This interview with Rand Paul is interesting on a number of levels. The way it's being spun is that he handed ABC host George Stephanopoulos his ass. I can see that being the case only in the sense that Paul was prepared for the inevitable questions on his controversial stances around Civil Rights. Up to now a lot has been made about his take on things in this arena and to be honest it’s more than obvious what conclusions you can draw from them - dude is smooth, but anyway you slice it he simply wasn’t down for the advancements of the Civil Rights Movement.
In this ABC interview Paul skillfully deflects the questioning by simply saying he would not repeal Civil Rights legislation. He then flips the script and asserts that the Civil Rights discussion is a ‘red herring’ and Stephanopoulos is using Democrat talking points, even though George was quoting from Paul’s own writings. Paul concludes by saying Stephanopoulos would be better off by going after Senator Robert Byrd who actually filibustered Civil Rights legislation.
Because many people don’t have a sense of history and don't truly understand the emotions, the fight, and the scars born during the Civil Rights Movement, it's easy for Paul to dismiss and reduce it down to ‘democratic talking points’. Stephanopoulos would’ve been better off asking Paul his position on modern-day scenarios like:
1-Did he agree with Bush extending the 1964 Voting Rights Act and should it be permanent?
2-Did he agree with Arizona banning ethnic studies?
3-Should our government be monitoring hate groups which are on the rise and be concerned that they may commit acts of domestic terrorism?
4-Should Latino organizations like MeCHA and La Raza be monitored by our government?
5-Who he liked and would’ve confirmed for Supreme Court?
Questions like these would’ve quickly revealed Paul’s stances on Civil Rights, race and glaring contradictions that folks like him and his dad tend to have. For example, they may talk all this stuff about ‘less government’ until it comes to what’s taking place on the border. Suddenly they feel we need to go all out and enforce laws even if the border communities disagree. Case in point, the Texas Border wall, Paul’s dad Congressman Ron Paul voted for it even though many along the border weren’t feeling it.
Rand Paul wants to build underground electric fences, have helicopter ports and damn near set up army bases on the border…Here’s his take:
My plan includes an underground electric fence, with helicopter stations to respond quickly to breaches of the border. I would include satellite and increased aerial surveillance, and a boost of funds and training to the border agents. Finally, instead of closing military bases at home and renting space in Europe, I would advocate for more strategic location and construction of some of these bases to protect our border.
It would be interesting to have seen if Rand is a strict constitutionalist and agrees with his dad in amending the constitution to take away birthright citizenship. We could go on and on.
I interviewed Rand a couple of years ago and what I recall was he defended his father for taking money from the KKK. Nothing more needs to be said.
What I found most fascinating and even more disturbing is Paul’s take on the BP Gulf Coast Oil spill. It’s here that I thought either he’s deep in the pocket of the oil giant or he’s just woefully ignorant. Most peoples jaws dropped when he said it was Un American for Obama to go after BP Oil. My jaw dropped when he classified this catastrophe as merely an accident. At first I thought I mis-heard him, but he repeated it a couple more times by saying things like ‘accidents happen’ ...
It's at that point Stephanopoulos should’ve smashed on him and reminded Paul of BP's lengthy track record of ‘accidents’, deaths and fines in the past 5 years. A recent Newsweek article lays out a lot of these so-called accidents...
The company’s most recent effort at damage control—before the spill—occurred after a 2005 explosion at the company’s Texas City refinery (the third-largest oil refinery in the country). That was among the most deadly disasters to befall the U.S. oil industry in modern times. The blasts and subsequent fires killed 15 workers, injured 180 others, and sent 43,000 people fleeing to indoor shelters. The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board later concluded that the explosions were caused by company deficiencies “at all levels of the BP Corporation”—including repeated cost cutting that affected maintenance and safety.
source: Newsweek May 7th
Here’s another so-called accident:
In 2006 the EPA and the Justice Department launched a criminal investigation into two massive BP oil leaks in Alaska caused by corroded pipelines. One of the leaks spewed 200,000 gallons onto the tundra. Once again, EPA investigators pushed to charge company officials with a crime. “Everybody was convinced we had a humdinger of a case,” says Scott West, the EPA special agent in charge of the probe, who has since retired. Witnesses—including workers on the pipelines and midlevel managers—had told investigators how BP executives had ignored repeated warnings about corrosion. “There was a corporate philosophy that it was cheaper to operate to failure and then deal with the problem later rather than do preventive maintenance,” West told NEWSWEEK.
We can pull up a lot more examples, but the point here is that Paul’s lasse faire philosophy is the type of thing that would embolden corporations even more. He seems to be giving them a pass by saying it was an accident, and Bush who was an oil man actually had his people at the EPA hit them with fines. Up till now no one including Obama and the current congress has reigned in companies like this and made them adhere to strict standards so all of us won’t be severely impacted by ‘accidents’.
Yes, we know BP will ‘pay for the accident’... probably by raising gas prices - so in effect we’ll be paying for it sooner or later. My question is who’s gonna pay for our fish? Who’s gonna get the wildlife restored? How many accidents is BP allowed to have? My drivers license gets suspended after 3 tickets in a year. Also who’s gonna help out the fishermen which consists of about 40% people of color? Mostly Vietnamese who just barely survived the setbacks of Hurricane Katrina...
Paul asked where his honeymoon was with the media? I say it’s happening now. Not a whole lot of folks heard of him till 3 days ago and now everyone is chatting him up. He’s rapidly becoming a hero because he’s smoothly defiant. I say pay attention not just to his stance on race, but his take on regulations and oversight thats where he’ll do major damage as a Senator. That man’s a beast.
Click the link Below to read the article, and more importantly click the link to watch the video exchange between: Rand Paul and George Stephanopoulos
Kentucky GOP Senate Nominee Responds to Critics After Civil Rights Act Comments
By JONATHAN KARL and DEVIN DWYER
Rand Paul, the Tea Party's rising star from Kentucky who won the state's GOP Senate primarythis week, says criticism of his views on the Civil Rights Act and other pieces of anti-discrimination legislation are "red herrings" and Democrats' attempt to "trash" his campaign."When does my honeymoon period start? I had a big victory," Paul toldGeorge Stephanopoulos on "Good Morning America" today. "I've just been trashed up and down and they have been saying things that are untrue. And when they say I'm for repealing the Civil Rights Act, it's absolutely false. It's never been my position and something that I basically just think is politics."
Paul's comments came amid a firestorm of criticism sparked earlier this week when he appeared to question the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which he said went too far in banning discrimination by private companies.
In an interview Wednesday with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, Paul was asked whether he believed private businesses should have the right to refuse service to African-Americans. "Yes," Paul said. "I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. … 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?" His comments drew a range of criticism, including a rebuke from the White House Thursday, with press secretary Robert Gibbs telling reporters, "a discussion about whether or not you support those I don't think has a real, shouldn't have a place in our political dialogue in 2010."
Republicans also seemed to distance themselves from Paul's views. Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steelemade it clear the GOP supports the Civil Rights Act, whatever its Senate nominee in Kentucky says.
Paul has said he doesn't believe the government has the right to tell a private business who they have to serve but insists he has not -- and has never -- called for a repeal of the law.
"If you want to bring up 40-year-old legislation, why don't you bring me on with Sen. [Robert] Byrd, and we'll talk about how he filibustered the Civil Rights Act," he said of the 92-year-old West Virginia Democrat. "Make him, call him to task for something he actually did as opposed to calling me to task for something they insinuated that I might believe that's not true.
"What is going on here is an attempt to vilify us for partisan reasons. Where do your talking points come from? The Democratic National Committee, they also come from Rachel Maddow and MSNBC.
Paul's political philosophy, which is shared by many members of the Tea Party movement, emphasizes a more limited role of the federal government in U.S. business and society.
Earlier this year, for example, Paul told the Fox Business Channel that he believes government agencies should reduce their regulation of the energy industry. "Get theEPA out of our coal business down here, get OSHA out of our small businesses.
We need to restrain government to let small businesses create jobs," he said. Paul affirmed the comments on "Good Morning America," saying that he finds the Environmental Protection Agency's recent regulatory initiative on greenhouse gas emissions, independent of Congress, "particularly galling."
"I think that's a regulatory commission run amok and I think we need to have congressional oversight," he said. "I don't think regulatory agencies should write regulations without approval of the people through their representatives. And I stick to that and that's absolutely my point of view."
The Kentucky Senate candidate also criticized the Obama administration's treatment of BP in the wake of the ongoing Gulf of Mexico oil spill.