Rand Paul campaign shake-up begins

posted at 8:48 am on May 26, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Rand Paul may have won the Republican primary for the Senate by using a grassroots, fresh staff, but his first week out of the blocks in the general election showed that he needs more experienced hands on deck.  Since his appearance on Rachel Maddow’s MS-NBC show, his (hopefully) future Senate colleagues like Minority Leader and fellow Kentuckian Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn at the NRSC have rushed to his side to help with damage control.  The first moves have already been made, as Paul’s campaign manager has been demoted:

A political firestorm has followed Paul since last week, when he expressed misgivings about portions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He suggested to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow that the federal government shouldn’t have the authority to force restaurant owners to serve minorities if they don’t want to.

“I think they’ve used it as an issue to try to make me into something that I’m not,” Paul, an ophthalmologist, told a friendly hometown audience at a Bowling Green civic club. “I was raised in a family that said that you judge people the same way Martin Luther King said, you judge people by their character not by the color of their skin.”

Since last week Paul has been reassessing his campaign staff. He said he expects there will be staff changes, though he declined to give details. He won the GOP nomination last week with a campaign staff made up largely of political novices and volunteers. …

Campaign manager David Adams, who had been a Republican blogger in Nicholasville before joining up, will remain but perhaps in a different role, Paul said.

Paul, who ran as a political outsider, also said he has made amends with the Republican establishment. He said he has had cordial discussions with National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky’s senior senator.

Paul blamed Jack Conway for the controversy over the Civil Rights Act, accusing his Democratic opponent of starting the rumor that Paul wanted it repealed, which then prompted Maddow to ask about it.  Left unexplained, though, was the decision to go on MS-NBC in the first place, especially with a large double-digit lead in a red state.  Republican candidates running in blue or purple states may have good reason to seek guest slots on liberal talk shows in order to reach their constituencies, but how many more Kentucky voters would Paul reach on MS-NBC?  Ten?

That’s the kind of strategic thinking that experienced campaign professionals bring to candidates, especially inexperienced candidates like Paul, running in his first election.  Primary campaigns are much different than general election campaigns, at least in most circumstances, in both tenor of the debate and in coverage by the media.  That’s doubly true in this case; Paul was treated generously by the Left in the past because Paul spent a great deal of time criticizing Republicans as well as Democrats.  Now that Paul is a Republican candidate, he should have expected that to end — and shouldn’t have put himself in the position he did last week.

Getting more experienced staffers will not only help defuse the kerfuffle that Paul created, but will also keep him from making any more rookie missteps in a race Republicans should win easily this year.   Fortunately, Paul has plenty of time to recover.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

It still amazes me at the hubris and stupidity shown by conservative (and now libertarian) candidates to agree to appear on a network that is overtly hostile to their ideology.

Sugarbuzz on May 26, 2010 at 8:52 AM

I saw his opponent Jack Conway interviewed on Olbermann’s show. Very fair and unbiased interview (hee).

Is Rand Paul going to go for his opponent’s Obama’s agenda-loving jugular? Or let every debate and interview circle around his own kookiness? Time will tell.

Marcus on May 26, 2010 at 8:54 AM

Bring in the Pro’s from Dover.

Johnnyreb on May 26, 2010 at 8:55 AM

My advice to Rand: Stay away from your Dad.

Dire Straits on May 26, 2010 at 8:55 AM

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with going on MSDNC….if you know what you’re getting into(witness Paul Ryan’s countless brilliant appearances). Madcow treated Rand Paul with respect in that interview. She challenged him, but it never got testy like his appearance with Stephy a day later.

But he had to know the tape from the Madcow show would be played ad nauseum on that network and countless others and would be manipulated and taken out of context. That was his mistake. He needs to control the narrative which means he can’t even give the left an inch. Keep the message on what concerns voters right now, not a law that was passed 46 years ago.

Doughboy on May 26, 2010 at 8:56 AM

Bu having experience is BAD. That was the whole premise of his campaign against Trey Grayson, at least.

It's Vintage, Duh on May 26, 2010 at 8:57 AM

Good news and bad news here. Some of what passes for professional campaign management within the Republican Party isn’t any better than what Paul already has. There are a lot of stupid people who keep getting jobs running Republican campaigns, God knows why. If Mitch McConnell sticks someone in there who helped run Trey Grayson’s miserable campaign, for example, we won’t see much better results. It’s important for Paul to stay who he is and not get over-managed, while cutting down on the unforced errors like going on MSDNC.

rockmom on May 26, 2010 at 8:58 AM

Getting more experienced staffers will not only help defuse the kerfuffle that Paul created, but will also keep him from making any more rookie missteps in a race Republicans should win easily this year. Fortunately, Paul has plenty of time to recover.

Like those pro’s who sent Palin to CBS…

the_nile on May 26, 2010 at 9:00 AM

Eh, the only thing worse than authentic Rand Paul is Rand Paul with the boot of the national GOP on his neck.

myrenovations on May 26, 2010 at 9:00 AM

His original CRA stance was correct. He should have turned it around on Maddow- Should GLAAD be forced to offer its legal services to non-homosexuals/Christian activists on a non-discrimination basis? Should a holocaust museum be forced to have an Arab American, Muslim American, or Palestinian on its payroll for the sake of balance? Should Atheist organizations be forced to admit the religious? How many White people should a Black-owned business or historically Black College hire to avoid a lawsuit? How many non-hispanics are on the La Raza payroll? Why do any of these BS questions even require an answer: because of liberalism.

abobo on May 26, 2010 at 9:04 AM

Maybe his current staff is in over their head but why can’t Paul or any other politician have a little grace. How about thanking them for helping him win the Republican nomination and admit that he has the final word on what interviews and campaign appearances he will do.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:05 AM

Also: if the racism in an area is prevalent and demonstrable, the Fed and State gov’s can always use the threat of withholding outside funds or issuing interest free loans to local minority entrepreneurs as a counter balance without regulating private ownership.

abobo on May 26, 2010 at 9:07 AM

christie should go campaign down there :P

blatantblue on May 26, 2010 at 9:09 AM

Maybe he should not bother with the liberals? He is after-all, running in Kentucky.

But he was right about the problems with the Civil Rights Act trying to take down the Democrat’s Jim Crow Laws … And becoming over bearing in scope.

tarpon on May 26, 2010 at 9:10 AM

Rand Paul is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum as Obama and his leftwing extremist buffoons. At least one against meany represents some balance. Although I don’t agree with everything Paul says, I agree with Obama less. Paul=maximum freedom with no government intervention. Obama=restricted freedom with governmental intervention.It’s really that simple.

volsense on May 26, 2010 at 9:11 AM

Why blame the MSNBC appearance? Shouldn’t the lesson merely be, don’t go on MSNBC if you’re only a moderately functioning retard like Rand Paul? Only a retard would have an R next to his name and then try to proclaim the most sensitive part of the Civil Rights bill bad. If Paul would turn his brain cells on, he might have fewer issues.

TheBlueSite on May 26, 2010 at 9:12 AM

I’m confused about those here who praise his stance on the CRA. If every business in a region (think the south in the first half of the 20th century), denied service to any black, you’d be cool with that, and in no way does the Constitution guarantee that a black American can live their lives in a certain region?

TheBlueSite on May 26, 2010 at 9:14 AM

Should Hooters be forced to hire fat, ugly women? (ht: Jason Lewis)

Should the fire department be required to employ paraplegics?

Bishop on May 26, 2010 at 9:15 AM

I’m confused about those here who praise his stance on the CRA. If every business in a region (think the south in the first half of the 20th century), denied service to any black, you’d be cool with that, and in no way does the Constitution guarantee that a black American can live their lives in a certain region?

TheBlueSite on May 26, 2010 at 9:14 AM

You should have stopped with “I’m confused.”

pugwriter on May 26, 2010 at 9:20 AM

Hooters hasn’t systematically destroyed the lives of an entire race of people for a generation. Nor has the fire dept. Fat girls can find employment in literally thousands of jobs. Without the provisions in the CRA, a black American could literally find himself unable to live in an entire state, unable to find work, food, shelter, clothing, etc.

I think responsible people can draw a line that we don’t take things overboard, but seriously, who in their right mind is against the idea that businesses shouldn’t be allowed to post “NO NEGROES” signs? Can a person be forced to defy their religious beliefs to perform a procedure someone demands? I’d say no, and that sort of thing is the clear line the a rational govt can come up with.

TheBlueSite on May 26, 2010 at 9:21 AM

I can’t watch BlueSite ramble. I’m going to PJTV to check to see if there is a new Trifecta episode. Bill Whittle kix azz.

pugwriter on May 26, 2010 at 9:24 AM

GOP insider establishment to Rand Paul: YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.

Makes perfect sense, because the GOP insider establishment has done such a bang-up job so far. “We’ve failed miserably, so we’re going to force you to let us fail miserably for you, too!”

Gabba gabba, we accept you, one of us.

Bah.

tsj017 on May 26, 2010 at 9:25 AM

Only a retard would have an R next to his name and then try to proclaim the most sensitive part of the Civil Rights bill bad.

Like those retards Reagan, Goldwater and Buckley?

Rae on May 26, 2010 at 9:28 AM

pugwriter on May 26, 2010 at 9:24 AM

You’re right pugwriter. Since you disagree with me, I can only assume you want a world where the grocery store is allowed to tell a black person they can’t buy their bread or their milks or anything else, because if someone demanded they allow such a thing it would rip the Constitution in half. But I’m the one who’s rambling.

I sure do long for the 20th century. Ya know, the era when black only water fountains were keeping the republic together.

Blech.

TheBlueSite on May 26, 2010 at 9:29 AM

That’s the kind of strategic thinking that experienced campaign professionals bring to candidates

If that’s the only quailification for the job then I’m in the wrong work. I could have made that “great strategic thinking” in grade school.

unseen on May 26, 2010 at 9:29 AM

TheBlueSite on May 26, 2010 at 9:21 AM

The point is not that the CRA was a bad “thing” in itself but whether it provided too much leeway in the perception of rights of people as opposed to rights of private business.

I brought up Hooters for a reason. There is a woman who is currently suing Hooters because they denied her a waitress job because she is overweight, and noticeably so. Hooters requires their waitresses to be pretty and trim, it’s how they sell their product and attract customers.

So the question is, have the woman’s civil rights been violated by the practices of a private business which has decided to essentially discriminate against fat, ugly women?

Bishop on May 26, 2010 at 9:29 AM

Rae on May 26, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Unfortunately for Paul, he has none of the redeeming qualities of the others, and it’s 2010 not 1960. We have a black president, the tide has shifted, and for some reason blacks, who tend to be more conservative and more religious, fawn over liberals, the media has spent a generation portraying republicans as racists, etc. It’s idiotic in 2010 to even think of opposing ANY part of the civil rights act.

TheBlueSite on May 26, 2010 at 9:32 AM

Blech.

TheBlueSite on May 26, 2010 at 9:29 AM

and how long do you think a store like that would stay in business. Just look at the media. they only cater to one group liberals conservatives are not wanted told to go get their “news” somewhere else. the liberal media is on its deathbed.

that store would be no different. why don’t you allow individuals and the free market to makes those adjustments instead of the dictates of some government dogooder.

the only time segegration worked was when it was backed up by the power of government. In every other instance seperation of races quickly falls to the power of individual freedom and freedom of accosaction.

unseen on May 26, 2010 at 9:33 AM

@TheBlueSite: There is scarcely a group in this country that wouldn’t be at risk of being subjected to private discrimination if that part of the CRA were repealed. That gives everyone an incentive to minimize gratuitous exclusivism. It’s not like everyone is likely to gang up on one minority. The Constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to someone else’s private property, private services or private patronage. At some point individuals are responsible for achieving a modus vivendi without having laws (let alone federal laws)dictate their every action.

It has also occurred to me that one reason Reagan’s generation of conservatives were successful is that they benefited from the advice of a lot of ex-liberals (Reagan himself being one). Are there any ex-liberals among Rand Paul’s advisers, or for that matter among younger right wingers? My guess is, not many.

Seth Halpern on May 26, 2010 at 9:35 AM

Bishop on May 26, 2010 at 9:29 AM

the point is that CRA was a bad thing. It went to far. All the government had to do was repeal Jim crow laws and allow the marketplace and individuals to continue on their own.

unseen on May 26, 2010 at 9:35 AM

Bishop on May 26, 2010 at 9:29 AM

I don’t there’s a fair comparison there. This woman is denied work at hooters, because we all know that they want thin blonde chicks. She’s not fighting for her life because of it. She’s not unable to buy food or live in a house with running water or anything.

I’m no legal scholar, but I think the system is stable enough where lines can be drawn. I also think that based on common sense, a God given right to liberty would have to allow all Americans an opportunity to at least live their lives. A black person denied every service would not have such a liberty. I don’t see how a private business somehow trumps the ability for a black American to buy things he would die without.

TheBlueSite on May 26, 2010 at 9:36 AM

the liberal media is on its deathbed.

So why did we have 60 Dems in the senate for a stretch there and how did we get Ogabe as president? Seems to me that the liberal media, far from being on its deathbed, is more powerful, and further left, than ever.

needtoknow on May 26, 2010 at 9:36 AM

unseen on May 26, 2010 at 9:33 AM

Umm try the first half of the 20th century! I don’t see that businesses went out of business left and right. In fact, I see them flourishing by denying blacks the goods and services they needed.

This idea that somehow the free market would punish such businesses is absurd. What if the free market did no such thing? Then an American is denied basics to live…I’m failing to see how that could be interpreted as any form of liberty, which is a basic right fundamental to all of us.

TheBlueSite on May 26, 2010 at 9:39 AM

The guys on Trifecta discussed this very thing.

One has only to understand fundamental free market principles before he realizes that Title II of the CRA is no longer needed.

pugwriter on May 26, 2010 at 9:40 AM

TheBlueSite on May 26, 2010 at 9:36 AM

Eh, you’re running away from the question.

Can Hooters, as a private business, discriminate against fat women because their business model depends on skinny, trim waitresses?

Could another private restaurant discriminate against white people because their targeted clientele consists mostly of Black Panthers?

Denying fat chicks or white guys access won’t kill them or deny them food, but both businesses are both engaging in discrimination by judging physical traits. Yes or no?

Bishop on May 26, 2010 at 9:43 AM

A black person denied every service would not have such a liberty.
TheBlueSite on May 26, 2010 at 9:36 AM

Why was the blackman denied in the first place. What stopped those stores from serving him? Oh yeah governmental laws that made it illegal for the races to mingle. So the answer you say is to give the government more power to force the races to mingle.

How about we give the GOVERNMENT less power to say who should and should not mingle. since they have screwed it up for the last 400 odd years I think its fair to say they don’t have a very good track record with that type of power. after all it was the government that made it legal to own slaves, to seperate the races after the civil war, to require quotas to fix the seperation they caused in the first place and the list of racial problems the government has caused continues to grow.

Most people when they get to know each other do not let the color of ones skin get in the way of friendship, love etc.

the few hardcore racists in the world can be shunned and shamed by society without massive laws that take away freedom.

unseen on May 26, 2010 at 9:44 AM

TheBlueSite on May 26, 2010 at 9:39 AM

Do you understand why those business survived during that time? they were backed up by Jim crow LAWS. It was illegal for the races to mingle.

unseen on May 26, 2010 at 9:45 AM

Let’s hope Dr. Paul is smart enough to use the help for mapping out the land minds in D.C. and the national media but not embrace the “other world” aspects of the place.

Cindy Munford on May 26, 2010 at 9:46 AM

Seems to me that the liberal media, far from being on its deathbed, is more powerful, and further left, than ever.

needtoknow on May 26, 2010 at 9:36 AM

No they are holding on because a few wealthy people want their message out. they are bleeding money. their power is a mirage which they are trying with govenrment help to hold on too. the Fair speech act, the newspaper bailouts etc. racism always needs government to enable it to continue.

unseen on May 26, 2010 at 9:47 AM

Bishop on May 26, 2010 at 9:43 AM

Of course. Discrimination isn’t necessarily a bad word. I discriminate all the time in terms of who I hang out with, where I work, what I drive, where I eat out, etc. A systematic discrimination of one race of people that literally denies them a chance to live any sort of free life is one thing, denying a heavy set woman a chance to work at Hooters is different.

Why can’t we as reasonable people draw a line? I don’t think that’d be too difficult if we’re rational about it.

The problem is, the govt doesn’t run grocery stores or restaurants or own houses they rent and sell. So anytime it’s fine for a business to discriminate in such a manner where they systematically destroy the lives of particular people, I can’t see the threat of govt overreach. That is, if anything, a small thing for the govt to do.

TheBlueSite on May 26, 2010 at 9:47 AM

Does he really need an experienced campaign strategist to tell him that the formerly fawning left who gushed all over him when he was slamming Repubs just as they did his Dad, would be gunning for him as a Senatorial candidate competing against one of their own? Does he really need to be told by someone else that, with all the monumentally adverse challenges facing our nation right now, critiquing the 1964 CRA might not be the most effective use of limited free airtime? Yikes, I hope not. I hope he’s smarter than that.

That being said, if making a symbolic gesture of cleaning house in his staff offices will get the media off of his & every other Republican’s back & stop the press from demanding interminable clarification on the official Republican opinion on what, for the leftists at least, is a nifty little distraction about government’s alleged overreach to rectify racial injustice a half-century ago & back on the subject of overreach by Barrack Obama & Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid RIGHT NOW, this is a welcome development.

Time’s a wastin’. We’ve got lots of hearts & minds to change before November, and though as per their usual strategy the Dems would dearly love to sidetrack us straight into the mire of intractable issues like race, we gotta keep our sights squarely on their intent to sidetrack this republic straight into the mire of Eurosocialistic dhimmitude.

leilani on May 26, 2010 at 9:49 AM

Title II of the CRA is no longer needed.

pugwriter on May 26, 2010 at 9:40 AM

it was never needed and in fact made things worse

unseen on May 26, 2010 at 9:50 AM

A systematic discrimination of one race of people that literally denies them a chance to live any sort of free life is one thing,
TheBlueSite on May 26, 2010 at 9:47 AM

and that type of racism can only occur with the full backing and support of a government.

unseen on May 26, 2010 at 9:53 AM

Blue, There will always be exceptions, i.e., businesses that manage to stay afloat or even thrive in a niche market (head shops,) and if someone wants to sell only to white supremacists, said business might manage to make a buck, but the market at large is too smart for that. Businesses run on self interest and it is in every businesses self-interest to appeal to as many consumers as possible.

Thank God the Jim Crow days are gone. The dissolution of Title II could be looked upon as a great day in the civil rights struggle, a sign that we have achieved what the CRA set out to do in the first place. Ditching Title II should be a goal of the civil rights movement.

pugwriter on May 26, 2010 at 9:53 AM

TheBlueSite

B!tch all you want. I notice you addressed neither of my points. You are like every other liberal: more concerned with dividing the pie than growing it. IF discrimination is present, and the DC isn’t allowed to endorse it- then DC, by that logic, has every right to deny outside funding as a means of leverage. This is called a stick. Another way to address prevalent discrimantion against blacks, or anyone else, is to empower them with opportunity. Get grants and low/no interest loans in the hands of local minorities so they can build their own businesses and compete with the racist establishment- assuming it exists. It would be far better for both minorities and the constitution than simply stealing from whitey and making an even bigger mockery of our already terminal notion of “personal autonomy”.

abobo on May 26, 2010 at 9:54 AM

Why can’t we as reasonable people draw a line? I don’t think that’d be too difficult if we’re rational about it.

That’s the thing now isn’t it, reaching accommodation on the definitions of reasonable and rational. If Hooters were the only major employer in a relatively isolated town, you could say they were discriminating in such a manner as to systematically destroy the lives of particular people, in this case anyone who isn’t a trim, pretty, young woman.

Bishop on May 26, 2010 at 9:56 AM

The problem is, the govt doesn’t run grocery stores or restaurants or own houses they rent and sell. So anytime it’s fine for a business to discriminate in such a manner where they systematically destroy the lives of particular people, I can’t see the threat of govt overreach. That is, if anything, a small thing for the govt to do.

TheBlueSite on May 26, 2010 at 9:47 AM

You are so blind. It was government that mandated (Jim Crow LAWS) those stores, restaurants, homes and businesses to systematically destroy the lives of a particular people in the first place. And to solve that problem you want more government.

unseen on May 26, 2010 at 9:56 AM

Title II of the CRA is no longer needed.

pugwriter on May 26, 2010 at 9:40 AM

it was never needed and in fact made things worse

unseen on May 26, 2010 at 9:50 AM

I can’t, honestly, argue with you on this point. Was I trying too hard to play nice?

pugwriter on May 26, 2010 at 9:57 AM

amatuer hour not over, he’s replacing him with his Nephew

http://www.kentucky.com/2010/05/26/1279852/rand-paul-planning-campaign-staff.html

jp on May 26, 2010 at 9:57 AM

I can’t, honestly, argue with you on this point. Was I trying too hard to play nice?

pugwriter on May 26, 2010 at 9:57 AM

LOL…maybe but IMO creating shorcuts like Title II did never solves the problem.

unseen on May 26, 2010 at 10:00 AM

these are the people Blue wants “fixing” racial problems:

Last week, one of the millions of workers hired by Census 2010 to parade around the country counting Americans blew the whistle on some statistical tricks.

The worker, Naomi Cohn, told The Post that she was hired and fired a number of times by Census. Each time she was hired back, it seems, Census was able to report the creation of a new job to the Labor Department.

Below, I have a couple more readers who worked for Census 2010 and have tales to tell.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/two_more_census_workers_blow_the_OqY80N3DBTvL17VmxKKR0O#ixzz0p2nLS4AE

unseen on May 26, 2010 at 10:02 AM

Deck chairs on Titanic.

This man is what the Palin haters fear Sarah is.

A lightweight with fanatic supporters who aren’t mainstream.

jeff_from_mpls on May 26, 2010 at 10:09 AM

What ever he is or does he cannot be as bad a Guy Smiley. Who the press has given a get out of jail card free every time he opens his mouth. I don’t see Fox in Guy’s future do you?
He had the never to go on. He also spoke about something he feels has imperfections in the law. Remember this is the law that destroyed the Black’s instead of helping them.

Mr. Paul on May 26, 2010 at 10:10 AM

Should Hooters be forced to hire fat, ugly women? (ht: Jason Lewis)

I don’t even think they should be forced to serve fat, ugly, bald men, but then they would be out of business either way, right?

Ann NY on May 26, 2010 at 10:12 AM

I’m no expert in Jim Crow Laws, but I was under the impression most of them allowed businesses to discriminate based on race but did not demand they all do so? Businesses were allowed to serve blacks if they chose to do so, no? They simply risked losing their white patronage by doing so.

I’m fairly sure in most states, blacks weren’t served (in the same fashion as whites and sometimes not at all) not because of state by state Jim Crow laws, but rather because of societal racism.

Besides, we’re talking about the federal govt as opposed to state laws.

TheBlueSite on May 26, 2010 at 10:16 AM

His campaign manager, David Adams, was over his head once the primary was over. Adams is a decent enough guy, but he’s a local yokel. He ran a blog prior to the Rand campaign that was always good for a lot of grassroots red meat and Look- at- this- latest- liberal- outrage pandering. When the first Tea partys started to crop up Adams was all over it, organizing the first ones in Lexington and Richmond.

His and Rand’s tea party schtick went over like gangbusters against blow- dried and boring Trey Grayson, but Rand came out sitting on a 25 point lead over blow- dried and boring Jack Conway that may get squandered if Rand and those around him can’t maintain message discipline. Adams was not the guy to keep his and his candidate’s powder dry. Knowing a little bit about the personalities involved from a local perspective, it would not surprise me in the least if it was Adams’ bonehead idea to try a “Neiner, neiner, in yo FACE, liberal scum!” victory lap in the belly of the liberal media beast.

All Rand had to do was not be a Democrat and cruise to an easy victory in November. Letting out the Libertardianism has made that more difficult.

Say what you like about Mitch McConnel and the GOP establishment in KY: Mitch gets it done and keeps the distractions at bay.

Dukeboy01 on May 26, 2010 at 10:21 AM

That was beyond a rookie move. It was naive.

That said, I would also suggest not to underestimate the intelligence of the average American. The media is on their radar now, and most of them understand what Paul means.

I think Paul would do well to attack back with a good, common sense argument that challenges the image fabricators of the media.

Trust the people.

Saltysam on May 26, 2010 at 10:21 AM

TheBlueSite on May 26, 2010 at 10:16 AM

In this case you’re not suffering from stupidity only, you’re also wrong.

I bet you’re one of those people that praise an education, but wouldn’t know one if you saw it.

Saltysam on May 26, 2010 at 10:27 AM

Dukeboy01 on May 26, 2010 at 10:21 AM

I also see some kind of ego tripping going to liberal media. High risk low/no gain.

the_nile on May 26, 2010 at 10:37 AM

I also see some kind of ego tripping going to liberal media. High risk low/no gain.

the_nile on May 26, 2010 at 10:37 AM

I really don’t know much about Dr. Paul and did not see any of these interviews, but this is how it struck me as well – a guy with a really high opinion of himself who thought he could walk into the belly of the beast and tame it. Woops!

I think all of this is a big yawn to the folks in Kentucky though. The liberal media there were going to be all over Dr. Paul no matter what he said or did, and the voters don’t listen much to them. Jack Conway is a big fat zero and I don’t see any way he wins this.

rockmom on May 26, 2010 at 10:54 AM

Saltysam on May 26, 2010 at 10:27 AM

Grow up, kid.

So, Jim Crow was a federal law then? Gosh. I thought they were various state laws. And Jim Crow laws strictly forbid private businesses from allowing businesses to serve both races? Tell me, what was the punishment involved if a business allowed a black person and white person to eat together? Death penalty? Or was this just a year in prison?

TheBlueSite on May 26, 2010 at 10:55 AM

At the end of the day most Kentuckians understood what Paul was saying… Let private businesses have the freedom to fail if they discriminate or not… He’s not racist and did not state he wanted to repeal the CRA… And so it their opinions that matter and they will make him their Senator… They aren’t going to elect the Democrat… No way…

CCRWM on May 26, 2010 at 11:08 AM

His and Rand’s tea party schtick went over like gangbusters against blow- dried and boring Trey Grayson, but Rand came out sitting on a 25 point lead over blow- dried and boring Jack Conway that may get squandered if Rand and those around him can’t maintain message discipline. Adams was not the guy to keep his and his candidate’s powder dry. Knowing a little bit about the personalities involved from a local perspective, it would not surprise me in the least if it was Adams’ bonehead idea to try a “Neiner, neiner, in yo FACE, liberal scum!” victory lap in the belly of the liberal media beast.

I also see some kind of ego tripping going to liberal media. High risk low/no gain.

the_nile on May 26, 2010 at 10:37 AM

This probably WAS an ego trip for Rand Paul, after winning a statewide Senate primary by an overwhelming margin, suddenly being the object of national attention, he wanted to “go national”, and perhaps vindicate his father, who is manipulated as a “useful crackpot” by the national media because he bashes Republicans.

But as a statewide Republican nominee, Rand Paul should have known that MS-NBC hates conservatives, and will stop at nothing to demonize them. As a candidate supported by the Tea Party, he should have known that the left-wing media is ALWAYS trying to brand Tea Partiers as racists, just because they oppose a black President, and Paul’s discussion of arcane legal issues with the Civil Rights Act played right into their hands.

Rand Paul needs to face facts: The Civil Rights Act is the law of the land for the last 56 years, and there is very little popular support for changing it. If he is asked about it again, he should plainly (and factually) state that Republicans in Congress at the time supported it overwhelmingly, over the opposition of southern Democrats, and he supports it as a Republican, then move on to other issues.

Kentucky is a conservative state, which both George W. Bush and John McCain won handily without even campaigning there, so that Rand Paul just needs to run as a common-sense conservative Republican to be its next Senator. He should stay away from the national media, and do televised interviews and debates only with local Kentucky stations, and focus on issues of the FUTURE rather than nitpicking about details in 56-year-old laws that have broad popular support.

Rand Paul can affect national policy once he is a Senator, but he has to get there first. Horse, then cart.

Steve Z on May 26, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Hmmmm.

“That’s the kind of strategic thinking that experienced campaign professionals bring to candidates, especially inexperienced candidates like Paul, running in his first election.”

Are you kidding me!? It doesn’t take an “experienced campaign professional” to figure out going on MSNBC is a bad idea. Ask any conservative in America.

In fact I’ll argue the opposite. It takes a particularly blind, oblivious and quite idiotic campaign “professional” to think going on MSNBC is a good idea for any reason whatsoever.

memomachine on May 26, 2010 at 11:30 AM

“I’m confused about those here who praise his stance on the CRA. If every business in a region (think the south in the first half of the 20th century), denied service to any black, you’d be cool with that, and in no way does the Constitution guarantee that a black American can live their lives in a certain region?

TheBlueSite on May 26, 2010 at 9:14 AM”

The Constitution guarantees you can do whatever you want, regardless of the color of the skin. What many of us here are saying is simply this: the Civil Rights Act is fine for government entities but not for the private sector. In this day and age if any business denies service then just go to the competitor next door. He will be more than happy to take the extra business. The market corrects itself even from racism.

However, government intervention in the private market brings with it more intervention. The civil rights act gave way to quotas, among other things. That’s why you must now have a certain amount of whites, blacks, latinos, etc, even if all the personnel that is actually qualified belongs only to one group.

The same for things such as handicap considerations in your business. Once again, government intervention has brought with it higher costs to have accommodations in the workplace, which result in smaller paychecks for the rest or higher product costs. Letting a business choose whether they want these accommodations or how they want to handle them allows the business to manage costs their own way. At the same time, the market once again can fix this better than government ever could. If your business doesn’t have handicap accommodations do you think handicapped people will go to it, or rather pick up your competition who actually does have them?

ptcamn on May 26, 2010 at 1:33 PM

The fault dear Randus is not in your campaign staff but in yourself. Of course your campaign staff might have asked you to go on MSLSD with Maddow, but you agreed. You were the one who made the asinine ‘philosophical’ argument about how businesses were hard pressed under the Civil Rights Act, and it was unfair to force them to treat everyone equally in the provision of services. You failed to really take into account the state statutory, political and social culture which deprived millions upon millions of people of liberty and their federal constitutional rights, merely by virtue of their birthplace or location. You were the one who gave the leftwingers the ball of closet racist, to run with, despite your weak protestations about how bad racism and discrimination are. You were the one who could have had a three sentence answer about the Civil Rights Act of 64 that would have satisfied most of your potential constituents, and most of your countrymen, but you chose to channel your starkers father instead. You are the one who is tarnishing republicans with liberals’ favorite bromide that they are closet klansmen (even though all klansmen were democraps) waiting (salivating) to take away the civil rights of minorities and to re-institute a peonage based upon race and ethnicity. You may still win in Kentucky, but you will be the face used by the democraps against republicans from now until you retire from office. And if you have any more of these serious missteps, you might not even make it to the November election.

eaglewingz08 on May 26, 2010 at 2:43 PM

TheBlueSite on May 26, 2010 at 9:47 AM

A systematic discrimination of one race of people that literally denies them a chance to live any sort of free life is one thing,

And right there, your argument falls in on itself.

The fact is that in just about all the Southern States, there were Blacks who were making it. They had cars, they had nice houses, they attended nice churches, they put money away. Even at the height of their political persecution, there were economic markets available to them. And where those markets failed them, it was often the Jim Crow laws, not a conspiracy among individual business owners, that led to the failure of the market.

I can’t see the threat of govt overreach.

Then either you aren’t looking hard enough, or you are deliberately looking away.

We are talking about the federal government abrogating individuals’ right of free association and their property rights (without just compensation), in order to… what?… ensure someone’s right to do business with a firm who’s owner doesn’t want their money? Just where in the Constitution do you see that right?

Because I can very easily give you chapter and verse on the rights of free association and protection of private property.

JohnGalt23 on May 26, 2010 at 3:17 PM

Left unexplained, though, was the decision to go on MS-NBC in the first place

There’s nothing wrong with going on if you’re ready. In fact it could be easily turned into a positive by going on the offensive. Then you’ve got a viral video for your side.

edshepp on May 26, 2010 at 3:41 PM

Also: if the racism in an area is prevalent and demonstrable, the Fed and State gov’s can always use the threat of withholding outside funds or issuing interest free loans to local minority entrepreneurs as a counter balance without regulating private ownership.

abobo on May 26, 2010 at 9:07 AM

Sorry the Fed can’t, because the Constitution doesn’t allow it.

Tim Burton on May 26, 2010 at 3:44 PM