.
Posted on 05/23/2010 9:56:18 PM PDT by pissant
In a "This Week" interview Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said he was not comfortable with Rand Paul's views on civil rights. Steele's comments came in a debate with DNC Chairman Tim Kaine. Anchor Jake Tapper asked Steele, “Are you comfortable with” Paul’s views?
“I’m not comfortable with a lot of things,” Steele said.
“It sounds like you’re not comfortable with it,” Tapper said.
“I just said I wasn’t comfortable with it,” Steele replied.
“I think it’s important to understand that Rand Paul has clarified his statement and reiterated his support for…pushing civil rights forward, as opposed to going backwards,” Steele said on This Week. “Any attempt to look backwards is not in the best interest of our country certainly, and certainly not in the best interest of the party,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
.
Steele needs to go after November.
But this assclown is comfortable with AL SHARPTON?
**************************
My bet is that the “October surprise” this year will be some deliberate sabotage from lil’ Mikey Tinsel.
Then he will join the Democrats, as Scozzafava did.
I’m not sure what Steele is upset about. I heard Paul say that if he had been alive he would have wanted to march with Martin Luther King.
Compare Michael Steele’s response to Sarah Palin’s—not even on the same planet:
PALIN: I think Rand Paul is right in his clarifications about what he means and his interpretation of the impacts of the Civil Rights Act. He — he’s right on when he says he is a supporter of civil rights. He’s a supporter of the Civil Rights Act and equal rights. He would have marched with Martin Luther King Jr., he said.
And he will oppose any efforts to diminish or erode away any aspect of the Civil Rights Act, so he’s supportive. And I think there is certainly a double standard at play here.
When Rand Paul had anticipated that he’d be able to engage in a discussion, he being a libertarian-leaning constitutional conservative, being able to engage in a discussion with a TV character, a media personality, who perhaps had an agenda in asking the question and then interpreting his answer the way that she did, he wanted to talk about, evidently, some hypotheticals as it applies to impacts on the Civil Rights Act, as it impacts our Constitution.
So he was given the opportunity finally to clarify, and unequivocally he has stated that he supports the Civil Rights Act.
WALLACE: Do you see some similarities to what politicians and the press did to you in the fall of 2008?
PALIN: Yeah, absolutely. So you know, one thing that we can learn in this lesson that I have learned and Rand Paul is learning now is don’t assume that you can engage in a hypothetical discussion about constitutional impacts with a reporter or a media personality who has an agenda, who may be prejudiced before they even get into the interview in regards to what your answer may be — and then the opportunity that they seize to get you.
You know, they’re looking for that “gotcha” moment. And that’s what it evidently appears to be that they did with Rand Paul, but I’m thankful that he was able to clarify his answer about his support for the Civil Rights Act.
Why doesn’t someone use Raid on this frigin cockroach!
Someone is trying to stir up the sh!t here. Really, it wasn’t necessary for any other reason to ask Steele to comment on the foot that Rand Paul put in his mouth.
I always hate seeing conservatives wiggle around the CRA...stupid.
CRA was a major stepping stone to the crap we now call the modern world.
why any conservative celebrates it is testimony to how well the Left brainwashed our culture over race
Goldwater and Reagan knew better.
it’s in no danger of appeal..it’s the Holy Grail...I could mine scores of posts from freepers extolling it’s virtues
Steele said he was not comfortable with Rand Paul’s views on civil rights.
What did everyone expect from an “affirmative action boob”?
The wealth has not been fully redistributed yet.
As you obviously know, you are exactly right. I was active in politics in 1964 and before and followed all of the debate on the ‘64 civil rights bill. It was the opinion of Goldwater, Reagan, and other conservatives that all those rights were protected in the US Constitution, if enforced, and that to pass a separate civil rights law would make distinctions and create degrees of freedom. Plus, they thought the bill was redundant.
For example, they viewed the bill much as the “Hate Crimes” laws are seen by conservatives today. The end result of murder is death, whether hate was involved or not, and hate crimes are applied or not enforced in a bigoted manner; for instance, take the horrific rape/torture/murders and dismemberment seen in the recent Knoxville, TN court cases, where hate was absolutely a factor in two brutal murders, and hate crimes laws were not enforced because the victims were white!
For God’s sake. Can’t the RNC find some balls and kick this schmuck out and replace him with Ken Blackwell, Haley Barbour, or even...Sarah Palin, the true “Patton” of the Republican Party?
Considering Rand is a Libertarian like his dad, what’s the issue? Can’t they just point that out? And in the same breath they can point out that Bernie Sanders is an actual member of the socialist workers party, which is why some of his views might seems out of bounds with the democratic party.
yep...and the fat black girl who was there and did participate was just acquitted
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.