Death of a Political Career

We’re talking Rand Paul here.  Rand, to think I thought the Palin children names were dumb.   Rand, wow, that wins the asshole prize.  I’d love to know what the hell his parents were thinking with that one.   Anyway, what an appropriate name for an ASSHOLE who supports racism and discrimination committed by private businesses.    Apparently the Paul the son is trying to outstupid Paul the Father.  The guy who was once seen as the teabagger’s “great white hope” at stopping hysterical laughter at the mention one is a member of the tea party (lol) is now the “great white manhole cover around the neck of” the teabaggers.   Paul made statements such as “give them an office on the first floor” rather than forcing a building owner to make their building ADA compliant.    Paul also stated he is opposed to the parts of the Civil Rights Act that ‘interfere’ with the racism of private business.   

And you wonder why I hate libertarians. 😀

How Rand Paul’s civil-rights views escaped media scrutiny

54 mins ago

The editorial board of Louisville’s Courier-Journal didn’t mince words following its sit-down with Rand Paul last month. Much of what the Republican Senate candidate supports, it wrote, “is repulsive to people in the mainstream,” including “an unacceptable view of civil rights.”

And yet Paul’s view that the federal government should not have the power to force integration on private businesses — part of 1964’s landmark Civil Rights Act — didn’t get the attention of the national press until Wednesday, following interviews with NPR’s Robert Siegel and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. (Watch the exchange with Maddow below. Paul subsequently changed his position Thursday, after an intense

It’s not as if the national media ignored the Kentucky contest. To the contrary, Washington political reporters headed out to cover the horse race — who’s up, who’s down — and wrote extensively on how the election plays into a larger narrative of tea party candidates like Paul fighting against the GOP establishment.

Somehow lost in all that coverage was any focus on Paul’s views on the Civil Rights Act. Indeed, a Lexis-Nexis search for “Rand Paul” and “Civil Rights Act” yields no results for the weeks after the Courier-Journal editorial ran.

So if Paul’s view is controversial enough to dominate cable news and the political blogosphere all day Thursday, how come it wasn’t an issue in the month leading up to Kentucky’s primary?

“It’s hard to say why the national media didn’t pick it up,” said Bennie Ivory, executive editor of the Courier-Journal. “It was clearly out there — a major editorial on a really highly visible race.”

Ivory added that “it’s just interesting how this thing has evolved in the last 24 hours.”

Indeed, the main political storyline one minute is Paul’s insurgent victory and the next, it’s a 46-year-old law. Given Paul’s libertarian views, it’s relevant to ask what the extension of such beliefs would mean in practice.

Siegel, when reached by phone Thursday, said he wasn’t sure why the civil-rights question didn’t come up since the Courier-Journal editorial. “It’s the first time I’ve interviewed him,” he said. “If I interviewed him a month ago, I would have asked him the same thing.”

The reason for asking Paul that question, Siegel said, is because “the overarching question is, ‘Just how conservative, how radical, how extremist are you?’ ”

After putting the question to Paul, Siegel followed up a couple more times. But he didn’t have the chunk of time that Maddow did to press on for 15 minutes.

Maddow, in an email to Yahoo! News, said that she’s enjoyed her interviews with Paul and his father, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, and explained why she felt it was an important issue to push.

“Anyone campaigning to be part of a federal lawmaking institution should expect to be asked, even pressed, on his or her views of the appropriate reach of federal law,” Maddow said.

“For years, I’ve felt that the relationship between Ron Paul supporters and establishment conservatism is one of the most interesting, relatively unexplored dynamics in modern U.S. politics,” Maddow continued. “I intend to keep covering it, and I hope that Rand Paul and Congressman Ron Paul and members of the movement they’ve inspired will continue to be willing to participate in the conversation.”

It’s not uncommon for statewide candidates to face a different level of exposure once they appear on the larger national-media stage. That scenario plays out every four years, as elected officials with little name recognition coast to coast take their case to the national electorate in presidential contests. Paul, now in a much more closely watched Senate race, will likely be the focus of increased scrutiny of his views and associations.

For instance, the Washington Post published a letter Paul wrote to the Bowling Green Daily News in May 2002, where he argued against the “Fair Housing Act.” In views similar to those expressed on NPR and MSNBC, Paul wrote that “a free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin.”

Meanwhile, Mother Jones looked at Paul’s appearances on the radio show hosted by Alex Jones, whom the magazine dubs an “anti-government conspiracy theorist.”

While Paul put out a statement clarifying his views on the Civil Rights Act Thursday, and emphasizing that he wouldn’t try to repeal it, the candidate may find that he’ll need to respond to more questions on his worldview in the future, depending on what else is dug up.

“I think he’s going to have to start answering people’s questions now,” Ivory said. “He’s going to have to. His answers are going to have to be deeper than they have been.”

— Michael Calderone is the media writer for Yahoo! News.

This entry was posted in current events, news, politics. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Death of a Political Career

  1. HybridTalk says:

    The New Tolerance of the Left demands that you embrace everyone else’s views Polar Czar. Unless you want to go to the hell of the false gods of Liberalism you had better start embracing.

    I think the bigger argument, and 73% of America agrees with me, is if Paul is for supporting the current tyrannical government of the Left that seeks to impose their socialist utopian views on all working Americans or is he for a Constitutional government where the people in Washington DC are servants of the people and not the masters. Can you tell me what category Paul falls into? Is he for the continued tyranny of the American people and against the Capitalist system that made us free and prosperous or is he for limited government and the continuation of a free market? Does Paul support the sustained 11%+ unemployment in America and just an axample of “change” or does he prefer unemployment rates of 5% like we had in the past? That is what matters. As a Conservative, I don’t really care about the name his parents gave him. Things like that would only be important to liberals like yourself who can’t argue substance so they have to demonize individuals.

    BTW, discrimination takes place in American business every day and most Americans, even Black Americans don’t care. Take for an example the NBA (National Basketball Association). Why does the NBA get away with hiring only tall black men for their teams? Why do they discriminate against shorter white men? It is an outrage that everyone chooses to ignore and I for one call for justice. Where is Al Sharpton demanding equality in this issue?

  2. therealgirlscout says:

    Liberals can’t argue substance but demonize individuals?? May I remind you of all the republicans who butchered/massacred/demonized Obama’s name before the last presidential election? Guess republicans can’t argue substance either. Oh wait…they tried to argue substance with the whole “Obama is a Muslim/socialist/non-citizen”, thing, right??

  3. HybridTalk says:

    This will help clear the air for those looking for the truth.

    Courtesy of Real Clear Politics – Paul: I Support the Civil Rights Act

    Reacting to an avalanche of criticism over his perceived views of the Civil Rights Act, Rand Paul’s campaign issues this statement today:

    “I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

    “Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.”

    “As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years.”

    “My opponent’s statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false. I hope he will correct the record and retract his claims.”

    “The issue of civil rights is one with a tortured history in this country. We have made great strides, but there is still work to be done to ensure the great promise of Liberty is granted to all Americans.”

    “This much is clear: The federal government has far overreached in its power grabs. Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which my opponent supports. The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state’s rights must stand up to it.”

    “These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign.”

  4. HybridTalk says:

    GirlScout – “Oh wait…they tried to argue substance with the whole “Obama is a Muslim/socialist/non-citizen”, thing, right??”
    Well let’s review. Obama has apologized and bowed to all the Muslim leaders in the middle east. He has protected Muslim terrorists by giving them constitutional rights. He has had removed from public discussion the terms “Muslim terrorists”. He has protected the Fort Hood shooter as well from being exposed as a radical Muslim Terrorist plant.

    Obama has pushed Socialist policies, even ignoring the 73% of Americans who oppose Obama care, to force Socialized medicine on us. He has acted like a socialist to take over American backs, insurance companies and two car manufactures. Things Socialists do.

    The non-citizen thing, all I can say about that is that Obama seems more afraid than he ever has been to visit Arizona now. Perhaps his anger toward the state has something to do with inadequate papers. Can’t really be sure…(grin)

  5. therealgirlscout says:

    No matter what the facts, you will perceive it as you always do – as a conservative republican who doesn’t like Obama. Fact: He is NOT a Muslim. (I don’t care if he LIKES Muslims or protects their rights). He is NOT a Socialist. Didn’t many Republican congressman also vote to take over the banking problem? Damn socialist republicans! the “non-citizen” thing is BULLSHIT, from beginning to end. :p

  6. HybridTalk says:

    Is Obama a Socialist?

    The response:

    Barack Obama Sr. (Dad)

    *Communist who saw nothing wrong with government ‘taxing 100%’ so long as the people got benefits…
    – Obama Sr. on socialism (Link)
    – Overview of the paper (Link)
    *Harvard educated economist
    *Nairobi bureaucrat who advised government to ‘redistribute’ income through higher taxes
    *Demonized corporations
    *Abandoned Barack Obama Jr. when he was 2 years old to continue at Harvard (teaching son that ideology is more important than family)

    Stanley Ann Dunham (Mom)

    *Communist sympathizer
    *Practiced ‘critical theory’ (aka Marxism)
    *Influenced by Nietzsche and Freud
    *Left Hawaii for Indonesia, Pakistan
    *Attended a leftist church nicknamed the ‘little red church’ because of its Communist sympathies
    *Left Barack Obama Jr.


    *Barack’s grandparents introduced Barack Obama Jr. to poet and communist Frank Marshall Davis (Link)
    *Davis becomes a mentor as young Barack struggled with abandonment by parents

    College & Church

    *Admittedly sought out ‘Marxist’ professors (Link)
    *Admittedly attended ‘socialist conferences’ (Link)
    *Began attending a Marxist church – led by pastor Jeremiah Wright (attended for 20 years) (Link)


    *Tragedy of the Warren Court: No redistributive change (Link)
    *Voted for TARP (Link)
    *$787 billion stimulus redistribution bill
    *Healthcare bill admittedly about ‘redistributing the wealth’
    *Single Payer Healthcare proponent (Link)
    *President Obama now also President of GM & Chrysler
    *President Obama seizes control of insurance giant AIG
    *President Obama is leading America to single payer healthcare
    *President Obama seized control of Student Loan industry in order to ‘cut out middle man’
    *President Obama seizes control in massive land grabs
    *Repeatedly vilifies ‘the rich’
    *Obama believes race problems can be solved through redistribution of wealth… he said “race is still an enormous factor in our society. But economics can overcome a lot of racial division.”
    *Trying to regulate the Internet via FCC
    *Forces mortgage co’s to cover people who aren’t paying mortgage (Link)
    *Extends unemployment benefits to 99 weeks (Link)
    *Told Joe the plumber ‘it’s better when you spread things around’ (Link)

    Family, Friends, Advisors & Administration

    *Wife Michelle Obama said “The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”
    *Jim Wallis, Obama’s spiritual advisor & forced redistribution of wealth advocate
    *Van Jones, disgraced Green Jobs Czar & Communist
    *Ron Bloom, Manufacturing Czar & anti-free market
    *John Holdren, pro-redistribution of wealth
    *Andy Stern, SEIU President & redistribution of wealth fan
    *Anita Dunn, fan of Chairman Mao
    *Mark Lloyd, FCC ‘Diversity Czar’
    *Carol Browner, socialist
    *Robert Creamer, socialist

  7. Hacksaw says:

    Agree with HybridTalk, there are just too many socialists & communist sympathizers among President Obama’s chosen circle of advisors & appointees, (in addition to numerous anti-capitalist statements made by Obama himself) and he couldn’t kiss up to the Muslim world any more if he actually tried to….

    Obama was born to Muslim parents, his mother married yet another Muslim after Barack Obama Sr. deserted them, and young “Barry Sotero” did attend a Muslim school as a child in Indonesia, which happens to be the country with the largest Muslim population on the planet. In addition, he proudly wrote in his first book, “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” During the campaign, it was considered an unforgiveable sin to even verbalize his middle name, but once in office he waved it like a flag in an attempt to appease Muslims around the globe – oddly enough, that hasn’t stopped any of them from still trying to attack & kill our citizens.

    Since being inaugurated, Obama has not cared about offending any of our allies, or Catholics for that matter (remember when the White House demanded that a visible cross be removed, when Obama was speaking in a church?) but everyone in his Administration is contorting themselves like pretzels and refusing to admit what everyone else knows: that Muslim extremists are conducting shooting sprees against military personnel in America where they feel safe, and constantly trying to set off bombs here at home while boobs like Eric Holder won’t even say the words “radical Islam”. Even worse, DHS Secretary Napolitano classifies guys like me & other combat veterans as “potential terrorists” just because we don’t all pray at the altar of Obama, but she won’t even address the people who are actually committing terrorist attacks on our soil, and targeting our interests overseas.

    As for Rand Paul, he is polling about 25 points (59% to 34%) over the Democratic nominee, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway. There is a long way to go before November, but I’m not counting Rep. Paul out just yet, it would be quite foolish to do so despite this early gaffe.

  8. Hacksaw agrees with hybridtalk. REALLY??!! No kidding? LOL

    • HybridTalk says:

      Hacksaw is agreeing with the information I listed as president Obama’s background. Can you dispute those facts?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s