Watch Rand Run: Paul Cuts Off And Flees Live Interview When Questions Get Too Hard

Rand Paul Guardian interview | You Tube Screencap

PoliticusUSA

Sen. Rand Paul had another disastrous interview with a member of the media today. Watch Sen. Paul walk out on an interview with The Guardian just as he was being pressed on his flawed campaign strategy.

Video:

As you can see, in the video above, The Guardian’s Paul Lewis was in the middle of asking Sen. Paul about how he plans on winning the Republican nomination on a platform of criminal justice reform when the vast majority of Republicans believe that the law is being applied fairly to all Americans. Sen. Paul didn’t say goodbye, or excuse himself from the interview. He just walked out.

The media initially reported that Paul campaign staffers turned out the lights on Lewis, but the Paul folks claim that it was a CNN producer who was setting for Paul’s next interview that left the scene in darkness.

Rand Paul is getting a taste of what happens when journalists hold him accountable for his policy inconsistencies. Sen. Paul seems to be running a very entitled campaign for a family that has perpetually run for president and never come remotely close to winning anything of consequence.

Paul has defined himself as the angry lightweight who is going to deflect from his flip-flops by either attacking or running away from the media. If Sen. Paul wants people to vote for him, media engagement is a free way to reach millions of potential voters. So far, Paul has hit the 2016 campaign trail and fallen flat on his face.

Sen. Paul may not have had the time to answer Lewis’s question, but there are more graceful ways of ending an interview than walking out. If Paul had excused himself politely from the interview, there would be no story, but if Rand Paul can’t handle NBC’s Today show and Paul Lewis from The Guardian, voters shouldn’t have any faith that he can handle being president.

Rand Paul Proposes Unusual Strategy On Voter ID To Help Republicans Court Black People

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) | CREDIT: AP PHOTO/JOSE LUIS MAGANA

Think Progress

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said on Sunday that he supported voter ID laws — but didn’t think Republicans should make the issue part of their campaign platform because it alienates black voters.

“I’m not really opposed to [voter ID laws]. I am opposed to it as a campaign theme,” Paul told CBS’ Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer. “Republicans, if you want to get African American votes, they think that this is suppression somehow and it’s a terrible thing.”

But contrary to Paul’s analysis, African-Americans are right to think voter ID laws mainly affect their communities. Laws mandating voters to show government identification disproportionately affect people of color and the poor, while reducing voter turnout. Those laws also carry racial tensions and reinforce stereotypes: A recent study showed that white Americans were more likely to support voter ID laws if they were shown pictures of African-Americans voting.

Republican-run states in particular have been lobbying for voting restrictions like reduced early voting times and voter ID laws, citing that such measures reduce voter fraud. But studies have shown that voter fraud is a non-issue: Voter fraud occurs at aninfinitesimal rate, with only 13 credible in-person cases logged between 2000 and 2010.

Paul went on to say that restoring voting rights for ex-convicts should be given more attention than ID laws. “I want more people to vote, not less,” he explained. “The number one impediment to voting in our country right now, it’s having a previous conviction. That’s where the real voting problem is.”

But voter ID laws actually cause fewer people to vote. The Government Accountability Office reported that such laws suppress voter turnout. Kansas and Tennessee, which have tightened their voter ID laws, had a decreased voter turnout especially among black voters, according to the GAO report.

Paul expressed having “mixed feelings” about the matter, but emphasized that Republicans harping on voter ID laws on the campaign trail pushes needed votes away instead of steering them toward the polls. “The Republican Party brand sucks and so people don’t want to be a Republican and for 80 years, African-Americans have had nothing to do with Republicans,” Paul said during a campaign stop in Detroit last week.

On Sunday, he reaffirmed that stance, saying “Republicans have to get beyond this perception that they don’t want African-Americans to vote. I don’t think it’s true. I’m not saying it’s true. But by being for all of these things, it reinforces a stereotype that we need to break down.”

Rand Paul To MSNBC: When Your Network Stops Lying, Then We Can Chat

Ueudxh6jer6ngk7lqrq6
MSNBC Screenshot

Most GOP lawmakers avoid MSNBC like the plague.

I have my issues with MSNBC in general but Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow represent the best of that network.  Notice that Rand Paul went on a program from MSNBC’s afternoon lineup which happens to include several anchors one of which is the daughter of a former GOP politico.

Therefore, I suspect Rand Paul means Hayes, Maddow and O’Donnell.  Those three have a “no holds barred” approach to their network broadcasts.  By the way, it’s a known fact that virtually all GOPers stay away from anything resembling “truth”.   Just sayin’…

TPM LiveWire

In the interview on “The Cycle,” host Ari Melber probed Paul to discuss his apparent change of heart on the Civil Rights Act. Melber brought up the senator’s comments from 2010 in which he said he would have modified the act’s rules for private businesses. Paul responded to Melber by saying that he had always been in support of the act and that MSNBC had treated him unfairly.

“I learned my lesson: To come on MSNBC and have a philosophical discussion, the liberals will come out of the woodwork and go crazy and say you’re against the Civil Rights Act, and you’re some terrible racist. And I take great objection to that,” Paul said.

Paul went on to say he took “great offense” to people skewing his viewpoint, saying he was the biggest advocate in Congress for getting back people’s voting rights and “mak[ing] the criminal justice system fair.”

“The honest discussion of it would be that I never was opposed to the Civil Rights Act,” Paul interrupted as Melber continued to push for discussion on the senator’s past comments. “And when your network does 24-hour news telling the truth, then maybe we can get somewhere with the discussion.”

Watch the interview via MSNBC here…

‘Unimaginable’: Rachel Maddow catches Rand Paul flip-flopping on the Civil Rights Act

Rachel Maddow 070214 [MSNBC] | Screenshot

The Raw Story

Four years after awkwardly skirting questions about the Civil Rights Act, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said on Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was suddenly happy to honor its 50th anniversary.

“Here’s Rand Paul, celebrating that law that he says, eh, he’s not sure he could have voted for,” Maddow said, displaying a statement posted on Paul’s website. “Today he says, ‘It is simply unimaginable to think what modern America would be like if not for’ that law to which he used to admit he was opposed. Now he’s its biggest champion. The word ‘unimaginable’ is exactly the right word here.”

The statement, Maddow said, was released in conjunction with Paul’s appearance at an event in Shelbyville, Kentucky, honoring a family of local activists, during which he “sang the praises” of not only people involved in the Civil Rights Movement, but the legislation itself.

“I don’t mean to be raining on the parade,” Maddow said. “But I have to point out that this does mark something of a shift in Rand Paul’s position on this legislation.”

Specifically, Maddow brought up their May 2010 interview, during which Paul — at that point still a senatorial candidate — said that while he agreed with nine of the ten provisions of the law, he would have tried to modify Title II, which prohibited private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race.

“What it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says ‘well no, we don’t want to have guns in here,’ the bar says ‘we don’t want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each-other,’” Paul said at the time. “Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion.”

“Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen’s lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership,” Maddow responded. “This is not a hypothetical, Dr. Paul.”

As the Washington Post reported last year, Paul has subsequently argued that it was a “mischaracterization” of his position to say he questioned the Civil Rights Act, an argument Maddow has rebuked.

Watch Maddow’s commentary, as aired on Wednesday, HERE

Largely White Audience Turns Out To Hear Rand Paul Speak At African-American Outreach Event

No surprise there…

The Huffington Post

The Michigan Republican Party is seeking to increase its visibility in Democratic- and minority-heavy Detroit, and last week, it brought Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to the city to open the party’s African-American Engagement Office. But if anything, the launch event put into stark relief just how much work the GOP has to do, when a largely white audience turned out to hear the senator speak.

Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus has said that attracting more minorities to the GOP is crucial for the party’s future. He visited Michigan last month, hired radio personality Wayne Bradley to head the African-American Engagement effort in the state and launched the Michigan Black Advisory Council.

In the 2012 election, President Barack Obama earned the support of 90 percent of the black voters who turned out at the polls.

Paul initially spoke at the new African-American Engagement Office on Livernois Avenue in Detroit for about four minutes on Friday. According to the progressive site Eclectablog, “The seats in the tiny space were filled with well-dressed supporters, most of whom were African-American.”

“Today’s opening of this office is the beginning of a new Republican Party,” Paul said. “This is going to be a Republican Party that is in big cities and small cities, in the countryside, in the city. It’s going to be about bringing a message that is popular no matter where you’re from, whether you’re rich or poor, whether you’re black, white or brown.”

Paul then went to a larger grassroots event at the Grace Bible Chapel, where there were protesters from the civil rights group National Action Network outside. Theonline invitation said the event was intended to “celebrate the opening of our African-American Engagement Office in Detroit.”

Tracking footage from the Democratic super PAC American Bridge 21st Century, however, shows an overwhelmingly white audience ended up turning out:

Detroit is approximately 83 percent African-American.

Paul also spoke Friday at the Detroit Economic Club, where he proposed a plan to revitalize U.S. cities through the creation of “economic freedom zones,” which would cut federal taxes in communities that have an unemployment rate of 12 percent or higher.

The Michigan Democratic Party rejected Paul’s advice for Detroit.

“Sen. Paul was a vocal opponent of the auto rescue, which saved over a million jobs, and led the Republican effort to shut down the government, costing Michigan’s economy hundreds of millions,” said party spokesman Joshua Pugh. “His special interest tax handout plan is nothing new. Here in Michigan, Rick Snyder gave $1.8 billion to wealthy special interests, and paid for it with billions in devastating cuts to our local communities and public schools. It’s time for our elected leaders to stop the tax giveaways, invest in communities and improve education.”

Paul has been trying to do more minority outreach in recent months. In April, Paulspoke at the historically black Howard University, becoming the first Republican elected official to speak on campus in years.

Still, he continues to generate skepticism, in part due to his criticism of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In 2010, he said, “I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant, but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership.”

On Sunday, Paul said he opposed extending long-term unemployment benefits, because doing so would be a “disservice” to workers. African-Americans have consistently had a significantly higher unemployment rate than whites.

Neither Paul nor the Michigan GOP returned a request for comment.

The Big Lie Behind Rand Paul’s Pack of GOP Shutdown Lies

Rand Paul

PoliticusUSA

The GOP, driven by tea party extremism, has shut down the U.S. government, costing taxpayers on the order of $40-$80 million per day at a conservative estimate. Some estimates go as high as $300 million per day. According toShutdowncost.com, as I write this, the shutdown has cost in excess of $1,593,276,000 and it is literally climbing by the second.

Yet Rand Paul (R-KY) writes an op-ed on CNN.com on Fridaywith the disingenuous claim that he doesn’t understand why the WWII memorial isn’t open:

This week, we saw the outrageous spectacle of World War II veterans being told by our government that they couldn’t visit their own memorial. These former service members, who stared down the Japanese and the Nazis, were told that they couldn’t step through barricades arbitrarily placed in front of their memorial because the government has shut down. Some have speculated that it might have cost more to place the barricades there than to have done nothing at all.

This is a tear-jerker, and it is meant to be. But Paul is being as dishonest here as the day is long.

He says putting barricades up cost more than to have done nothing. But Rand Paul doesn’t mention that, the shutdown his party is responsible for is costing Americans more than if the Republicans had done nothing. And the shutdown is costing Americans more than a few barricades.

Let me put it this way: Not only do the spending cuts the GOP demands not reduce the federal debt, but the shutdown Republicans initiated claiming Obamacare is costing Americans too much money, costs more money than Obamacare.

If this makes sense to you, you are probably a tea partier.

Yet Rand Paul says Obamacare makes no sense, because, apparently, giving millions of Americans access to insurance for the first time, and forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, makes no sense.

He accuses President Obama of being “tone deaf” to Americans, completely ignoring the fact – and it is a fact – thatthe majority of Americans want Obamacare and that the majority of Americans do not want a government shutdown.

I think we know who is tone deaf, and it isn’t President Obama.

Then Rand Paul pulls out the Big Lie, the same one every Republican who began planning for this shutdown in 2010 are all using, that none of them wanted a shutdown. Keep in mind that they shut down the government using Obamacare as an excuse. Keep in mind that Obamacare is the law of the land, and more, a law upheld by the Supreme Court.

No one wanted a government shutdown. Republicans have continued to offer multiple compromises that would keep the government open. I offered an amendment to keep the government open an additional week while negotiations continued. My proposal was rejected. In fact, all of our proposals were rejected.

Paul tells another lie when he claims, “Every attempt to bargain, negotiate or compromise has been rejected by the Democrats.”

Let us be clear: The Republicans have offered no compromises. They refused from the start to negotiate. Their demands – and they can be construed no other way – have been predicated on 44 unsuccessful votes to defund Obamacare, and when that failed, to delay it for a year, when, they hope, a new majority in the Senate will kill it for good. In other words, delaying Obamacare is, from their point of view, no different than killing it. Some compromise. Either way, it’s “kill Obamacare.”

Apparently, Rand Paul yearns to be known as the biggest liar in Washington, D.C., to judge by this next whopper:

Pundits like to talk about dysfunctional government in Washington. This week demonstrated how right they are. Our government is too big, inefficient and incompetent to possibly handle American health care effectively. Why can’t this administration get its act together?

A Republican-dominated House of Representatives rushing down a road to nowhere with no clear end-game in mind save unconditional surrender by the administration, and Paul says the administration doesn’t have IT’S act together?

Paul pulls out one lie after another, each worse than the last, arriving at the tried and untrue Republican claim that Obama is building the deficit at a record pace:

And what do we have to show for this largely dysfunctional government? Annual trillion dollar deficits and a $17 trillion debt than keeps climbing.

The truth is exactly the opposite. In fact, Obama is reducing the deficit at a record pace. It is a fact, as Sarah Jones reported here in May, that the Obama administration has presided over the most rapid deficit reduction since World War II.

In fact, government spending under President Obama has grown at a slower rate than it did under any president since Dwight D. Eisenhower, according to Bloomberg(that’s over 50 years ago, if you’re counting).

Where does that leave Paul’s op-ed? Lie, lie, another lie, followed by more lies. So does Rand Paul have anything to say that is not a lie?

No, sadly he does not. All Rand Paul has is lies.

And so the liar from Kentucky concludes, dishonestly, that because his party has shutdown the government over a law that has been upheld by the Supreme Court, that, “What Americans were reminded of this week — more than anything else — is that big government doesn’t work.”

What doesn’t work is the House of Representatives, which has spent 15+ percent of its time this year trying to get rid of a law that has been upheld by the Supreme Court. A law, moreover, that most Americans want.

The GOP, to nobody’s surprise, is a party these days of liars and shills. But Rand Paul, apparently – and this is saying something when you consider the company he keeps – wants to be the liar of the century.

Right now, he has that award hands down.

Rand Paul thinks Milton Friedman still alive, wants him as fed chair

Milton Friedman was one of the pioneers and foremost proponents of the laissez-faire economic theory collectively known as the Chicago School.

From the “stupid stuff TEApublicans think and say” category…

Daily Kos

Pure genius from presumed presidential contender and devotee of Austrian school economics, Sen. Rand Paul:

Who would your ideal Fed chairman be?
Hayek would be good, but he’s deceased.Nondead Fed chairman.
Friedman would probably be pretty good, too, and he’s not an Austrian, but he would be better than what we have.

Dead, too.
Yeah. Let’s just go with dead, because then you probably really wouldn’t have much of a functioning Federal Reserve.

Milton Friedman, of course, was one of the pioneers and foremost proponents of the laissez-faire economic theory collectively known as the Chicago School. According to Friedman’s biography at the website of the CATO institute, Friedman passed away in November of 2006.

For such a devotee of the neoclassical Austrian/Chicago economic theory as Senator Rand Paul purports to be, the passing of Milton Friedman would have been as the passing of Ronald Reagan to a prominent Republican politician. It would be the passing of an icon, something not easily forgotten. Yet somehow, Senator Paul let that minor detail slip from his brain. And we haven’t even gotten into the part where if Friedman were alive, he would have recently celebrated his 101st birthday. Or the fact that Friedman thought that Chile under Pinochet was a “miracle.”

All minor details in the long run.

 

Rand Paul’s neo-Confederate staffer sought mass deletion of his own columns

Rand Paul screenshot

The Raw Story

Jack Hunter, a top aide to Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), allegedly tried to have dozens of his own columns removed from the Internet.

According to an editor at the Charleston City Paper, Hunter asked for his own columns to be deleted because they “no longer reflected his current worldview.” Editor Chris Haire said he would have considered removing a few questionable columns, but Hunter was seeking to have a “cowardly” amount of his writing removed.

“It was solely for appearances only,” Haire said. “It was not heartfelt. It was not true. It was simply to protect his boss, Rand Paul, as he plots a path to the White House in 2016.”

The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative publication, reported earlier this month that Hunter was a neo-Confederate who celebrated John Wilkes Booth’s birthday. He believed the southern Confederacy was correct to secede from the United States. Hunter also had served as chairman of the League of the South, which the Anti-Defamation League has called “an implicitly racist group.”

The columns that Hunter had written at the Charleston City Paper compared Abraham Lincoln to Adolf Hitler and said black people should apologize to white people for high crime rates, among other things.

“Jack Hunter may have never railed against miscegenation, championed segregation, uttered a racial slur, or participated in a lynching, but it was my opinion then and it is my opinion now that Jack is the most common kind of racist, the one that doesn’t realize that he is one,” Haire wrote.

Paul has defended having Hunter as his director of new media by claiming Hunter’s no longer believes in his former neo-Confederate views. Paul said Hunter’s racist columns were just a youthful indiscretion, akin to smoking marijuana.

Rand Paul: Filibuster prevents ‘extremist’ Maddow from being Supreme Court justice

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Bloomberg TV 061813. [Bloomberg TV]
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Bloomberg TV 061813. [Bloomberg TV]
Poor Rand Paul, I think he hates how Rachel exposes his constant hypocrisy.  Yet the bigger picture here is that the Tea Party (aka GOP) is stifling Senate procedure…

See also:  Rand Paul and ‘the Southern Avenger’

The Raw Story

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) on Tuesday defended Republicans use of the filibuster, saying the tactic was necessary to prevent the nomination of extremists like MSNBC host Rachel Maddow.

Republicans have filibustered dozens of President Barack Obama’s executive nominations, delaying the confirmation of heads of multiple government agencies. Paul said he also plans to hold up the confirmation of James Comey for FBI director over the use of drones.

“I think the leverage of using the filibuster to get information and to make the President obey the law, I think it is a very important tool and our Founding Fathers put it in there for precisely this reason,” Paul said on Fox News.

“For that reason, to call attention to what they’re trying to do, especially if you’re in the minority you an do that and, frankly, if you didn’t have a filibuster, what would stop President Obama from appointing say Al Sharpton as attorney general or Rachel Maddow on the Supreme Court,” host Eric Bolling added.

“Right,” Paul responded. “If you were to get an extremist like that, someone with an extreme point of view, the majority here could pass it with 51 votes, but with the filibuster then it would take 60 votes, so you’re less likely to get someone with those kinds of extreme views to be nominated and approved by the Senate.”

Watch video, uploaded to YouTube, below:

Start at 1:18