Rachel Maddow explains why Rand Paul's interview is important

[ProfessorPlum]

Run time: 10:50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW_RB9AsK-0   Posted on YouTube: May 21, 2010 By YouTube Member: StartLoving3 Views on YouTube: 125   Posted on DU: May 21, 2010 By DU Member: ProfessorPlum Views on DU: 3753

 
This is Rachel at her explanatory best.

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC2Y1VqZS_Y&feature=channel

[FSogol]

1. Good tv. K & R. n/t

[JBoy]

2. Thanks for posting, I missed this last night.

That was a great segment.

[bjobotts]

24. No black fireman can put out their fire. Police and fire protection paid by taxes

coming from blacks, Jews, Baptists and everybody plus the federal tax breaks private businesses get denies them the right to discriminate. Libertarian Rand Paul would deregulate everything and watch our country destroyed by the greedy wealthy. Not even honest enough to answer yes or no but just kept talking around the real questions of privateers doing whatever they want without any gov. regulation or rules. Here I thought his kind was changed long ago by reality. What a wretched incident if he became a senator. Screw the people, only those with the most money tell him what to do.

[Angry Dragon]

3. Any questions are fair game

[smoogatz]

4. She's wonderful.

The best journalist on TV, bar none.

[TEXASYANKEE]

5. Wow.

Rachel is the smartest thing on TV. She hits another one out of the park.

[zeemike]

6. Rachael Rocks.

And she gets right down to it.
And people like Paul think they can outsmart her....ain't gonna happen.

[tomm2thumbs]

7. spot on, as usual!

[JohnnyK]

8. K&R - Wonderful!

Nobody on TV does it better...

Great job, Rachel. Got RP in hot water. Let's see him shake this off come election time.

:toast:

[Mike Niendorff]

9. Fantastic explanation.

Every day, I grow more and more impressed with Rachel Maddow, both on journalistic and intellectual grounds.

This is a wonderful explanation of what the "Libertarian" movement actually advocates, where those beliefs really come from, and how those beliefs are intended to alter our lives and the laws under which we live.

This is the tip of an iceberg that goes very, very deep -- and is very, very dangerous.

In addition to the legislative front, people here should also be watchful of the poison seeds left in the ground by the Rehnquist Court back in the 90's regarding the Interstate Commerce Clause. The playbook is the same.

MDN

[Kweli4Real]

10. I agree with everything RM has said in this piece, BUT ...

But what is frustrating is that she is allowing the debate to be limited to Title II of the Civil Rights Act. While it is important that I, as an African-American, can sit at the lunch-counter it is equally, or more, important that I have the resources to purchase something once I get there. Title II gets me in the door of the establishment; but Title VII - covering employment discrimination - ensures that I can work in those positions for which I am qualified.

Paul's intellectual fantasy has him Okay with 80% of workplaces posting "Whites Only Need Apply" signs.

I would far rather have that job that I am qualified for, i.e., feed my family; than give my money to someone that does not respect my dignity as a human being.

[SeattleGirl]

25. She didn't allow it; Paul wouldn't move on.

So, she decided to stick with it, to let people see more of what he was about.

I hope you saw the interview, and not just the follow up. Paul made an absolute fool of himself, and Rachel let him do it.

[Ichingcarpenter]

11. Thank you Rachel there is some on DU that need to see this

And that is unfortunate

[Uncle Joe]

12. Excellent commentary by Rachel.

Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, ProfessorPlum.:thumbsup:

[Shining Jack]

13. K&R

She's great,as usual.

[LiberalLovinLug]

14. You get more information from one RM show

Than you'd get from a year of watching FAUX News.
Amazing when you compare their inane whiny blabber and innuendo to Rachel's thoughtful historically based and up-to-the-minute opinion pieces.

[kwolf68]

15. LOVE this women

The last minute was awesome...she basically puts this sordid ideology on the chopping block and whacks away

[Enthusiast]

16. The worst thing you can

do to these radical conservatives is point out their true nature, their racist hearts. Now they will hate Rachel with a greater fervor than before. I pray she stays safe.

[L. Coyote]

17. Kick Ass Grrrrreat clip !!!!!

[L. Coyote]

18. RM: May 19, 2010

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/

[me b zola]

19. Love Rachel!

[big lu]

20. K&R

[Carter Hayes]

21. I DVR'd this last night to educate some ignorant relatives

Nice to see the RW's true colors.

[DeSwiss]

22. K&R

- What these chowder-head libetardians can't seem to fathom, is that private ownership of a business depends upon the public ownership and maintenance of the infrastructure that makes their business possible.

No streets. No sidewalks. No public waterways. No public armed forces (such as in a police/fire/air force/navy/army). EVERYBODY GETS TAXED FOR THOSE, RIGHT? So sure, go ahead and have your business without any of those and see how long your ass lasts, jerkweed.

The other thing these asshats don't address is how we can have equality as stated in our Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution, if some are allowed to discriminate. That is totally illogical and asshattery at its worst.

I sincerely have come to believe that people who think along these lines have a physical cognitive defect in their brains. Just like a physical blindspot can occur with one's vision, libetardians have a blindspot when it comes to the ability to empathize. They just don't seem to be able to put themselves in the shoes of a victim of discrimination -- and then take away from that experience an understanding that the only way that anyone can be truly free in this society, is if we're ALL truly free. Public AND private. And that means no one gets to discriminate.

And for Randy Paul here who claims to have wanted to march with civil rights leader MLK, and for all those other asshats out there who like to quote MLK while simultaneously discriminating against others (as in those gay-bashing preachers), this is what he said:

[socialist_n_TN]

37. If they want their no government Paradise

just move to Somolia. There hasn't been a govt. there for decades!

[DeSwiss]

40. Yep.

- Then they can become pirates! Also.




PS - Is it cool that two DUers from Nashville (both with socialist leanings which is an anomaly in itself) and both sporting the ultimate symbol of the "Flow of Dichotomy" in the form of the Yin-Yang symbol, or what? ;)

[Andronex]

23. "Rachel Maddow explains why Rand Paul's interview is important"

Debating the views of a political Neanderthal is not important, it is moronic and a diversion.

[SeattleGirl]

26. Then you are completely missing the point of this video.

Your opinion may be that Paul is a Neanderthal (and I have to say I agree with you), but not everyone in the country knows that. Rachel's interview and her follow up was very informative, and could be helpful to a lot of people who may not have known before what he revealed, and what she helped put into even sharper focus.

Edited to add: As with her example with the tuning fork, she is bringing to the surface things that may have gone unnoticed, and brought to the light more of the ugliness that exists in this country and is often ignored, overlooked, or just flat not noticed by Jane and John Q. Public.

To merely dismiss this interview as a waste of time is, IMHO, not a good thing.

Some things, and some people, we dismiss at our own peril.

I for one am happy that Rachel interviewed him, and that she did this follow up.

[Andronex]

29. You are underestimating the american public...

if you believe that civil rights is a controversial issue today, what next? should women have the right to vote? let's fight for the things we have already won, do the tango with the extreme right wing, nothing better to focus our energy on, right... Rachel Maddow is not what she appears to be, and if she ever said anything important, she would be taken off the air.

[SeattleGirl]

41. My, but you seem to have an issue with Rachel Maddow.

It's not the topic of the video you are against, is it? It's Rachel.

And yes, civil rights IS a controversial issue today, or have you been asleep under your rock and not paying any attention to what's going on?

People like Rand Paul would be perfectly happy to discard many of the laws on the books today, and you think there aren't issues?

:eyes:

[ShamelessHussy]

32. nonsense

the most important responsibility of her nobel profession is to get a potential law makers beliefs, especially their outrageous beliefs, out in public.

otherwise you wind up with teabaggers and the fuck'n crazies in charge.

hello...

[Andronex]

33. hello...

It's all a dog and pony show, nothing real about the "tea party movement", it's designed to keep small minds occupied on both side of the "debate", while the noose is getting thither around our collective neck.

[ShamelessHussy]

34. the neoCONs were running the show for 8 years... thats what happens when there is no debate

fyi

[SeattleGirl]

42. You are really sounding like a troll, you know.

[Divine Discontent]

27. she may not have physically kicked Paul's dirty ass all over the place, but she sure did it

symbolically! WOW... "he" shouldn't appear on TV again - and will probably not! Chicken ran from Meet the Press - what a big baby!

[tblue37]

28. Summary for us deafies, please? nt

[DeSwiss]

30. Here's what's posted at her blog...

Rand Paul stung by a tuning-fork moment: the libertarian debate goes on

News Type: Event — Fri May 21, 2010 6:56 AM EDT
By The Rachel Maddow Show

Ben Jealous, president and CEO of the NAACP, told us last night why the flap over Senate candidate Rand Paul's views on the Civil Rights Act matter. Jealous said it's because the Kentucky Republican might actually, really hold them:

You know, this is very real. I mean, we had the Philly pool issue last summer and we still get complaints about pools at the NAACP. You know, we've got real issues right now about the federal regulation of banks. We've got the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in front of the Congress, and mistreated people on the basis of sexual orientation. This is a very live issue.

And, you know, the fear with Rand Paul is that what he said in 2002, what he said to NPR, what he said to you, is how he feels. And now, he's very quickly learning how to be a candidate and he's trying to, you know, flip-flop. But, you know, he`s been consistent over time and that's deeply worrying.

Paul's interview with us on Wednesday provided a kind of tuning-fork moment, when we could suddenly hear an issue that's vibrating inside American politics. There's intellectual motion, there's belief, there's strongly held, often surprising views that no one really wants to talk about, that no one really hears. They're there, but we don't hear them until all of a sudden something happens. And everybody freaks out.

Rand Paul's particular beef with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has to do with Title II, which states, "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of any place of public accommodation as defined in this section without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion or national origin."

In practical terms, this means that any private business -- a hotel, a motel, a restaurant, a lunch counter, a theater, a concert hall, a stadium -- that offers services to the general public cannot discriminate. Among many example's, it ended Woolworth's lunch counters' practice of only serving white people.

The reason we talk about this chapter in our country's history as the fight for civil rights is because it was a fight. There was the Civil Rights movement, activists, pushing for equal access to the rights and privileges of citizenship for black Americans, and there was another side that was pushing back.

The violence of mobs and Klansmen is what we all remember about that era, but there was also a very fervent intellectual and political side to the pro-segregation forces --people like William F. Buckley, founder of the modern conservative movement. In 1957, Mr. Buckley wrote this about the civil rights struggle: "The question that emerges is whether the white community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is yes. The white community is so entitled because for the time being, it is the advanced race."

Mr. Buckley said he later regretted arguing that. And now Rand Paul brings a different angle of the old argument to light, that the right of private property owners to discriminate trumps the right of customers not to be discriminated against. You can say as Rand Paul did last night that you don't support the violence and racism, the people who were actually physically beating Civil Rights demonstrators while they were fighting against segregation. Who would say they side with that?

But do you think they had a point regardless of how those people beating the protesters tried to make it? Do you side with the intellectuals, with the politicians, who weren't throwing the punches and murdering people but who did argue that private business has the right to discriminate and the government is wrong to stop it?

Apparently we don't all agree that when the federal government decided in 1964 that it would stop private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race, that was a good thing. And beyond race, if there is a bright dividing line between private and public, can businesses refuse to serve Jews, too? Baptists?

Are fire codes unconstitutional? How about the minimum wage? Does the government have the right to tell B.P. that it ought to use safety technology to prevent spills when it drills offshore? Is it unconstitutional overreach to tell liquor stores they can't sell liquor to kids? Can the government inspect meat? Should it say you can't put lead in those pacifiers you're manufacturing?

Libertarian is not a five-syllable shorthand word for Republican. It is a really specific worldview about the appropriate reach of federal law in this country.

And when you are auditioning for a role as part of the federal government's highest law-making body, which makes laws for everyone in
this country, questions about what you believe is the appropriate reach of federal law ought to be expected. The answers sometimes reopen debates that no one anywhere near the mainstream of American politics had any idea were still controversial.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/05/21/4321086-rand-paul-stung-by-a-tuning-fork-moment-the-libertarian-debate-goes-on">LINK

[tblue37]

31. Thanks. nt

[florida08]

35. I don't know which is worse

the bigot or the one that protects him. These people tend to believe private enterprise is a government unto itself. Well look where that kind of lunacy has gotten us. What they call small government is no government. The big will walk all over the small and they advocate it. And sadly voters who support them do to. Tremendous effort on Rachel's part to expose the core of the right wing fringe. How any ethnicity could be a part of the GOP is still amazing to me. Where is Steele's outrage at this.

[ScottLand]

36. Simply mind blowing. When these nuts say

they want their country back (as opposed to forward), they aren't kidding.

[scentopine]

38. Outstanding - damn fine woman doing a difficult job. -nt

[donco6]

39. She gets cut off at the end - anyone have the rest???

Outstanding.

[SeattleGirl]

43. Link to Part 2 is posted under the video. It's only a few

seconds long.