[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

My feelings and yours about Rachel Maddow aside for a moment, did you actually see the interview? All of it? Because I did. And I'm 100% sure no one cornered Rand Paul into doing an interview with Rachel Maddow.

Yes and agreed (and Maddow does have the same haircut as Matthews). What I mean by cornered is that he was completely off balance in the interview and should've had the "three word" answer to shoot down the inferences of racism ready to go.

In fact the tone was civil and there were no gotcha moments or questions. Now If Paul wants to thrust himself onto the scene as a national candidate worthy of the electorate's consideration to lead the state of Kentucky, and perhaps the country one day, then he should account for his views and articulate his policy prescriptions. I think that's fair and reasonable.

Prior to the Maddow interview he made some controversial statements on NPR that raised a few eyebrows. The Maddow interview was more or less a follow-up to simply dig in a little more and allow Mr. Paul to clarify a few points regarding the Civil Rights Act and previous statements.

Agree on the first para. On the ADA thing mentioned on NPR, I do a good amount of Fed work and I can tell you his point is spot on about the $ 100K elevator. The Fed requirements of Section 508 add ridiculous costs when there are often more cost effective and common-sense solutions to accomodate those with disabilities.

But let's really cut to the chase where all of this is headed. Conservatives would like to paint this as some witch hunt by the "looney left" to bring down Rand Paul and portray him as a racist.

But it's so fun and easy to do

For the record, I don't think he would stand a bat's chance in hell of winning a national election and I don't believe he's a racist. But his libertarian views, I feel, would open the door to racial tension and undo much of the progress we've made over the past several decades. So on one hand no one is really trying to infer, at least I'm not, that Rand Paul is racist but on the other the unintended consequences of some of his views could very well lead us down that road. And that's just dangerous and irresponsible if you ask me.

But seriously, I agree here with you and that's my concern with many conservative candidates that would be very helpful to the country in terms of fiscal responsibility and scaling back the size/scope of govt'. They often allow themselves by trying to be true to their core beliefs (limited gov't) to be drawn into a black & white discussion with no allowance for shades of gray.

For the first time since the berth of the Tea Party movement, we now have a national candidate and a voice that we can reasonably assume espouse their views and sentiments. During his victory speech, he openly declared himself as the voice of the Tea Party (paraphrased). So from here on out, as the anointed spokesman for the Tea Party, we can look no further than Rand Paul to see what it is they believe. When they say things like "take my country back", how does that look in terms of actual policy? That's the big question Rand Paul and the Tea Party will have to answer in the coming days.

I thought his statement clarifying his position was solid, but it should never even have been needed. He should've seen the attacks coming and been prepared. A simple response, "I completely support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While I advocate limited government there are extreme cases of gross injustice where the Federal government is required to act. However the Federal gov't attempt to privatize health care.....etc, etc. etc."