Friday, June 4, 2010


Look, I have said in the past and will say now - which is why I keep a link to their web page - they are important to the political discourse in our community. If you care about a diversity of opinion you need to read their blog - having said that - I never said Chris said Maddow is a lesbian - I said he wanted you to look her up so you can see she is a lesbian. A very big difference Chris - further the substance of my argument was Chris was using Maddow as a distraction away from the issue of what Rand Paul said. What Rand Paul said does not change because Maddow appears on the extreme left. He still said it. Maddow was used as a distraction to avoid the issue. My long term readers know I do not like the distraction issue - left, right, middle or bi-left-right.

The goal of bringing Maddow into the discussion was a distraction - plain and simple - Rand Paul said what he said and it was evidence of his lack of research into or understanding of the issue. I went out of my way to say we have politicians on the left, right and or bi-left-right who are also guilty of the same thing.

For the Record - what I said:

'Calling Rand Paul’s mistakes on the Civil Rights Act a newbie mistake is dishonest. Telling people to look up Rachel Maddow so they can discover she is a lesbian and then decide she is not credible as a news source is also dishonest. It tells the readers that the author of the piece is dishonest and seeks to use distractions rather then confront the issue head on. I think the Tea Party people are better than this. But if this is how they intend to play it then they will fail."


Anonymous said...

Actually, it is the CRA that was a distraction. Paul never once raised it on the campaign trail and had never even thought it through which is why he couldn't come up with an answer on the spot. Maddow had every reason to believe he had thought it through and made it an issue, though, because his opponent lied on Chris Matthews' show and said he wanted to repeal it. Chris Matthews broadcast a correction of that later that night but MSNBC had already broadcast 8 segments saying he wanted to repeal it by that point. The CRA was chosen by liberal interviewers to discuss reach of government interference precisely so they could spin it as racist. Paul had no intention of disturbing it and would have voted for it, despite reservations, as he made clear when he was finally asked that question, in his next interview.

Maddow's likes and dislikes are irrelevant, I agree, but so is the Civil Rights Act irrelevant to Rand Paul's campaign.

BobbyWC said...

thanks for the comment - I agree the CRA is a distraction to Paul's campaign - and remember I went out of my way to say none of this indicates he is a racist.

My big issue is - he seems to be willing to take positions without thinking them out and studying the issue. I also noted politicians on all sides of the aisle make the same mistake.

As a voter though I need to consider this when deciding who is the best person to help with this country's problems - regardless of politics - right - left - confused - we need people who understand that need to be a bit pragmatic and deal in facts and not form policy based on dogma

Bobby WC