The amazing thing about this story is not the fact that Rand Paul opposes laws against discrimination on the basis of race, but that a few members of the media are breaking through the censorship, and exposing the national media's effort to moderate the extremist views of Rand Paul, as well as drive the narrative that Democratics are going to lose big in 2010, and that the Tea Party has all this momentum. The truth is that the momentum is entirely media driven, as it glosses over the extremism of Rand Paul, which puts far outside of the mainstream.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl2167
The editorial board of Louisville's Courier-Journal didn't mince words following its sit-down with Rand Paul last month. Much of what the Republican Senate candidate supports, it wrote, "is repulsive to people in the mainstream," including "an unacceptable view of civil rights."
And yet Paul's view that the federal government should not have the power to force integregation on private businesses — part of 1964's landmark Civil Rights Act — didn't get the attention of the national press until Wednesday, following interviews with NPR's Robert Siegel and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.
It's not as if the national media ignored the Kentucky contest. To the contrary, Washington political reporters headed out to cover the horse race — who's up, who's down — and wrote extensively on how the election plays into a larger narrative of tea party candidates like Paul fighting against the GOP establishment.
Somehow lost in all that coverage was any focus on Paul's views on the Civil Rights Act. Indeed, a Lexis-Nexis search for "Rand Paul" and "Civil Rights Act" yields no results for the weeks after the Courier-Journal editorial ran.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
