Ostroy claims Rand Paul said “Yes” to Rachel Maddow after she asked him if he was in favor of businesses in the 1960’s refusing service to blacks. He did NOT say “Yes”. Ostroy simply LIES
by Larry Simons
May 21, 2010
In liberal blogger Andy Ostroy’s latest article entitled, “Rand Paul the Tea Party Pooper”, he delivers what may be his most blatant lie to date. The lie this time is actually placing in the mouth a word that another person did not even say.
On Wednesday night’s The Rachel Maddow Show, Maddow speaks with Rand Paul about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ostroy claims that after Maddow asked Paul if private businesses had the right to refuse blacks in those days, that Paul said “Yes” to the question. Here is what Ostroy wrote:
“The latest Tea Party brewhaha involving Paul is his convoluted views of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in which he believes private businesses should have the right to bar from their premises whoever they choose. On MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show Wednesday night, Maddow asked if those establishments had the right to refuse service to blacks. "Yes," Paul astonishingly replied. Since then, he's taken a lot of heat from party officials shaking in their boots over his self-destructive views. Radical positions that include raising the Social Security retirement age to 70 and questioning the legality of the Americans with Disabilities Act.”
Here is how the verbatim dialogue went during the interview. If you notice in Ostroy’s article, Ostroy fails to provide verbatim dialogue.
Maddow: If there was a private business, say in Louisville, say somewhere in your home state that wanted to not serve black patrons, or wanted to not serve gay patrons or somebody else on the basis of their, on the basis of a characteristic that they decided they didn’t like as a private business owner. Do you think that they had a legal right to do so? To put up a ‘blacks not served here’ sign?
Paul: Well, the interesting thing is, is you know, you look back to the 1950’s, the 1960’s at the problems we faced, there were incredible problems, you know, the problems, the problems had to do with mostly with voting, they had to do with schools, they had to do with public housing, and so, this is what the Civil Rights largely addressed, and all things that I largely agree with.
Maddow: But what about private businesses? I mean, I hate to, I don’t want to be badgering you on this, but I do want an answer. Do you think that a private business [has a right to say ‘we don’t serve black people’?]
The part in parenthesis above is cross talk between Maddow and Paul, where Paul cut in and said:
Paul: I, I, I’m not in, I’m not in, I’m not in….
Then, when Maddow finished saying, “…has a right to say ‘we don’t serve black people’?”, Paul is clearly heard saying, “Yeah”, but it is also crystal clear that Paul was not saying “yeah” as an answer to Maddow’s question “Do you think that a private business has a right to say ‘we don’t serve black people’?”, because Paul was already in mid-sentence before Maddow was finished asking her question.
Paul is clearly saying, “Yeah” as a way of saying, “Yeah…I hear you”. It is also crystal clear that Paul is not saying, “Yeah” as an answer to Maddow's question by what he says in his complete statement.
Paul says: I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race, but I think what’s important about this debate is not getting 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? I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way, in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of things freedom requires, is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it. I think the problem with this debate is by getting muddled down into it. The implication is somehow that I would approve of any racism or discrimination, and I don’t in any form or fashion.
Naturally, Ostroy does not bother to post the entirety of both dialogues, because in doing so, would clearly shoot down his monumental LIE of claiming that Paul said “Yes” to Maddow’s question of whether Paul would be in favor of private businesses refusing to serve blacks.
Also, posting the entirety of the dialogues would clearly show the ridiculousness of claiming that Paul was a racist when in his response to Maddow he says, “I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form”. So, according to Ostroy, it makes perfect sense for Paul to say “Yes, I would be FOR private businesses refusing to serve blacks” and then to immediately say right after that, “I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form.”
This is exactly why Ostroy refuses to post a verbatim transcript of the interview and why he completely makes up the fact that Paul said the word “Yes”, when he actually said the word “Yeah”, but was clearly not an answer to the question Maddow was asking.
I posted this response to Ostroy on his blog. I’m posting it here because Ostroy has comment moderation enabled on his blog, meaning that he will not approve of a comment that he cannot refute.
“Andy, you’re simply lying. Where did Paul say "Yes" at ANY point in this clip after Maddow asked him anything?? He said "yeah" at one point but he was already in the middle of a statement in which Maddow finished her thought and Paul was simply saying "yeah" as if to say "I hear you"----NOT as an agreement that restaurants shouldnt have served blacks. He constantly says he's against racism. He mentions William Lloyd Garrison for crying out loud! Garrison was a strong abolitionist during the time of Lincoln. Lincoln by the way, was FOR slavery and was probably the biggest racist this country has ever known. Do you even realize that Lincoln was so racist, that he even created a department in his administration that was for the sole purpose of getting rid of all the blacks in the country and sending them to Africa? You DO know that, right?
If Paul was a racist, he'd be admiring LINCOLN, not Garrison! Now, you resort to blatantly lying. Paul never says the word "Yes" and he sure as hell wasn’t answering her question when he said "yeah". He was saying "yeah" as his way of saying "yeah, I hear what you’re saying". What sense would it make to say yes to denying blacks service if the entire rest of the clip he is saying he's against racism and even mentions the strongest abolitionist of the 1800's???? You’re a fucking joke! If you’re SO sure I’m wrong, then post my comment and address my comment, rather than ignoring it and rejecting it.”
Here is the clip of Maddow and Rand Paul. Amazingly Ostroy has posted this same clip on his story, despite the fact that it incriminates his own story. I guess he figures his three readers won’t bother to watch it and take Ostroy’s words at face value
There simply hasn’t been enough stories like this from Ostroy this year, or else he would be in commanding contention for 2010’s Fraudie award