was amazed.

This is heartening.

You know, I think sometimes we get so used to liberal pundits and Internet liberals - the really hardcore death adders looking to ensnare prey - that we forget that real-life liberals are not so partisan and deliberately malicious about smearing anyone they disagree with. The same goes for real-life conservatives vs. Hannity and NoLibertartians on digg.

 

[BenIsForRon]

Overall, I see this as more of a missed opportunity than a gaff. Rand could have strongly stood on his principles, then hopefully move on to another topic.

 

[SilentBull]

I'm watching the interview right now, and I have to say... I think Rand Paul did an excellent job explaining his position!

 

[trey4sports]

rand did a GREAT job.

He did something his father wouldn't have, yet stayed true to principal.

 

[DeadheadForPaul]

Hmmm well maybe it's because I agree with him but that interview didn't go as bad as I thought

Then again, that won't stop the 30 second attack ads, whisper campaign, and racist/kooky tag added to Rand by pundits

 

[mello]

Or he could have said something like:

"Rachel, I know what you want me to say but my position about this is irrelevant since I
nor any other politician plans to amend the Civil Rights Act. What this reminds me of though
is my father's 2008 presidential campaign. The mainstream media was desperate to find
something negative about my father but since he's been voting with the constitution as
his guide for over 30 years they asked him a theoretical position about the Civil War.
Now my father doesn't have access to a time machine so he can't affect what happened
over 130 years ago but his theoretical response was one of the few things that the
mainstream media repeatedly showed to his detriment. So if you don't mind I'd like to
talk about issues that America is dealing with today that I actually have plans to change
or improve upon."

 

[BamaFanNKy]

Hmmm well maybe it's because I agree with him but that interview didn't go as bad as I thought

Then again, that won't stop the 30 second attack ads, whisper campaign, and racist/kooky tag added to Rand by pundits

The attack ads would not have his voice. He didn't give a sound bite.

 

[MsDoodahs]

Hmmm well maybe it's because I agree with him but that interview didn't go as bad as I thought

Then again, that won't stop the 30 second attack ads, whisper campaign, and racist/kooky tag added to Rand by pundits

Still haven't watched it - I may not. But I'm feeling a little better about it as some of y'all are saying it was NOT the horrible thing I imagined at first, lol.

And the 30 second attack ads, whisper campaign, and racist/kooky tag added by the pundits was going to happen REGARDLESS of what Rand did/does.

 

[CheezItsRule]

He did Ok in this interview. He lacked spark but I think it was because he was exhausted.
By the way people were talking, I had a Medina-Beck flashback for a moment.
We still got a ways to go and as long as Rand has the funding and makes the effort to reach out to the people of Kentucky like he has done in the primary, he'll win this thing.
If KY Dems are anything like WV dems, this will be a non-issue.
Rand can clarify that he is not a racist and doesn't believe in discrimination if he needs to but if he sticks to the issues & plays the 'non politician' card, he'll be our next senator from Kentucky.
My .02... FWIW.

 

[MsDoodahs]

Welcome and great first post.

 

[CheezItsRule]

Thank you, MsDoodahs.
I was scared to watch it, too. But Rand did a good job at defending himself. Rachel was the one who was getting hot and flustered because she couldn't corner him on it. Our man is like Muhammed Ali...what else can I say?

 

[BamaFanNKy]

Remember, mainly the people watching Maddow are progressives from the coast. Not really the dems and independents we are looking for.

 

[obijuan]

I'm frankly glad that the issue came up now. It gives the campaign five months to put it to rest. I don't think it will take that long, actually. I have the utmost confidence in Rand's ability to communicate effectively, and I think he will do so once he gets some sleep.

I think it would be much worse for it to come up the last week in October. But that's just me.