I referred to it this past weekend, but I wanted to be sure I clarified a portion of Kentucky Republican senatorial candidate Rand Paul’s episode given Sarah Palin’s recent defense of Paul.
Palin was trying to make the case, like she did after her horrible interview with CBS’s Katie Couric, that the media is out to get candidates, looking for “gotcha” moments. Thus, according to Palin, Rachel Maddow conspired to get Rand Paul to flip-flop all over the place in his appearance on her show last week, which set this debacle into action.
Yet, Frank Rich notes this is a fallacy. Again and again, long after its passing, Paul is on record as saying he is not behind the Civil Rights Act:
With Rand Paul, we also get further evidence of race’s role in a movement whose growth precisely parallels the ascent of America’s first African-American president. The usual Tea Party apologists are saying that it was merely a gaffe — and a liberal media trap — when Paul on Wednesday refused to tell Rachel Maddow of MSNBC that he could fully support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But Paul has expressed similar sentiments repeatedly, at least as far back as 2002.
The more the Democrats can use Paul to represent what the GOP is increasingly representing in American politics — the idea that no government is better than any government — the better shot they have at avoiding a major beating at the polls come November. This is why people like Fox analyst and ex-Bush adviser Karl Rove phoned Paul at the end of last week begging him to cancel his scheduled appearance on Meet the Press.
hippieprof
May 24, 2010 @ 08:32:55
I really like to think that the majority of Americans are smart enough to see through Palin and Paul and Pravda-FOX. Unfortunately, a substantial number do seem to be swayed. Frightening…. seriously frightening.
— hippieprof
Craig Berger
May 24, 2010 @ 08:54:27
Thanks for your comment!
It is indeed frightening. I hold out hope that the decline in Glenn Beck’s ratings (contracted by half in 2010 so far) is a sign of good things to come.
CTyler
May 25, 2010 @ 14:04:30
Hmmm….if you get away from the heated rhetoric for a second, think deeply about what Paul said (although very clumsy). He supported something like 8 out of the 9 Titles in the Act, the ones dealing with oppressive acts being carried out by state and local governments.
His hesitancy was in regulating private behavior. Maddow’s use of the lunch counter imagery was incendiary and clouded the issue. Good TV….mediocre journalism.
If Paul had been savvy, his response would have been “The moral philosophy that says the government can regulate the lunch counter is the same moral philosophy that keeps Rachel Maddow from marrying”.
I cautioned conservatives at the time of the PATRIOT Act….”You may like it now, but Bush won’t be President forever….think about all that power in the hands of Hillary Clinton”
hippieprof
May 26, 2010 @ 13:39:03
CTyler said: If Paul had been savvy, his response would have been “The moral philosophy that says the government can regulate the lunch counter is the same moral philosophy that keeps Rachel Maddow from marrying”.
No, I suspect had he said that he would have been in deeper trouble. Maddow’s sexual preference is a purely private matter – who she marries has absolutely no impact on anybody else (other than her partner).
On the other hand, businesses that discriminate have a huge impact on those in the discriminated class. In addition, note that any “private” business relies on the government to operate: The government builds and maintains the roads, provides postal services, police and fire protection, etc. It seems that government very much has the right to regulate businesses when those businesses use government services.
I suppose it would be OK for a business to discriminate if it decided not to use public roads or the post office or public police and fire and the myriad of other public services. Then it really would be private. It couldn’t actually survive as a business, but hey – it would be private….
— hp
CTyler
May 28, 2010 @ 08:42:39
In addition, note that any “private” business relies on the government to operate:
Which could be said for every thing you do in your daily life. I reject giving the government that degree of control over our lives. Hell, our country was founded explicitly to throw off that oppressive yoke.
hippieprof
May 28, 2010 @ 11:03:43
CTyler says:Which could be said for every thing you do in your daily life. I reject giving the government that degree of control over our lives. Hell, our country was founded explicitly to throw off that oppressive yoke.
Tell you what. Go ahead and stop using all of the infrastructure and services the government provides. Don’t use the roads, or the post office, and if your home catches fire put it out yourself. Home school your kids, protect your own property, don’t eat any food the government has inspected. Go ahead. When you stop using all of those things it might be OK for the business you own to discriminate.
Oh – and minorities pay taxes too – so you would want businesses to be able to use infrastructure paid for in part by minorities – but then allow them to turn around and discriminate against those minorities?
I just wrote a piece about that on my own blog this morning:
http://hippieprofessor.com/2010/05/28/at-the-diner/
— hp
CTyler
Jun 01, 2010 @ 15:13:56
infrastructure and services the government provides
Interesting argument…that because the government provides services (which we pay for) it thus grants them control over our personal choices.
hippieprof
Jun 01, 2010 @ 16:21:28
Interesting argument…that because the government provides services (which we pay for) it thus grants them control over our personal choices.
It wasn’t exactly my argument, though. Minorities pay taxes, which in turn creates infrastructure. People using that infrastructure shouldn’t be able to discriminate against those who helped pay for it.
— hp
CTyler
May 25, 2010 @ 21:01:19
Sorry, didn’t get the chance to finish my previous thought.
I see you were once Prez of College Dems. It’s easy to be partisan. But do consider that not all ‘R’s are your enemy and all ‘D’s are your friend.
For years we carped about the PATRIOT Act and it’s restrictions on civil liberties. That was all suppose to change on 1-20-09. A quick vote in the House and Senate then a flashy singing in the Rose Garden and PATRIOT would be gone. Instead we got….even more provisions added to the PATRIOT framework.
I do know of one person who has consistently railed against the growing surveillance state….Rand Paul.