“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.”
Leaving aside that fact that Palin has engaged is precious few discussions about anything — let alone “constitutional impacts” — are we to draw the conclusion that Palin’s advice to
Meanwhile, when called on to clarify whether she thinks Rand Paul is right or wrong about his views on the Civil Rights Act she had this to say…parse this “constitutional impacts” discussion as you see fit.
I think Rand Paul is right in his clarifications. But what he means and his interpretation of the impacts of the impacts of the Civil Rights Act [which he apparently hasn’t read recently], he’s right on when he says he’s 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, he said, and he will oppose any acts to diminish or erode away any aspect of the Civil Rights Act.
Other tidbits: She is still a supporter of oil extraction (maybe on land), and she may run for president: “If the voters of America are in the mood for a kind of unconventional, candid, honest public servant — it doesn’t necessarily have to be me — but if that’s what they’re in the mood for, they’re going