Opinion: Rand Paul's a Quick Study, and That's Too Bad
Updated: 1 hour 55 minutes ago
Print Text Size
EmailMore
Rachel Sklar

Rachel Sklar Contributor
AOL News
(May 24) -- When a candidate has to unequivocally state that he will not try to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you know he's lost control of the spin.

That was the position Rand Paul found himself in just days after he won the Kentucky GOP Senate primary and was hailed as a tea party success story. Cut to his interview with Rachel Maddow, where she questioned his challenge of the 1964 Civil Rights Act provision outlawing segregation by privately owned businesses.

You could almost see the point where he realized it was a bad idea: when Maddow asked him point-blank whether he thought the Woolworth lunch counter should be segregated. He couldn't say yes or no. He couldn't even say maybe. All he could do was backpedal and equivocate, which is how he got to this amended statement the next day:

"I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and ... I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Welcome to politics, baby.

It's almost too bad, really. Because Rand Paul will never make this mistake again. On Tuesday, Paul was a political newbie, which meant he hadn't yet learned how to parse, frame, equivocate, dissemble or generally speak like a politician. And when he challenged provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, he meant it. We know he meant it because he said so clearly, both in the interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal that started the whole thing and at the beginning of the Maddow interview, before he realized just what kind of hole he'd dug himself into.

Whatever he says now -- and from now on -- will never be as honest.

Paul learned the hard way that when your views are repugnant, you have to cloak them in prettifying buzzwords, like "freedom" and "patriotism," and blame the "liberal media" whenever you get called out.

Which is just what Paul did after the Maddow bloodbath: expressed regret not for said repugnant views, but that he'd gone on Maddow's show to express them. Then he canceled his appearance on "Meet the Press" -- probably because it would result in more battering by the liberal media (or, as the liberal media might say, "holding him accountable for his statements").

The fact that Sarah Palin expressed sympathy for Paul and commiserated with his treatment speaks volumes about his playbook: Palin is queen of the deny-access-blame-the-media strategy that Paul is now employing. She still hasn't been on "Meet the Press." As for the call to duck out of the show, conventional wisdom is that it came from Karl Rove -- the ultimate political spinmeister. Wouldn't want Rand Paul confronted with the reality-based community, now, would we?

Paul still has a long road ahead to the United States Senate -- he's just the GOP nominee, after all, and he still has to win in a general election. Which is why we've all got to keep a much closer eye on him. From here on in, he's got his eyes on the prize -- and he's leaping up the learning curve on how to get it.

How not to get it: Speaking your mind, freely sharing your viewpoints, being available, allowing questions from the press.

Paul may have started out a grass-roots tea party guy, but he's now officially a mainstream GOP candidate. So the next time he blandly talks about how he "unequivocally" believes in something, look a little deeper. Are chances good that you'll find a whole lot of equivocation?

You betcha.

http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-rand-paul-got-quick-lesson-in-politics/19489509

He wouldn't have to worry about sharing his true self if it weren't such an ugly self to share.


It is good that he got caught before election though instead of after election. The people who do not like racism now get the chance to make sure he doesn't get into office.

thank you for illustrating the desperation, illogic, and insanity of the loony left!

Rachel Madcow is just a Rush Limbaugh in drag.
Rush is just prettier.

Not even.

It is right on the mark.

If you consider wishful thinking to be "on the mark", then okay!

I guess some folks didn't even read it.