Kentucky senatorial candidate Rand Paul has struck back at MSNBC for its continuous implications that he is a racist.
In an interview with WHAS-TV in Louisville, Paul said, "I need to be very careful about going on certain networks that seem to have a bias."
He continued, "They went on a whole day repeating something over and over again, and it makes me less inclined to go on a network" (video follows with partial transcript and commentary, relevant section at 2:50, h/t HotAirPundit):
JOE ARNOLD, WHAS-TV: So, what lessons have been learned here?
RAND PAUL: I need to be very careful about going on certain networks that seem to have a bias. You know, because it really wasn't the interview so much that was unfair. The interview I think was very fair. But then they went on a whole day repeating something over and over again, and it makes me less inclined to go on a network.
As NewsBusters reported Thursday, MSNBC did eight segments covering 37 minutes that day, bringing on liberal guest after liberal guest to imply that Paul was racist. These attacks continued Friday, but I digress:
PAUL: I mean, I think you've been fair, but if your network all day says a lie about my position, I won't come back on. So I think journalists, good journalists understand that you have to present both sides, you ask tough questions. But you can't go on and then as a journalist misrepresent something. And I think even they realize they overstepped their bounds on that because they are now saying what my correct position is and have admitted it never was my position otherwise.
Indeed, for as NewsBusters reported, "The Rachel Maddow Show" on Friday busted the New York Times for misquoting something Paul said to Maddow two days earlier.
So where does this go from here?
Post facto question: Is Paul right to not go on MSNBC anymore (assuming that's what he does), or is this like the Democrats that refuse to go on Fox?