Being an outsider has its pitfalls.  Such is the case with Rand Paul.  Rand Paul is a neophyte and he stepped into the macaca  up to his knees–maybe even deeper.  In an interview with Rachel Maddow, Rand Paul got on to the subject of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

How can legislation that is nearly 50 years old trip up anyone?  Just ask Rand Paul.   According to Politico:

In interviews with NPR and MSNBC on Wednesday, Paul indicated unease with the Civil Rights Act’s ban on discrimination by private businesses — sparking a political blaze that threatened to engulf his campaign even before he finished relishing his landslide primary win.

 The candidate eased fears some by issuing a damage-control statement stating his opposition to discrimination and doing an interview with conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham in which he seemed to acknowledge the necessity of the Civil Rights Act.

In fairness to Maddow, she gave him every opportunity to self correct.  He did not seize the opportunity.  He continued to disavow discrimination but did not come out and say he would have voted for  the Civil Rights Bill.  And the silence was deafening.

The video is long but covers the entire interview.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy



38 Thoughts to “Rand Paul Steps in Political Macaca”

  1. marinm

    Woohoo! Go Rand Paul!! We need more politicians like you, sir.

  2. starryflights

    Rand Paul: Obama’s criticism of BP ‘un-American’

    By MICHELE SALCEDO, Associated Press Writer Michele Salcedo, Associated Press Writer – 21 mins ago

    WASHINGTON – Taking another unconventional stand, Kentucky’s Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul criticized President Barack Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill Friday as anti-business and sounding “really un-American.”

    Paul’s defense of the oil company came during an interview as he tried to explain his controversial take on civil rights law, an issue that has overtaken his campaign since his victory in Tuesday’s GOP primary.;_ylt=Ajpk8m4SKf3gbxpsc5KdvUWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNjMzRtdjU0BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNTIxL3VzX3JhbmRfcGF1bARjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzIEcG9zAzcEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA3JhbmRwYXVsb2JhbQ–

    This guy is something else. First he defends discrimination, now he defends a foreign oil company whose accident not only killed 11 people, but is devastating the coastline and the livelihoods that depend on it.

    These teabaggers are a weird bunch. Where do they find these people?

  3. Marin, you know that this guy just shot himself in the foot don’t you? He just painted a big bull’s eye on himself.

  4. marinm

    To the people who wouldn’t vote for him anyways? Sure. To anyone else, nope.

  5. Its a matter of numbers. Where is the reality of the math?

  6. Poor Richard

    The Arizona Daily Star just reported that Dora the Explorer was beaten
    and arrested near Tucson for not having proper I.D. .

    Have they no shame?

  7. Bear

    I suspect Rand is a good guy who does not believe in racism and is an academic who likes to discuss the constitution vs private ownership. He just doesn’t understand the larger consequences of private vs public responsibility. The short answer is he doesn’t know how to be a politician yet!

  8. Apparently not. How about Abuela? Is she ok?

  9. Bear!!! How good to see you. Welcome back. How are things in the north country?

  10. marinm

    Bear, well said. We’ve debated Rand (not Ayn) at work and we’ve come to the conclusion that he means well and is trying to move towards the center with his positions from where his father is (Bless Ron Paul!) to try and appeal to more people.

    Effectively, what he’s saying is that he doesn’t support the government telling people or companies what to do. I appreciate that. It’s a good, honest answer. Those on the left would rather believe soundbites and believe he’s a racist or wants to overturn the CRA.

    Whatever. I’d vote for the guy!

  11. Captain Idiot-Face

    I knew I could pop in here and see the bird-brain lefties excited over this. To consider this Rand Paul’s “Macaca” moment requires the inability to understand the concepts of individual liberty, individual responsibility, and the Constitution (let me guess…..”I haven’t read it!”…..that’s alright, neither has Holder). Like I said, I knew we’d all be excited over this. Better hope and pray to your Gods that the average American voter is as dumb as you think they are!

  12. Captain, remember that little rule we have here about not insulting people?

    That bird-brain who wrote the post has always been polite to you. I expect the same in kind.

  13. Emma

    marinm :
    To the people who wouldn’t vote for him anyways? Sure. To anyone else, nope.

    Exactly my thought when I heard about this.

  14. Wolverine

    I think the Bear hit this thing smack dab on the nose.

  15. Visitor

    I just think it’s funny how one day last week a Senate candidate says something stupid in the press and it gets completely ignored here. A day later a Senate candidate says something stupid and it’s the next Watergate scandal. I wonder why there was no post about Richard Blumenthal’s “stolen valor” issue. I mean it’s not like it was in the New York Times. Oh wait it was.

    Hmmm. I wonder what the magic difference is between the two guys is.

  16. marinm

    You wanna hear stupid?

    Good to take a rifle with attached bayonet and tell a reporter he’s gonna shove it up the reporters arse to show how effective gun control is. Golf clap.

    Let’s only trust government with guns because Daley knows how to use em….to impale reporters.

  17. Visitor, if you want a Blumenthal post, I believe bvbl has one and you won’t have to be bothered reading about Paul. It was adequately covered. I try not to duplicate. But I expect you already knew that.

  18. Poor Richard

    Most people in politics, even at the local level, develop a mental “ten second
    delay” when speaking on controversial subjects – think before you speak.

    My take is that people who come from and are nurtured by fringe groups,
    far right or far left, often stumble when they face a wider general audience.
    Raw meat applause lines with their rabid partisans become OMG statements
    with moderates.

    1. Excellent post, PR. I agree.

      It is difficult to make that transition.

      I don’t believe that Paul is a raging racist at all. I think his zealotry for the Constitution caused him to go down a slippery slope that no sane political being wants to even think about. Maybe he should have stuck with surgery rather than law. Unfortunately, politics is one of those fields where truth is obscured and falsehoods are actually sought out and flaunted.
      I actually sort of felt sorry for the guy. I even knew what he was trying to say. He has 2 separate beliefs that are on a collision course with each other. Maddow gave him every chance and he would not take it. Foolish but admirable on some levels.

  19. marinm

    Wow.. To think the guys that drafted the Constitution were extremists. Maybe they were. They thought of a system of government where not the elite but the People could govern.

    His idea is simple. The government shouldn’t be telling people at the lowest level what they can and cannot do. An extreme example of that is racism. Another extreme example would be hate speech (which is of course allowed). The collision is really, “when people have freedom, somtimes they just make bad choices – but they’re free to make those bad choices’.

    The only people you see going after Rand on this are the leftist groups…Huffington, Slate, et. al.

    The MSM is staying out of it for the most part because when any reasonable person looks at what he’s saying.. It just makes sense. Do I want to be discriminated against because of the color of my skin? No. But, if you make a broad policy decision like that you’ll hurt your own business. Companies fear boycotts – especially if they’re large, motivated and organized. You discriminate against a patron because he’s black, gay, pregnant, breastfeeding a baby, wears a gun, is disabled, or wears a political shirt you don’t agree with and you stand to lose a segment of your business.

    If a company doesn’t want my money because of anything other than I can’t afford it then do I really want to give them my money? Do I want to materially support any sort of -ism except consumerism? No.

    Paul has my support and I wish that more politicians like him would come to the table with the cans to have an unpopular but right conviction and see it through.

    Yes we can, Rand. Yes, we can.

  20. Wolverine

    It’s too bad that Maddow marginalizes herself and wastes so much air time on this sort of “gotcha” thing. This guy just won the Republican primary in Kentucky and has a chance to take that Senate seat. He is a libertarian, something we have rarely seen under such circumstances. I would have preferred to have had him interviewed on subjects of real contemporary importance in order to see whether he has a clear understanding of those issues, and what his projected actions might be in the Senate.

    For instance, the IMF has just projected that the US national debt will probably reach 100% of GDP by 2015, well within any Senate term served by Paul. The debt is currently at 87.3% of GDP. The IMF estimates that, in order to avoid the type of fiscal chaos currently being experienced in Greece, we are going to have to lower our structural deficit by the equivalent of 12% of GDP. How are we going to do that? In Greece, which, per the IMF, only needs to lower its structural deficit by about 9% of GDP, the plan is to make severe cuts in entitlements and other government spending and raise taxes. The Greeks are in the streets because of these proposals. I would like to hear Paul and other candidates being put on the hot seat over issues such as that rather than see partisan driven “gotcha” shows.

  21. I am going to disagree that Maddow marinalizes herself. She is probably one of the most courteous interviewers out there. She gave him every chance to restate his case in a more positive light.

    In fact, the more I see of Maddow, the more favorably she compares, especially after a steady diet of Hannity, Matthews, O’Reilly, and a few others.

    She definitely falls into the left but not the far left, as far as I can tell.

  22. Poor Richard

    Interesting article on today’s Atlantic Monthly’s website
    – “Exploring the Ron Paul Disaster” by Joshua Green
    It touches on something I’ve felt for a few years –
    the growing impact of the weakening and sometimes
    demise of America’s great newspapers. I grew up in the
    segregated South, but got another view from Ralph McGilll
    at the Atlanta Constitution “Covers Dixie Like The Dew”
    and at different times – The St. Petersburg Times and the
    Raleigh News&Observor (Sadly, the Richmond papers were
    well written but ardently pro-segregation). There were hundreds
    of good independent newspapers spread across American
    that looked out for the people’s interest at the state and local level.
    The Louisville Courier-Journal was one of those papers, and
    a decade ago, before its newsroom was decimated by lay-offs, might
    have (A) given the voter’s a clearer picture of Ron Paul and (B) prepared
    Paul for first rate aggressive informed and intelligent reporting.

    Hope we never forget who uncovered Watergate.

    1. Is there a link, PR? Thanks.

  23. Poor Richard

    M-H, Just Google Atlantic Monthly.

    And while on the Google search page you can Pac-man.
    They are celebrating its Big 3-0! Innovative as always.

  24. Oh I saw that about Pac-man. I want to say, is that all?

  25. Poor Richard

    M-H, you can actually play a small version of Pac-Man by touching the
    figures in the game area right above where you enter your search word(s)
    on the opening Google screen.

  26. Poor Richard

    Off subject, but noticed on BVBL that Greg apparently almost got escorted
    out the door by police at a local Republican convention for breaking
    their rules. He isn’t a happy camper.

  27. Wolverine

    Moon, by “marginalize”, I mean that she too often eschews the major contemporary issues for this kind of “gotcha” stuff. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is virtually cast in cement. It’s now part of what we are. You seldom see battles over it anymore. Rand Paul was rehashing an old constitutional argument. He’s not about to seek the overturn of that act. He would have been well advised just to ignore such questions from anyone. So, in my opinion, Rachel is “marginalizing” herself by focusing on such things when she ought to be addressing the contemporary issues which are absolutely critical in a key election year. Until she does so, she will be a commentary sideshow instead of a mainstream feature. She is also going to limit the willingness of serious politicians to appear on her show.

    1. I need to start paying more attention to her. I suppose I think it is fairly significant when a newly elected candidate comes out and starts talking about perhaps he wouldn’t have voted for the Civil Rights Act. It’s news, even though the Civil Rights Act is old news. Its news that anyone would immediately put themselves at political risk by talking about that one.

      I think Maddow will grow in stature. She is almost the new kid on the block. I think serious politicians will get tired of the screaming matches and being talked over fairly soon and more people will seek out a Maddow type environment. I guess time will tell who is correct–you or me.

  28. marinm

    Doubt it. She’s #11 in the ratings under Olbermann and they both make 1/3 of any of the Fox news commentary shows.

    I think Maddow appeals to a certain segment of our population. But, like with Campbell Brown if she can’t pull in the bigger numbers maybe her days are numbered as well.

    It’s just kinda sad when re-runs of O’Reilly beat your live show on ratings..

    1. @Marin, do you select all your information via popularity contest?

      Maybe it speaks more to those who watch O’Reilly reruns than it does Ms. Maddow. Probably same thing with Rush Limbaugh. Ditto.
      As for O’Reilly reruns, perhaps those who like to watch O’Reilly perfer the 11 o’clock time slot to the 8 o’clock time slot. I never watch Rachel Maddow live. Never. I go to the website.

  29. marinm

    No, I don’t. Because I never claimed to watch any of the top #10. Just pointed out that Maddow is about as popular as a re-run or Campbell Brown.

    I don’t watch news talk commentary. Just straight news and whatever sources I can read. If it has an opinion I generally ignore it. I’d rather formulate my own opinion and not be spoonfed it (no offense).

    I miss traditional journalism. Give me the 5Ws and How and let me make up my mind. The closest to that right now is Fox. And, only SOMETIMES as they fail as well.

    I believe in the motto; We report, you decide. Just wish they would just report more often.

    Maddow is a hack. I believe if you were to look at her without partisan specticles, you would see that too.

    She’s no different than Beck just not as popular.

  30. I also miss straight news, but did we ever get it or just think we got it?

    I suppose to get straight news now one has to watch C-span and watch the words that come out of their mouths.

    Partisan spectacles? Surely you don’t think I overlooked the fact that Maddow is on MSNBC and is fairly liberal? Are you suggesting I don’t realize that or that it might be impossible for someone to have any respect for someone fairly liberal?

    I would prefer her over some idiot up there weeping, wailing and finding conspiracy under every rock or making a connection between Hitler and Joe Biden’s college professor. I would also prefer her over some rude son of a bitch like Olbermann, Hannity or sometimes O’Reilly. Hack? I am not even sure what your definition of a hack is. Oh and by the way, I don’t necessarily always dislike O’Reilly. He can be charming. He can also be horribly rude.

    I would take someone who has manners but who is persistant any day over someone who screams, yells, calls names, or talks over others.

    She is VERY different from Beck. Popular? define popular. The fact that she doesn’t have minions is to her credit.

  31. marinm

    Thats a good, solid question. 🙂

    Maybe we’re remembering a better day that didn’t really happen. Rose colored glasses, if you will.

    I don’t see a real difference betwen Beck and Maddow. Wish you wouldn’t look at it from a partisan slant but if you would you’d see that they’re just one in the same. Shock jocks are shock jocks and just play to the audience.

  32. Wolverine

    I am personally looking forward to the day when Rachel Maddow shows us some real non-partisan stuff — like, for instance, bringing on Joe Sestak to expand on his comment that he was promised an Obama administration job in return for staying out of the Pennsylvania Senate primary. Or maybe Chris Dodd on that sweetheart mortgage deal he supposedly got. Or AG Blumenthal of Connecticut about his record of service in Vietnam. And then there’s always Barney Frank about what he was thinking when he rejected reports that Freddie and Fannie were in deep trouble and about to blow. I would also suggest Mary Landrieu and a certain $300 million; but, alas, she’s a bit busy right now. But no reason why she couldn’t corner Sen. Ben Nelson on a similar subject.

    But I am just dreaming here. All we get from dear Rachel is “Moochinelli” and more “Moochinelli.” Why, she wouldn’t even give Tucker Carlson a straight answer in 2005 when he asked her to disavow the opinion of her former broadcasting partner Carleton Douglas Ridenhour with regard to what really happened in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina. Go look it up. She waffled so much you would have thought you were in an IHOP.

  33. Bear

    I don’t think Rachel Maddow needs defending, but she had a bunch of questions she wanted to ask but when someone “goes off the rails” on the first question she had to give him a chance to recover but that never happened so she couldn’t get to question 2.
    if it seems I lean left it’s because saying No to everything doesn’t make sense to me. I realize our government is an adversarial system, but saying no to everything is Not negotiating, when the Republicans were the majority party they had no problem with negotiation.

  34. Bear

    Marinm, if you think Fox is news, I understand why you have little faith in Maddow. Rupert Murdock has no desire to present “news” on his network if it doesn’t get ratings. His performers must generate controversy or they don’t last .

Comments are closed.