The idea that Rand Paul wants to end the Department of Education is all but burnished into his campaign logo. The Washington Post says he wants to "abolish" it, and Glenn Beck loves him for it. On his campaign website, Paul sounds much squishier on the issue, writing that as the Department of Education has gotten bigger, school performance has gotten worse. He proposes "to restore the parental right to be responsible in education children."
A local Kentucky TV station on Saturday posted an interview with Paul. The question was direct: "Do you want to abolish the Department of Education?" The answer from the state's new GOP nominee for Senate showed again Paul's mastery of the Direct Answer, But formulation:
"No," he replied, "I say what we do is take a multi-step look at every department. But you do look at everything across the board and say, 'What can we downsize? What can we privatize? What can we eliminate?' "
Over at the Daily Beast, Mark McKinnon suggests that specificity has its price: "The more specific Paul gets, the narrower the trading range of the Tea Party." When you're as small as the Tea Party, you need all the range you can get.
BTW, Paul tells the Kentucky station that Rachel Maddow was fair in her handling of the interview but MSNBC was not, in that MSNBC "went on a whole day repeating something over and over again." At the risk of seeming to defend our bosses, I'd like to point out that this was hardly the only media outlet to pay loads of attention to Paul's remarks -- including the New York Times, which notably got them wrong.
Kentucky Republican Rand Paul fell victim to a "gotcha moment" in his interview with Rachel Maddow last week, Sarah Palin tells Fox News. That interview, for the record, is on the order of 14 minutes and five seconds long -- just the talking part. A guy like Paul can't sit down for a hypothetical discussion with someone "who may be prejudiced before they even get into the interview," Palin said.
Palin told Fox she didn't want to pronounce judgment on Paul's every position. Paul is Kentucky's new GOP nominee for Senate and a standard bearer for Palin's Tea Party movement. Then, as Sam Stein of the Huffington Post points out, Palin expressed a very different take from Paul's defense of BP against the Obama administration. From Stein's column:
"These oil companies have got to be held accountable when there is any kind of lax and preventive measures to result in a tragedy like we're seeing now in the Gulf. Alaska has been through that. I have lived and worked through that Exxon Valdez oil spill. I know what it takes to hold these oil companies accountable. And we need to see more of that," she said.
"I don't know why the question isn't asked by the mainstream media and by others if there is any connection with the contributions made to President Obama and his administration, and the support by the oil companies to the administration," Palin added, "If there is any connection there to President Obama taking so dog-gone long to get in there and dive in there and grasp the complexity and the potential tragedy that we are seeing here in the Gulf of Mexico."
So far this year, the oil and gas industry has steered 71 percent of its contributions to Republicans, down from 77 percent in the 2008 election.
(Long, important post. Delicious dose of fun, courtesy of @JamilSmith, after the jump -- I promise.)
Here goes: To understand Wednesday's interview with Rand Paul, it helps to remember why Rachel Maddow kept asking Paul whether he believes the government can ban private businesses from discriminating. For instance, should a restaurant be able to bar Latino customers, or a hotel turn Asians away?
Maddow and Paul kept talking, blowing through commercial breaks and burning up the Twitters and testing the mettle of our control room because Paul hadn't answered the question. Did he believe the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was correct in restricting private businesses from discriminating? Yes or no? Kentucky's new Republican nominee for Senate didn't really answer.
So you can imagine our surprise when we read this report today in the New York Times:
Asked by Ms. Maddow if a private business had the right to refuse to serve black people, Mr. Paul replied, "Yes."
And it's true that if you read the transcript of the interview without watching the interview itself, you might think Paul had answered the question in the affirmative -- instead of not answering, which was in fact the case.
MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?
PAUL: Yes. I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race.
But I think what's important about this debate is not written into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question: what about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent?
First, please know that the people who transcribe our show do exactly what they're supposed to do -- they write down the words that get said, as best as the situation allows. Then it's up to other human beings to do their own homework. If you watch the interview, you'll see that Rand Paul's "Yes" -- or "Yunh" -- is really "I hear you, I'm listening, our wires got crossed, I'm about to answer." Paul utters that "Yunh" after a bit of crosstalk and a delay in transmission from the remote hookup. He's being polite. Watch this:
The "yunh" is so inconsequential that the Huffington Post, which wrote about the interview before the transcript appeared, left it out.
As a preventive measure, I'll point out a second spot in the interview that could trip folks up. You might think Paul was advocating resegregation, if you just read this snippet of the transcript:
MADDOW: But unless it's illegal, there's nothing to stop that--there's nothing under your world view to stop the country from re-segregating like we were before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 --
PAUL: Right.
MADDOW: -- which you're saying you've got some issues with.
In the flow of the interview, that "right" from Paul just means, again, "I'm listening." It's not "I'm listening and I want resegregation." Roll the tape:
Why spend so much time correcting the Times? Because Paul holds distinct views about government intervention, views that some find inspiring and others troubling. He most certainly believes in the sanctity of the private sphere. That has real-world implications. If government can't regulate restaurants with regard to discrimination, can it regulate them with regard to food safety? Does Paul care more about the principle of free speech on a Jim Crow sign than the free travel of African Americans? These are important questions, ones the public should wrestle with and earnestly try to figure out.
OK, we've reached the fun part. Jay Smooth watched the Rand Paul interview, and he didn't see yes-or-no answers. Smooth suggests Paul dodged the questions -- because he knows his ideas are going to sound "really weird and alienating." Let him tell you:
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.
"It was a poor political decision and probably won't be happening anytime in the near future," the Tea Party endorsed Senate candidate told the Laura Ingraham show on Thursday morning. "Because, yeah, they can play things and want to say, 'Oh you believed in beating up people that were trying to sit in restaurants in the 1960s.' And that is such a ridiculous notion and something that no rational person is in favor of. [But] she went on and on about that."
Sam Stein of the Huffington Post writes, "[T]he notion that the MSNBC host was somehow unloading liberal hostilities on him doesn't jibe with the fact that Paul got the same type of treatment during an NPR interview earlier that morning -- or, for that matter, that a conservative voice on MSNBC, Joe Scarborough, seemed aghast at his answers."
"I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
"Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.
"As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years.
"My opponent's statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false. I hope he will correct the record and retract his claims.
"The issue of civil rights is one with a tortured history in this country. We have made great strides, but there is still work to be done to ensure the great promise of Liberty is granted to all Americans.
"This much is clear: The federal government has far overreached in its power grabs. Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which my opponent supports. The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state's rights must stand up to it.
"These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign."
If you're just waking up to Rachel Maddow's interview with Rand Paul yesterday, welcome to epic. Rand Paul, son of libertarian icon Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), is Kentucky's new Republican nominee for Senate.
The younger Paul is a Tea Party Republican, and he set the stage for last night's interview by telling NPR about his views on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 earlier in the day. In sum, Paul said he opposes discrimination but has problems with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it bans businesses from discriminating against customers.
On the show last night, Paul sounded uncomfortable expressing his views about whether private business owners can hang out a "Black People Not Served Here" sign. He left behind the practical question of African-Americans trying to patronize a store or restaurant for the more theoretical turf of the First Amendment.
MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?
PAUL: I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race.
But I think what's important about this debate is not written into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question: what about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it. I think the problem with this debate is by getting muddled down into it, the implication is somehow that I would approve of
any racism or discrimination, and I don't in any form or fashion.
Rand Paul tells us he supports nine out of 10 parts, or titles, of the Civil Rights Act. Paul objects to the tenth because it deals with private businesses.
PAUL: I do defend and believe that the government should not be involved with institutional racism or discrimination or segregation in schools, busing, all those things. But had I been there, there would have been some discussion over one of the titles of the civil rights.
And I think that's a valid point, and still a valid discussion, because the thing is, is if we want to harbor in on private businesses and their policies, then you have to have the discussion about: do you want to abridge the First Amendment as well. Do you want to say that because people say abhorrent things -- you know, we still have this. We're having all this debate over hate speech and this and that. Can you have a newspaper and say abhorrent things? Can you march in a parade and believe in abhorrent things, you know?. . .
I really think that discrimination and racism is a horrible thing. And I don't want any form of it in our government, in our public sphere.
Paul goes on to say that there's "nothing right now to prevent a lot of re-segregating" and that he's proud of the public desegregation -- think roads, transportation, schools, drinking fountains -- that happened over the past 30 or 40 years. He closed by saying that he's not especially interested in the debate:
Paul: Well, I think what you've done is you bring up something that really is not an issue, nothing I've ever spoken about or have any indication that I'm interested in any legislation concerning. So, what you bring up is sort of a red herring. . . . It's a political ploy. I mean, it's brought up as an attack weapon from the other side, and that's the way it will be used.
But, you know, I think a lot of times these attacks fall back on themselves, and I don't think it will have any effect because the thing is, is that every fiber of my being doesn't believe in discrimination, doesn't believe that we should have that in our society. And to imply otherwise is just dishonest.
Rachel Maddow gave the commencement speech yesterday at Smith College. Likely or not, the speech had to do with "Bar Room Smasher" Carrie Nation, a hatchet-wielding enemy of alcohol.
Maddow's remarks include mention of government officials snorting meth off a toaster, where drinks with orange juice come from, the AMC Gremlin and the KFC Double Down sandwich. Maddow started by noting that Carrie Nation achieved her dreams, and America suffered through 13 years of fatal, stupid Prohibition as a result.
"Some dreams are bad dreams. . . . Hopefully life is long. Do stuff you will enjoy thinking about and telling stories about for many years to come. Do stuff you will want to brag about."
And this:
"Gunning not just for personal triumph for yourself but for durable achievement to be proud of for life is the difference between winning things and leadership. It is the difference between nationalism and patriotism. It is the difference between running for office and devoting yourself to public service. It's agreeing that you are part of something, taking as your baseline that you will not seek to reach your own goals by stepping on the neck of your community."
If you have trouble with the video player above, you can find the full speech, not embeddable, here. While you're there, make sure you see the Barbie story -- it's after the videos.
In the window of Guild Art Supply on Main Street in Northampton. (Photo by Michael Kusek)
I asked Rachel Maddow about this picture from Massachusetts. "Very kind, very flattering!" Maddow said in a written statement. "Also, I'm very much really never running for anything ever."
Rachel Maddow reporting last night from Venice, Louisiana, on the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster:
America has a choice to make about the State of Louisiana. Is Louisiana part of our country or isn't it? Because if Louisiana is part of America, then the American people and the American government have to begin to defend Louisiana against American greed, and multinational greed. Because yes, legally it's the job of BP, the oil company, to clean up this disaster that looms over this wetlands behind me right now.
Full text, after the jump:
So, here we are again on America's Gulf Coast, the Louisiana shoreline reporting on an environmental, economic and human catastrophe. This fragile stretch of our country being ripped apart again just as the wounds of the last disaster were beginning to heal here -- that of course was hurricane Katrina, which ravaged the barrier islands off the coast here and leveled much of Venice, Louisiana, where I'm sitting tonight. That was 2005. Here we are again in 2010.
If there's a unifying truth in this state, in this region, it is that the wetlands are the only means of survival. Nobody argues this point. Republicans, Democrats, nobody argues this point.
The wetlands are to the Gulf Coast what bumpers and crumple zones are to cars. It's a buffer against the impact, an absorber of destructive energy, a giant protector against disasters. Wetlands slow and weaken hurricanes before they reach places like New Orleans. They support wildlife. They support human economy. They are incredibly, incredibly fragile, and they have to be preserved if they are going to preserve us. The marshes were built by nature over thousands of years, built by the Mississippi River's floods which left settlement in fresh water. That pushed the edge of the continent out into the Gulf of Mexico by as much as 100 miles.
But since, the 1950s, the pursuit of profit has forced 8,000 miles of marshes to yield to manmade canals -- essentially, to make oil exploration and shipping easier. It's estimated that the state of Louisiana loses 25 square miles of wetlands every year. If we were losing that much land to another country, we would be at war.
America has a choice to make about the State of Louisiana. Is Louisiana part of our country or isn't it? Because if Louisiana is part of America, then the American people and the American government have to begin to defend Louisiana against American greed, and multinational greed. Because yes, legally it's the job of BP, the oil company, to clean up this disaster that looms over this wetlands behind me right now.
But who among us believes that any company really wants to defend America, as much as we as a nation want to defend us? The gain sucked out of the sea bed here is private, it's profit, it supersedes to these pesky little regulatory bodies called countries, but the risk here, again, the risk here as always isn't private. It's public, it's national, it's American. It's borne by Louisiana again, literally borne by the land here and by the people here. The incentives all line up neatly for the companies who profit up a natural resources here to take what they can and damn the consequences.
For us as a country, if we believe in Louisiana, somebody's got to stand up against those companies on behalf of the public, the land, the people, the country.
