Thursday, May 20, 2010

Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, and "You had to ask me the but …"

Posted by Greg Hambrick on Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:06 PM

The talk show clip that is making the rounds this morning comes from Rachel Maddow, who was more than happy to give Rand Paul a full 20 minutes to continuously dodge one question about a business owner's right to discriminate. In previous interviews, Paul had noted his concerns about the Civil Rights Act requiring businesses to serve people regardless of race.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The most telling line in the piece is the video from the editorial interview where Paul nervously says, "You had to ask me the but …" Paul should have stated clearly that he supports a business' right to discriminate, but that he would not personally support that business and he would hope the free market would make it impossible for the business to survive. He said as much in a newspaper editorial interview. He would loose votes, for sure, but the maze he tries to pull Maddow through in the interview just makes things worse. He essentially blames her for sticking to the question, but he's really to blame for not answering it.

As Tea Party kingmaker, Sen. Jim DeMint is facing fresh criticism from South Carolina Democrats for his last-minute endorsement for Rand Paul. Democratic candidate Vic Rawl has called on DeMint to withdraw his Paul endorsement and the state party has called on him to clarify his own beliefs regarding the Civil Rights Act.

"Jim DeMint needs to stand up now and make clear that he does not stand with his pal on the Civil Rights Act, unless he actually agrees with such a divisive and discredited ideology," says state Democratic Party chair Carol Fowler. "With a key political ally essentially seeking to relegate 28 percent of his constituents to second-class citizen status, it's abhorrent that Jim DeMint is remaining silent."

This campaign season, DeMint isn't the only one who's going to be tied to Paul. Support or opposition to the the Civil Rights Act in its entirety is going to be a question every Republican is going to have to answer. The problem for most of them is that they're going to want to pivot right for the next three to five weeks before the primary and run-offs, and then swing back to the middle this summer. They should spend a little time today trying to figure out how to perform the landing better than Paul did last night.

Does this change the math in November? Not likely. The margins were already closing in the Kentucky race and they'll keep narrowing, but Paul is still the likely winner. And Vic Rawl is still facing a multi-million campaign with little more than a pee-shooter. But it takes another layer of sheen off the Tea Party and the 2010 conservative ascension.

It's interesting that DeMint would be in the thick of this because he's been in the same hole. Back in 2004, DeMint got in trouble on the campaign trail for saying that gays and unwed mothers shouldn't be able to teach in public schools. It led to a strikingly similar uncomfortable exchange with Tim Russert, where Demint tried desperately to stand by his comments, while also not repeating them.

MR. RUSSERT: But don't the voters have a right to know about whether or not you still stand by comments you made in the campaign? Do you stand by your comments?

REP. DeMINT: I apologized for answering a local school board question.

MR. RUSSERT: No, you're apologizing for the distraction, but it's a simple question. Do you believe that gays should be able to teach in South Carolina schools?

REP. DeMINT: Well, Tim...

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that single moms should be able to teach?

REP. DeMINT: It's a very simple answer. I think the local school board should make that issue, not Senate can—I mean, make that decision.

MR. RUSSERT: But you didn't think that a month ago when you answered the question.

REP. DeMINT: And I apologize for that, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: For answering the question?

REP. DeMINT: Yeah, for distracting from the real thing.

MR. RUSSERT: But not for the substance of your comments.

REP. DeMINT: Tim, who hires teachers should be decided by local school boards.

Tags: , , , , ,

  |  

Comments (8)

Showing 1-8 of 8

Add a comment

I saw the clip and kept wishing that Rand would just forcefully articulate his beliefs on the issue, because he's right. It's unpopular, but if anyone can articulate why the Civil Rights Act wasn't entirely just, it's Rand Paul.

Elsewhere on the internet you can find a clip of his dad, Ron Paul, on the Morton Downey Jr. show back in 1988 arguing over drug legalization. It was a HUGELY unpopular position to take back in the 80's, but today people are much more open minded about it. The Civil Rights Act will someday be properly judged once people are able to move past their emotions and evaluate the law based on whether or not it's constitutional.

report   
Posted by Jason Usry on May 20, 2010 at 1:56 PM

I wish all politicians would just answer the question asked, instead of dancing around the issue with phrases such as,first of all let me say,or asking a question in return,or yea but you know so and so did this or that. Many questions require a simple yes/no.Now Mr. Hambrick, will you do the same to the other side? Or is journalistic integrity not important?

report   
Posted by truthrus on May 20, 2010 at 2:34 PM

So Jason, you agree that a private business has the right to refuse customers because of race?

report   
Posted by pissedoff yankee on May 20, 2010 at 4:28 PM

Yes I do. And you and I have the right to protest such businesses and to try and steer people away from them. We tolerate much more offensive behavior in our society because we value freedom...I personally find Westboro Baptist and their picketing of funerals to be much more offensive than a white-owned business hanging a white-only sign on their door. We protect the rights of bigots to protest at funerals, and we ought to protect the rights of racist business owners to be racist. That's the cost of freedom.

report   
Posted by Jason Usry on May 20, 2010 at 5:51 PM

Knock! Knock!Is anybody home? I would respectfully ask Jack Hunter to explain why any private extablishment that serves the public at large would deny service to any one or more races of human beings? Then explain away thier motivation for doing as such. Should this nation underwrite this behavior by citing "private property"? It appears that race still matters in this country. The embers are flamed by insensitivity, hate speech, and intolerance. On the one hand, we have come a long way with the election of a non-white president. On the other hand, his election has served to expose those of us that believe whites are superior to all other races. What's next for the inferior races? Internment camps? Reservations? Or maybe nazi death camps?

report   
Posted by CackyLacky on May 20, 2010 at 10:06 PM

The Tea Party Hypocrisy of LIMITED GOVERNMENT = Government needs to get me a job. CUT MY TAXES when we have a war on two fronts that costs a trillion dollars a year when we have trillions of dollar in deficits? SECURE BORDERS but don’t make me get a Real ID. Government needs to CLEAN UP OILD SPILLS? Does this make sense? Fox News owns the Tea Party lock stock and barrel, Palin, Beck, Hannity the works. Tea Partier’s just don’t get it; if wasn’t for Fox News pushing the Tea Party 24/7, there wouldn’t be a Tea Party. Who pays for all of the Promo’s and support? Ah? No Body but Rupert Murdoch! The failed Beck 912 movement morphed into and hijacked what is today the neocon inspired Tea Party that is in no way Libertarian or Conservative. So Tea Party’ers listen to Hannity,”Get in line and take orders,” from the Fox neocons like the rest of the sheeple. Rand Paul is not Ron Paul.

report   
Posted by gadsen on May 24, 2010 at 5:28 AM

Aarrgh!!!!! It's "lose" votes, not "loose" votes, Greg.

report   
Posted by grammar please on May 24, 2010 at 7:35 AM

Ron Paul is probably a bit nutty, but at least he spoke out against our endless impulse to militarily dominate foreign populations (under both Deomcratic and Republican administrations). I am not sure of Junior's attitude on that issue. His ambivalence on 1960's era civil rights legislation is disturbing, but let us remember that our own late, venerated Senator Thurmond stated way back then that civil rights laws were "legislatin' socialism". Rebublicans now assure us that "socialism" ( by some definition) is a gathering threat to our nation. There's the connection: civil rights=socialism. Too horrible to contemplate.

report   
Posted by pugnax on May 24, 2010 at 12:05 PM
Subscribe to this thread:
By Email
With RSS
Showing 1-8 of 8

Add a comment

Classified Listings
{ more } Recent Comments
{ more } Reader Reviews

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2012, Charleston City Paper   RSS