Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Rand Paul implosion vindicates Mitch McConnell

Mitch McConnell has taken a ton of abuse for backing the candidate who lost the Kentucky GOP Senate primary to Rand Paul, with many observers wondering whether he'd lost his golden political touch.

But it's worth noting that Paul's implosion does represent vindication of a sort for the Senate minority leader.

To my knowledge, McConnell had never gotten involved in a House or Senate GOP primary until this year. Yet he saw a need to insert himself into this one, warning that Secretary of State Trey Grayson was the right candidate to win in the fall.

"I rarely endorse in primaries, but these are critical times," McConnell said in endorsing Grayson. "I know Trey Grayson, and trust him."

The evidence of Paul's whacked out positions was clear early on, and McConnell knew this. Paul made his initial controversial statements about civil rights in late April, to the Courier-Journal's editorial board.

The story didn't go national until last week, but you can bet McConnell and his staff knew about it at the time. McConnell subsequently endorsed Grayson in early May.

You can also rest assured that McConnell's staff also knew about repeated foreign policy statements Paul made in the past that also raised serious questions about his true beliefs.

Say what you will about McConnell; the man does want to win elections and he's an awfully shrewd political tactician. And the fact that he inserted himself in a primary of this magnitude for the first time in his career is yet another mark of just how extreme and problematic a candidate Paul really is.

McConnell, as you'd expect, is now claiming that Paul's "message can win this election." If Paul wins, as still seems likely, it will be in spite of his message, not because of it. But be that as it may, McConnell got this one right the first time.

UPDATE, 1:58 p.m.: It's unclear what McConnell was referring to in describing Paul's "message," but whatever he meant, it's hard to see the colossal, slow-motion train wreck of Paul's rollout as anything but a big liability.

By Greg Sargent  |  May 24, 2010; 1:46 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Will Lincoln debate Halter before runoff?
Next: Labor drafting lefty challenger to conservative House Democrat

Comments

"If Paul wins, as still seems likely, it will be in spite of his message, not because of it."
Beg to differ Grasshopper.
It will be because of his separatist message.
Racism runs rampant within this crowd.

Posted by: Canonera | May 24, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: "If Paul wins, as still seems likely, it will be in spite of his message, not because of it."

What IS Paul's message?

Posted by: sbj3 | May 24, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

sbj, I was referring to the controversial statements, I suppose that could have been clearer...

Posted by: Greg Sargent | May 24, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: "I suppose that could have been clearer..."

Yes, probably - because your readers seem to believe that Paul's "message" is separatist, which isn't supported by reality.

Posted by: sbj3 | May 24, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

I think Rand Paul will win in a landslide, and because of his message -- his TRUE message, not the distorted one media has been frantic to paint as his message for whatever reason.

Posted by: sailingaway1 | May 24, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

It's really hard to understand the claim that Paul's message has been "distorted."

He has repeatedly been given the opportunity to clarify that he doesn't believe the Federal government shouldn't ban discrimination by private entities, and declined to do so.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | May 24, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

"his TRUE TRUE message"

Which is what?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | May 24, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul's real message.


Drop David Gregory off in the wilds of Afghanistan, so that I do not have to keep hiding from him, and that way, I will feel free to be your tough guy in Washington.

Posted by: Liam-still | May 24, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Paul's championing of private businesses, ignoring the rights of just about everyone else, places him on the wrong side of history, just like the first opponents of the Civil Rights Act.
One fierce opponent of civil rights legislation, William F. Buckley Jr., admitted as much. “I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow,” Mr. Buckley said in 2004. “I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary.”

Posted by: sgtpepper23 | May 24, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Nothing vindicates McConnell. He's the poster-boy for what's wrong with politics and the Congress.

Posted by: jckdoors | May 24, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Yes; but without Rand, Country Club, Paul standing up for them, against the power of the Presidency, poor British Petroleum would really be restricted in how large an oil leak catastrophe they could create.

British Petroleum is really misunderstood. They are just trying to pour oil on troubled waters, which will really pay off big, during the next hurricane season.

Rand, Country Club, Paul is the only person who understands that.

Posted by: Liam-still | May 24, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Let the Tea Baggers continue to demonstrate that they have a tinge of racism or old Jim Crow lying around. America notices.

Posted by: HillRat | May 24, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

OT:

* The myth of the angry voter *

The voters are mad as hell, and they’re not going to take it anymore.

In the wake of last week’s primaries, that is the conventional wisdom about the 2010 midterm elections among the Washington commentariat. Congressional incumbents of both parties are facing grave danger, the argument goes, as angry voters prepare to exact revenge at the polls.

This view of the midterms rests on three dubious claims. According to the political experts, public discontent is greater than at any time in recent memory, this discontent poses a serious threat to incumbents in primary elections, and the results of these primary races foretell far bigger problems for incumbents in November.

On closer inspection, however, none of these claims holds up.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37662.html

Worth a read...

Posted by: Ethan2010 | May 24, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Actually what this also illustrates is that the tea party is going to be a problem for the GOP. In spite his endorsement Paul won. The tea party will not care if McConnell is vindicated or not.

The GOP has gone to bed with the tea party and now their pregnant and stuck with each other.

The Paul victory is one of many to come where the least qualified wing nut will beat out the GOP favorite... But come general elections I do not think the moderate Republicans and Independents will vote for the nut jobs. I also bet that there will be several Gov. Crist elections where the traditional Republican goes off the reservation and runs Independent.

Posted by: rcc_2000 | May 24, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

the republican party is becoming more like the boys stranded on the island in the book "lord of the flies" more and more every day. you have the old time "no tax" republicans camped out at the beach while the teabaggers have taken to the caves and run around in the woods throwing spears at wild boars.
Well let me tell you, Simon and Piggy are dead, and Ralph better hope the plane gets there soon.

Posted by: MarilynManson | May 24, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Greg,
I think you made an important point that few have: McConnell’s endorsement of Paul’s opponent was at least a tacit admission that the teabaggers are now seen a liability by the GOP establishment. They are fine as long as they confine their aspirations to the bleating sheeple rabble. However, as GOP candidates, they are not welcome.

As for your assessment that a Paul victory seems likely, I’m not so sure. Rand Paul has proven that he is preternaturally gifted at shooting both of his own feet right before he sticks them in his mouth. I do not underestimate Paul’s innate ability to alienate enough people in the next five months to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. To say that Paul is politically inept is an understatement of epic proportions. He packed a whole career worth of stupid into a mere three days in the national spotlight. He seems to do stupid better than even Palin.

I hope that you are wrong about Paul winning, but win or lose, he is a millstone for the GOP. Can you imagine what kind of a laughingstock he would be in the Senate? He’ll make Inhofe look reasonable by comparison.

Posted by: Gasman1 | May 24, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

"Say what you will about McConnell; the man does want to win elections and he's an awfully shrewd political tactician."

OK Greg now that you've tried to give McConnell credit since he is a shrewd politician and I'm free to say what I want a about him...Mitch McConnell represents exactly what is horribly wrong in this country. Yes Greg I concede he might be a good tactician..a good politican..he is a horrible leader who is borderline traitorous in his disregard for Americans and their needs.

As you have just pointed out Greg...first he supports his Paul's opponent because he knows Paul is part of the fringe element and then immediately turns around and says he has an excellent message. Which is it?

McConnell and his R cronies repeatedly moan and wail about the deficit even though their Saint Ronnnie TRIPLED THE DEFICIT..Clinton balanced the budget..and then Bush exploded it again and left the economy in absolute shambles requiring Obama to run huge deficits to save the nation's economy. The worst the R's have done is to either oppose or water down paygo proposals of Obama that Clinton used to balance the budget and showing their true colors...REPUBLICANS co sponsored legislation for a deficit commission and then voted to filibuster THEIR OWN CO SPONSORED bill. Republicans have no shame at the moment. It's all simply about the power.

Rand Paul's biggest enemies btw will not be those in the looney bin left...I like a lot of what Paul represents. I do not make fun of his foreign policy although he certainly needs to learn how to state it more artfully. The people behind the scenes who will really be his undoing are on the right...the corporatists who CLAIM they want smaller government. What Cheney/Haliburton/Bush and the neocons really want is not to SHRINK government but rather to privatize it for their cronies so they can simply take the taxpayer dollars. Simply wiki "crony capitalism or check out this link..

http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2008/02/noncompetitive_federal_contrac.html

This growth in federal procurement has enriched private contractors. But it has also come at a steep cost for federal taxpayers. Overcharging has been frequent, and billions of dollars of taxpayer money have been squandered

Rand Paul wants smaller government. That is not going to play well with REAL Republicans. Halliburton and the rest need ever growing government to increase their profits. That's who will really stop Rand Paul...not Rachel Maddow or the looney tunes on the left.

Posted by: rukidding7 | May 24, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama's SEIU thug allies at it again.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/19/news/companies/SEIU_Bank_of_America_protest.fortune/index.htm


Posted by: quarterback1 | May 24, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"then Bush exploded it again and left the economy in absolute shambles requiring Obama to run huge deficits to save the nation's economy."

LOL impossible to make up nonsense like this. What a marvelous sentence.

Posted by: quarterback1 | May 24, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul's problem is that, like most libertarians, he doesn't understand that libertarianism isn't a political philosophy so much as it is high-minded justification for self-interest.

What's amazing isn't that Rand Paul believes in this stuff--there's plenty of people collecting government-mandated disability or on Medicare holding up Tea Party signs.

What's amazing is that he's got a major party nomination for the Senate while spouting a political philosophy that's total nonsense!

It's a dilettante's philosophy! It makes no damn sense! It's like letting a person who's an airplane buff fly a jumbo jet loaded with passengers! Like letting Rain Man drive the car! This is a bad, bad, bad idea.

Actions have consequences, and these people do not understand how cause and effect work in the real world. They're DILETTANTES who don't even know they're dilettantes.

Posted by: theorajones1 | May 24, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

You are all under the impression that Rand Paul ACTUALLY said and MEANT what the liberal press CLAIMS that he said and meant. Sound bites out of context are a favorite tool of assasination by the press in this country. I know that Rand Paul is NOT racist, and the reference was contexted from a statement about a FEDERAL ban idea about smoking in resteraunts and bars. There is already the right to refuse to do business with anyone, hence the signs in many bars and other small businesses, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone..." Disneyland can keep people out who look too out of the norm to prevent being mistaken for cast members such Snow White, Abe Lincoln, etc. The list can go on for a variety of reasons that allow small businesses to refuse sevice. Kentucky is a concealed carry state, yet bars and stores can post a sign refusing entry to people who concealed carry. (How would they know actually?)

Some lib Washington o'crat actually said that the Dems 'were making up any rules they want' to pass health care, no one pilloried him for his misquote, what he meant was clear. So don't be so quick to label someone as something until you read the WHOLE story without key pieces unincluded....

Posted by: kentuckythunder | May 24, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Paul will continue to provide entertaining press fodder all though the campaign. An entertaining side show is also provided by those who say that the Republican candidate for a seat in the U.S. Senate should not really be held responsible for what he says, as if he were a child.

A lot of the press spun this nomination as some evidence of an anti-incumbent mood. That's pretty strange in a primary with no incumbent running. I prefer the opposite spin: The Kentucky Repubs were really voting pro-incumbent. Given that their present crazy right-winger was not available, they chose the next best substitute.

Posted by: turningfool | May 24, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

McConnell is a party line hack. Paul has screwed himself by not sticking to his original guns. The 1964 Civil Wrongs Act
is as Ayn Rand noted at the time one of the worst violations of individual property rights in the sorry record of American history. The public accomodations and fair employment sections should be repealed as well as the 1968 Fair Housing Act,also passed in a wave of hysteria after another major political assassination. This is not the best way to run a government.
TheoraJones, your off the comments on libertarianism only diminish your self, no
one else. Read Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises and George Reisman and get
a grip. The GOP never believed in limited government, their only function is to approve left statist legislation after an interval and what they are "conserving" is the New Deal-Great Society Warfare-"Welfare" (for whom ?) State.
Ok, you Post hacks, you've milked this one,
time to move on.

Posted by: mike_hardesty7 | May 24, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Greg, the only problem with your article is the assumption that Rand Paul has imploded. It goes along with the assumption that Sarah Palin is clearly unqualified to lead, because of her own loony right views. These are still assumptions. We have yet to find out how nutty voters can be in times like these.

Posted by: gposner | May 24, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

My understanding is that:

(1) Mr Rand did not bring up the question of the Civil Rights Act and has not campaigned against the civil Rights Act. Therefore, this is not a question about a priority issuefort Mr. Rand.

(2) He was answering a hypotheical question by a reporter about the logical extension of the Constitutional principles be believes in regading the power of the Federal government.

(3) The Civil Rights Act provision in question was not based on the 14th Amemdment. The Supreme Court decided back in the 1870s that the 14th Amendment didn't cover non-governmental actors.

(4) The provision of the Civil Rights Act in question was justified back at the time of passage based on the interstate commerce power of the Federal Government.

(5) The extent of the Interstate Commerce power is a major concern for libertarians. The courts have on occasion interprepreted this provision so broadly that everything could be considered Interstate Commerce. Libertarians oppose this, because it means there is no meaningful restraint on Federal power. Libertarians do not belieb-ve a Federal governmemt with no restraint on its powers was contemplated when the onstitution was written and is not the path to a free country today.

(6) Back in the 1960s one might make a credible argument that racial discrimination was in fact having a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Clearly, back then people had good reason to make travel decisions based on avoiding seggregated public facilities.

(7) Libertarians tend to focus on two things in looking at an issue like this:

(a) From a Constitutional point of view, is the exercise of power within the limits set forth in the Comstitution?

(b) If it is a legitimate exercise of power granted in the Comstitution is it good public policy tp exercise that power? For example, is the exercise of government power required to solve a major problem or are there better less intrusive ways to deal with the problem.

(7) Not all libertarians agree on how these principles apply to any given problem. The only thing that unites libertarians is the analytical approach, not the outcome of the analysis. One can be a libertarian and conclude that based on the actual effect on interstate commerce (not just a hypothetical effect made up to justify Federal power)and the magnitude and ingrained nature of the segration problem in the 1960s that was facilitated by State laws in many instances, the Civil Rights Act was warranted under both the Constitutional test and the public policy test.

Although this analysis is not really suitable to a one minute sound bite on TV, it shows the need for liberarians like Mr. Paul to stand for election and explain our philosophy and why we would all be freer than we are now, if more people analyzed problems in this manner rather than reflexively saying the Federal government needs to do something about every problem in our society.

Posted by: jfv123 | May 24, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Slighty OT, but Rand Paul has now conceded that Rachel Maddow was “fair” with him during his interview on TRMS.

Of that interview Paul said, “The interview, I think, was fair.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/24/rand-paul-maddow-was-fair_n_587107.html

So what is Paul’s complaint? It seems that he is angry because MS-NBC had the audacity to report on the interview: “But they went on a whole day repeating something over and over again and it makes me less inclined to go on a network." Notice, he does not say that any of the "repeating" was untruthful or even unfair.

Paul has NO specific instances that he can point to where he was not treated fairly, not given an adequate amount of time to make his points, or that in some way had his message distorted or changed by any member of the media or any network. He seems to be angry that they let him speak unhindered and then reported on it.

Paul’s problem is that his views are that of a moribund cave dweller who pines for the days when we could discriminate to our heart’s content without fear of government interference. He longs for the bad old days of Jim Crow and segregation. But, hey, how dare you suggest that he is a racist. He simply supports property rights. Just like the slave owners did.

Posted by: Gasman1 | May 24, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

OT:

* RNC document reveals bleak financial standing *

An internal Republican National Committee document obtained by CNN paints a damning picture of the committee's financial standing compared to the past five election cycles.

The document, pulled together during a recent review sparked by concerns over RNC spending practices, said the committee had $12.5 million in cash on hand at the end of April.

By comparison, the average cash on hand at the end of April from 2002-2009 was $40.4 million.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/24/rnc-document-reveals-bleak-financial-standing/

Posted by: Ethan2010 | May 24, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

kentuckythunder: "I know that Rand Paul is NOT racist, and the reference was contexted from a statement about a FEDERAL ban idea about smoking in resteraunts and bars. There is already the right to refuse to do business with anyone, hence the signs in many bars and other small businesses, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone..." Disneyland can keep people out who look too out of the norm to prevent being mistaken for cast members such Snow White, Abe Lincoln, etc. The list can go on for a variety of reasons that allow small businesses to refuse sevice."

And yet none of your "arguments" address a sign like, "No BLACKS allowed." Guess you need to go back and think a little more, huh?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | May 24, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

The Tea Party already had a problem with the appearance of racism prior to Rand Paul. This just throws fuel on the fire.

When the Tea Party had a rally in Colorado, they tried to convince the media that race didn't play a role in the movement. Of course, there on TV were people holding signs, "Go back to Kenya!" and similar phrases. Can you imagine any major party allowing such signs at a rally? Gee, I wonder why more minorities are signing their petitions.

Posted by: amaikovich | May 24, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Quoting: McConnell's "Golden Touch"????
7 elections in a row lost. Golden touch.
What kind of drug does a Washington Post writer take to get
hired?
Request: Please refer to persons who would change the provision in the Civil Rights legislation pertaining to equality of service in public places not as "a liability" but as, "divisive and rascist." No matter how polite (Paul) or "folksy" (Palin) are the message is, white folks can pretend to embrace the Constitution while actually abandoning our best American principles.

Posted by: hrayovac2 | May 24, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Implode? Because he got a clue that MSNBC/NBC wouldn't even pretend to give him a fair hearing? Look, unless you have been living under a rock, unless you're a fawning brain dead Obama nitwit you wont go anywhere near NBC, NPR, the Post or the NYT's. You're going to get questions like - "Are you still beating your wife" and the Obama shills will exclaim that you failed some secret test or other no matter what you say. Basically, Paul finally realized that these are simply part of the Obama campaign organization and have given up all pretense of "journalism". I watch CNN, Wolf Blitzer in particular, or Campbell Brown for a liberal take on the news. They are actually fair and professional. But NBC? NBC! God, you will get better actual reporting on Fox than you will on that failing network.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 24, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

@Greg

"If Paul wins, as still seems likely..."

While I certainly wouldn't say that this race is a toss-up or antyhing, I don't know if we've seen any polls beyond snap polls after the primary (see: before the implosion).

I believe DK has one in the field right now, planned to be published later this week. I would think if Paul is still up heavily, we'll see Rass. try to push that message along. Beyond that, do we know of any other groups with polls out for this race?

I'm really curious to see if this national debacle has hurt Paul at home in the polls. My gut says yes, but not a lot, yet. But it might be too soon to call this race over, given the extreme nature of Paul's positions.

If the Dems somehow pick up this seat, I imagine McConnell might take DeMint out to the woodshed...

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | May 24, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27: "Because he got a clue that MSNBC/NBC wouldn't even pretend to give him a fair hearing?"

You really ought to check the latest news. Rand says Rachel Maddow was fair to him.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | May 24, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

It's instructive about Kentucky that Rand Paul still has a good chance of winning a general election despite his views on racial discrimination and the Civil Rights Act.

Note to self: Never move to Kentucky.

Posted by: EnemyOfTheState | May 24, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

WHO SAYS that teabaggers are a bunch of racists? Those are just ridiculous lies put out by the liberal media to attack decent patriotic, god-fearing Americans!

Oh wait...

Rand Paul has received funds and promotion from white supremacists, Neo-Nazi's and KKK leadership via Stormfront.org

http://genuinegopmom.blogspot.com/2010/03/rand-pauls-white-supremacist-pals-at.html

Posted by: losthorizon10 | May 24, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Dear Libertarians, please stay off our roads.

Posted by: BGinCHI | May 24, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

I read comments in a paper that actually sent a reporter to Kentucky to talk with the people and a TV group that owned the newspaper. The younger people in Kentucky do not care about new deals, fair deals, etc. cause they were born after that or were mere babes in 1964. They care about EQUAL and you should, too. This caring for one or several groups like unions, gays, everybody has to have my healthcare scam, has got to stop. Taking from the rich to give to the poor - try letting eveyone be rich and stop trying to be global. Kentucky likes the Pauls and Kentucky will elect whoever they like. YOu in Washington will not elect the Senator from KY. Bet they do not read the WaPo, either.

Posted by: annnort | May 24, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

"Dear Libertarians, please stay off our roads."


Yes, please do. And then go home and disconnect yourself from public utilities.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | May 24, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul = KY Jelly (brain)

Posted by: AHappyWarrior | May 24, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

annnort, we all want society to be more equal. That's why we support unions (equality for working class), gays (equality for glbt Americans), health care for all (health parity)... How in the world does "LEAVE THE RICH ALONE" equate to equality in your world? It doesn't pass basic common sense. Vote however you want... Just sayin' that if it's equality you're after, you're being misled by the politicians on the Right.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | May 24, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

When the media runs two weeks of 24-hour coverage quoting Paul Rand's pastor, then I might have empathy for him. But the quotes that are in the media actually are Paul's words.

Palin may get away with whining about the brutality of the national media because she is a woman, but on a man it looks really weak. Everybody recognizes the national stage is brutal, stop whining.

Posted by: Beeliever | May 24, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

kythunder and mibrooks. Get a freaking clue.
Whenever FACTS don't suit your thoughts you blame the messenger instead of the message.

I doubt either of you saw the Maddow interview with Dr. Paul or the taped recordings with NPR or the Louisiville Courier.

Rachel, the paper and NPR all permitted Dr. Paul to allow that he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act, on balance he thought it was a good bill and they ALL allowed him to say so. NOBODY called Dr. Paul a racist..in fact Rachel had the Ceo/President of the NAACP on the following night who specifically said nobody should call Dr. Paul a racist because of his views!

A few thoughts for you Fox news watching pea brains.

1.) NOBODY misquoted Dr. Paul or took him out of context...it was CLEAR he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act despite the flaw he sees in it...they all allowed him to make it clear that he abhorred discrimination...HOWEVER they
also ALLOWED/ENCOURAGED him to say that he believed the Federal Gov't had no right to tell PRIVATE businesses they couldn't discriminate. On Maddow's show there was NO MISTAKING WHAT HE FREAKING SAID. He followed it up by saying while he thought the Gov't was overstepping it's bounds he PERSONALLY would boycott any establishment that discriminated. WTF do you not understand here?

2.) KYthunder I grew up in Kentucky, my cousins, boyhood friends all still live there as does my family. And so it pains me to say this but they are all unabashed racists. Doesn't mean all Kentuckians are racist. I certainly try not to be. However there is a HUGE segment of the white population in states like Ky, W.Va. Tenn and others that ARE RACISTS. That's just a simple fact.

3.) Now Ky thunder see if you can comprehend...the law PERMITS any business to DISCRIMINATE based on behavior. Any business can set dress codes as well as codes of conduct..smoking..drunkeness etc.
What the law prohibits is discrimination based on a very tightly limited set of criteria such as race and gender and age etc. Your argument about allowing people to pack a concealed weapon in a bar or restaurant is simply ignorant of the fact...again private business CAN DISCRIMINATE based on BEHAVIOR! Quite different from discriminating on your mere existence and the color of your skin.

BTW Private businesses doing PRIVATE BUSINESS as in clubs can also discriminate.
The VFW or American Legion are permitted to keep out anyone not a Vet...private country clubs like the one where Dr. Paul gave his victory speech are also permitted to discriminate as are private groups and organizations like the KKK and the Neo Nazis.

Posted by: rukidding7 | May 24, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

I guess I am a racist, and would vote for Rand Paul in a heartbeat if I lived in KY. I know I am a racist because I believe that people should be judged on their merits, not the color of their skin. In other words, "people of color" should received absolutely no prioritization or special treatment over us whities. I am fed up with the federal goernment playing big daddy on everything. I also do not believe in the progressive income tax, so I guess I am a mean old rich guy. I also believe that the unions have outlived their usefulness and are pulling all of American down into the economic abyss. Unfortunately I think for most of the liberal left, there are a heck of a lot of us out there.

Posted by: usna1974 | May 24, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Have the people who think MSNBC treated Paul unfairly even seen the video of Maddow's interview? She barely talked. And he's been making similar comments since 2002 (he wrote a piece called "Distinction Blurred Between Private, Public Property" around then, regarding the Fair Housing Act). He can believe what he wants to believe, and he can argue what he wants to argue, but saying he said something that he actually said isn't a "smear job." It's a cited quotation.

Posted by: dkp01 | May 24, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Rachel Maddow set a trap for Rand Paul, and he stumbled. I'm not sure the damage will be long-term, however, since Rand Paul clarified his views. In addition, Americans are sick and tired of the "gotcha" journalism practiced by Rachel Maddow and far too many of her allies in the media.

Posted by: austinrl | May 24, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

I have to add a comment on the "equality" spin above. I do NOT want equality. I busted my hump, making little to no money, for 16 years AFTER high school. I got advanced educational scholarships because I worked my butt off and aced the various examinations. I also served in the military for a full career to protect the rights of idiots to be idiots. I do not consider and will never consider myself equal to a high school drop out who has done no better than pump gas or punch buttons in a McDonalds.

My father held down three jobs while putting himself through dental school and his younger siblings through college - all the while taking care of an invalid mother because my grandfather, who began working on the railroad at age 13, was usually gone. We are not elitists, but we also do not enjoy carrying someone else's water because they are too lazy to do so themselves.

Posted by: usna1974 | May 24, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

usna1974 You sound like my cousins who are in Kentucky and so perhaps your boy Rand has a terrific shot.

You said, "I believe that people should be judged on their merits, not the color of their skin. In other words, "people of color" should received absolutely no prioritization or special treatment over us whities."

And so that begs the question,do you believe whites should receive "prioritization or special treatment" over blacks? That is basically all the Civil Rights Act said.

Do you believe the strongest amongst should be able to simply pound the crap out of the weaker and take whatever we want. What is the difference between letting the most powerfully physical specimens take advantage of us and letting the intellectually superior take advantage of us.

And so you have no problem if the wealthy use their cunning and advantage and let 95% us work for 5% of the pie while the 5% of them get 95%. That is what is happening. Have you looked up the word fair in the dictionary lately.

This has been going on since our country was founded. In the Civil War wealth plantation owners persuaded poor ignorant dirt farmers to march against the North to protect the Plantation owners right to keep slaves and stay wealthy. But as the Plantation owners convinced the people like you usna1974..you may just be a poor ignorant farmer but at least you're not a n(&ger!

Posted by: rukidding7 | May 24, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I posted the same observation myself. I do not expect the RNSC to pull out all the stops for Paul this year. Much like the PA DEM primary, where White House gave a lukewarm endorsement to Specter, the RNSC would rather have another candidate.

Giving Paul a Senatorial platform is going to further embarrass the GOP. I keep holding out hope that the people of Kentucky are smart enough to elect somebody else.

Posted by: LeftGuy | May 24, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

usna: "I got advanced educational scholarships because I worked my butt off and aced the various examinations."

Hate to tell ya, but someone carried your water if you took scholarships. Did ya think that $$ came out of the air?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | May 24, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

austinr1 What trap did she set? Did the Courier Journal and NPR also set traps.

I bet you love Sister Sarah don't you. How can you support COWARDS who can't even answer questions? Dont' you have any cojones austin?

Asking a straight forward like do you believe the Government has the right to tell private businesses doing business with the public they cannot discriminate is NOT A FREAKING TRAP. OMG YOU PEOPLE ARE NEANDERTHALS.

I suspect if the Cowardly lioness Sister Sarah ever did a real interview and someone had the temerity to ask her..."Ms Palin why did you begin your campaign with John McCain saying you were against the Bridge to Nowhere when you literally campaigned on it in Alaska. If it was Rachel Maddow and she put up the videotape where Palin was bragging about getting all that money from Washington...would that be a gotcha question or just FREAKING HONEST JOURNALISM?

If they asked about her other numerous inconsistencies and lies and half truths would those be gotcha questions?

Fox has turned your brains to MUSH!!! Any question that is tough to answer is not a gotcha question. WTF do you morons want the media to do...simply lob softballs like that whiney voiced snot Sean Hannity?
Should all of your candidates get a list of the questions and get to decide which they'll answer and which are "gotcha"
You people freaking amaze me!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | May 24, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Palin and Paul should run together in 2012 on the dumb and dumber Republican ticket!

Posted by: oakiedokie | May 24, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Stormfront.org, which was founded to support David Duke for senate by another KKK Grand Dragon, Don Black, has been promoting and contributing to Rand Paul's moneybombs.

[much more]:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5/24/869320/-SCANDAL!-Rand-Paul-MUST-return-Neo-Nazi-funds-NOW-and-DENOUNCE-Stormfront.org

Posted by: RhodaA | May 24, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Re Rand Paul, who wants to do away with the Dept. of Education. Has he explained the result of this vis a vis individual Property Taxes?

He also wants to do away with the Dept. of Agriculture, and all farm subsidies. That's OK for Corporate Farms who supply the big food companies and the fast food industry. Has he explained what this will do to food prices for the average consumer
who relies on other farmers?

He said he will not vote for a budget that is not balanced. OK. Will he hold his breath, stomp his foot and turn blue to make a point? What will he do?

Have the voters in Kentucky actually given any thought, or asked, "How in the hell is this guy going to get anything done in the Senate for the people of this state?" He can make all the philosophical arguments he wants to to his Senate mates who will probably scratch their heads, and say "WTF?"

Posted by: melpremium | May 24, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Completely OT: the CDC has released data showing that 23% of American adults live in homes with only cell phones, no landlines. FiveThirtyEight's got a post up on it and its effect on polling data, really interesting stuff.

Posted by: dkp01 | May 24, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Paul will easily win because he is for less taxes, much smaller government and individual rights. That is a compelling argrument that most of America agrees with, while Obama's goal of a socialist system, with massive government control and high taxes is hated by all Americans.

Posted by: Realist201 | May 24, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Paul hasn't imploded; the media is just imploding, and the usual lying and fabricating on top of it. Good luck with that.

Posted by: hared | May 24, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Sorry to be so strident but these tea party idiots are simply amazing!!!

I think we should all just figure away to have Jack Nicholson speak for us from his famous movie...

"The truth you can't handle the truth!!!"

It's real effing simple. Rand Paul is on the record on too many occasions to recall saying that he believe the Federal Government should not have told private businesses they can't discriminate.

If you also believe that fine. You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. But stop with all the absolute BS about lamestream media everytime the freaking TRUTH gets exposed. FACTS ARE FACTS!!!
Paul said what he said..to the Courier Journal..where he laughed before he said it because he knew it wouldn't be popular...to NPR..to Rachel Maddow...He said it...he believes it...freaking deal with it. At least usna is not hiding..he agrees with it. We can at least respect some honesty. Thanks usna.

Posted by: rukidding7 | May 24, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

usna1974 said: "I do not consider and will never consider myself equal to a high school drop out"

usna, what part of this do you NOT understand?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ***all men are created equal***, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That's the Declaration of Independence. Turns out you've been protecting the country for all the wrong reasons. Thanks for your service anyways, I guess, but wow you don't have the foggiest idea aboutthe key moral of your own country apparently. Bizarre. I appreciate your life story of hardship, we all have our family stories, but that is no excuse to wallow in ignorance.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | May 24, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Paul will easily win because he is for less taxes, much smaller government and individual rights. That is a compelling argrument that most of America agrees with, while Obama's goal of a socialist system, with massive government control and high taxes is hated by all Americans.

Posted by: Realist201 | May 24, 2010 4:18 PM
----------------

Okay "Realist" tell us EXACTLY what you would support being cut.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | May 24, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Thank you suekzoo1. You certainly know how to shut the lamebrains up don't you! LMAO

Posted by: rukidding7 | May 24, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul is the lighting rod to ignite the Democratic base. He is exactly the white narrow minded, stupid, self centered plantation owner of 1838.

The last time men of his caliber organized and took control of a section of the country,
hundred's of thousands died in a civil war.

His civil right's views are stupid, self serving and immoral. His ideas that business regulate themselves is exactly what drove the country to near depression, and last month led to what will be man's worst damage to the planet ever.

He is today's Sarah Palin and November's prize for the Democrats. Rand Paul's biggest problem is his arrogance and ignorance.

In the mirror he see's "the prize winning pig at the fair". Never knew Mitch was that smart.

Posted by: COWENS99 | May 24, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

the republican party is becoming more like the boys stranded on the island in the book "lord of the flies" more and more every day. you have the old time "no tax" republicans camped out at the beach while the teabaggers have taken to the caves and run around in the woods throwing spears at wild boars.
Well let me tell you, Simon and Piggy are dead, and Ralph better hope the plane gets there soon.

Posted by: MarilynManson | May 24, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

____________
its more like lord of the lies. No tax republicans camped out in Washington while the TeaParty crowd goes around shooting mosse from helicopters and speaking of grizzley mothers.

Posted by: racerdoc | May 24, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

"Paul will easily win because he is for less taxes, much smaller government and individual rights."

You forgot the ponies. He's promised everyone a pony.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | May 24, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Paul ran against McConnell and the Establishment, but is now in GOP 101 School run by the Establishment. jeeeez

Wonder when Teabaggers will realize the GOP only uses them to incite fearmongering and fake outrage against Pres. Obama.

Teabaggers are currently smacking down Scott Brown because he went the bipartisan route and voted for financial regulatory reform. {gasp!}
Since Teabaggers hate bipartisanship, why aren't they just content to keep the current members of the Party of No?

Posted by: angie12106 | May 24, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

rukidding, I do my best! :o)

People like usna1974 just crack me up. "I did it all myself!" and then let out that they benefitted from scholarships. Guess the money came from the Tooth Fairy, huh?

And I am really sick of the "small government" cr@p that many spew with no details of the cuts. Tell us the CUTS!

Posted by: suekzoo1 | May 24, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Paul ran against McConnell and the Establishment, but is now in GOP 101 School run by the Establishment. jeeeez

Wonder when Teabaggers will realize the GOP only uses them to incite fearmongering and fake outrage against Pres. Obama.

Teabaggers are currently smacking down Scott Brown because he went the bipartisan route and voted for financial regulatory reform. {gasp!}
Since Teabaggers hate bipartisanship, why aren't they just content to keep the current members of the Party of No?

Posted by: angie12106 | May 24, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

This article would be much more convincing if McConnell and Paul didn't put out a statement TODAY proclaiming solidarity between the two. Also, Greg, maybe you should do some background research before writing your article. Paul was supported by the outgoing Senator (Bunning), who is in a huge tussle with McConnell (so that's another reason McConnell chose not to support Paul). But, truth is, if Paul wins, he becomes another vote for Republicans and Big Business which is exactly what Congress doesn't need at the moment.

Posted by: sachancp | May 24, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Does Rand Paul have ANY original ideas that are not also his father's? Does anyone have any original ideas anymore? Why do we support people who are so lazy that they've just taken the political ideology of their parents, or an angry pastor, or a sexually confused self-loathing radio personality? Choose a candidate who can think for his or her self.

Posted by: osullivanc1 | May 24, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

austinrl,
You claim that Rachel Maddow "set a trap for Rand Paul, and he stumbled." Well, you got half of it right. Paul did indeed stumble. As to your notion of a "trap," you disagree with Paul himself.

Scroll on up to my second link in the thread. Of his appearance on Rachel Maddow's show, Paul said, “The interview, I think, was fair.”

So, are you contending that Paul isn't bright enough to recognize a trap, maybe you think he's lying?

Posted by: Gasman1 | May 24, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Implosion? Leave it to you leftist hacks to feed the rest of the leftist sheep their daily dose of crap. Of course, you wouldn't succeed without your sheep, who are either too stupid or too disingenuous to understand the truth here.

Posted by: ArlingtonHokie | May 24, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

If the Republican Party message, channeled through Rand Paul and now endorsed by Mitch McConnell, is that we are out of contact with reality and headed into the political Twilight Zone, then they deserve to lose. If they win with the Rand Paul message, then Kentucky is already in the Twilight Zone.

Look there's a sign post up ahead and Rand Paul's standing under it ... dee, dee,dee ...dee, dee, dee....

Posted by: captn_ahab | May 24, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

As Martin at Politico reported this morning, Paul has shut up now on the advice of Karl Rove (and others, certainly).
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=C2631AE5-18FE-70B2-A812F5EDA21931C4

Why would Rove concern himself here?

Posted by: bernielatham | May 24, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

So the party GOP has shut Paul up for now. I think they call this Damage Control. The Tea Party is ripping the scab, and lifting the Hood on latent Racism in America. So in that regard it isn't all bad.

Posted by: minco_007 | May 24, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

@mimco - Actually, I doubt that Rand has racist sentiments. The problem is that his version of libertarianism would fail to do anything about past, present or future racism (the evidence being that racist social arrangements, eg 'blacks not allowed' were only remedied by federal government intervention). But the problems that arise from libertarian notions stretch far beyond racism remedies.

"You Don't Have to Be Racist To Hate the Twentieth Century

by Ed Kilgore, May 24, 2010 12:20 PM EST

Before we move on from the controversy over Rand Paul's comments on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it's important to understand that controversy over his political philosophy is likely to persist. And ironically, that's especially true if the accusations of active or latent racism on Paul's part are completely unfair.

If Paul's original observations on the Civil Rights Act were motivated by indifference to discrimination against minorities, or the conviction some conservatives share that any government action to protect minorities is itself racism, then the controversy is limited to this one topic. In that case, the damage is limited to those voters who care about civil rights, many of whom will not be voting for Rand Paul in Kentucky or Republicans anywhere else.

But if, as his defenders insist (and as the record seems to support), Paul is simply expressing the consistent view that the operations of free markets, not government, are the best guarantor of individual rights in general and the interests of the poor and minorities in particular, and that the U.S. Constitution, rightly interpreted, reflects this conviction, then other, equally controversial issues may come into play, and not just those that involve other types of discrimination...(more at link)
http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/

Posted by: bernielatham | May 24, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Implode? Because he got a clue that MSNBC/NBC wouldn't even pretend to give him a fair hearing? Look, unless you have been living under a rock, unless you're a fawning brain dead Obama nitwit you wont go anywhere near NBC, NPR, the Post or the NYT's. You're going to get questions like - "Are you still beating your wife" and the Obama shills will exclaim that you failed some secret test or other no matter what you say. Basically, Paul finally realized that these are simply part of the Obama campaign organization and have given up all pretense of "journalism". I watch CNN, Wolf Blitzer in particular, or Campbell Brown for a liberal take on the news. They are actually fair and professional. But NBC? NBC! God, you will get better actual reporting on Fox than you will on that failing network.
==========================================================
Campbell Brown is a pretty face, not an interviewer like Blitzer. She is also gone due to bad ratings. Personally I prefer C-Span the news without the spin.

Posted by: jameschirico | May 24, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

All, happy hour roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/happy_hour_roundup_14.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | May 24, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Paul hasn't imploded; the media is just imploding, and the usual lying and fabricating on top of it. Good luck with that.

Posted by: hared |
===========================================================
Maddow never lies is a Rhodes scholar with a deadly research staff. She has been on for years, try to find one lie. You can watch Fox on any day and find them. Today K T MacFarland (Reagan Defense Dept.), Obama getting consensus for world policy is something new. She has never heard the words New World Order by the last good GOP president voted out on a slogan "It's the economy stupid."

Posted by: jameschirico | May 24, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

I live in Chicago. I have some friends who are still Chicago Democrats who voted for McCain, because of race. They are "angry" cause of Obama's color. I have a beloved father in law, not a well read guy, who watches Fox every nite and he has visceral negative reactions when Obama's name is brought up in casual conversations. So he is angry, too. He recently told me that a depression would have been better than the stimulus (Obama) and bank (Bush) bailouts.

Posted by: johnkomalley | May 24, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

I love the way Rand Paul's defenders blame the media for this. Those nasty things called facts do get in the way sometimes, don't they? I don't think I ever knew that Kentucky had so many wackos.

Posted by: Denny_98 | May 24, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

"then Bush exploded it again and left the economy in absolute shambles requiring Obama to run huge deficits to save the nation's economy."

LOL impossible to make up nonsense like this. What a marvelous sentence.

------------------------------

... but unfortunately, it's true.

Posted by: sr31 | May 24, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

I am glad that Rand Paul is honest enough to express his reservations about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and I pray that he has the courage to remain outspoken on this issue. Among the pernicious effects of the Act was to provide the justification for the federal government to get involved in local and private disputes - where it is better kept out. It is a mistake to believe that the progressive desegregation of American society and economy is a result only of a change of federal law - rather than the enlightenment of individual attitudes. In truth, American racial relations are a much more complex phenomenon.

People have a natural right to associate with those they choose. Government intervention has destroyed countless urban communities - that had been held together by an ethnic identity and a common religion and culture. Voluntary acceptance of people from a different race, religion, or culture is one thing, but government mandated desegregation only leads to a breakdown of society.

The elements of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which controlled the behavior of the federal government itself, may be worth preserving. Out of justice, the government should act fairly towards all of its citizens - not singling out any group for preferred treatment above other law-abiding citizens. However, reasonable people should not be afraid of an honest discussion of the areas where the Act exceeded the proper role of government - and where it should be scaled back.

The threat to Rand Paul is not that his views would be discredited in honest debate - but that he would be shouted down by the ideologues of the Left, and their allies in the media and in government.

Posted by: LeszX | May 24, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

"Among the pernicious effects of the Act was to provide the justification for the federal government to get involved in local and private disputes - where it is better kept out."

Explain to me how a PUBLIC lunch counter, licensed by the state, that benefits from infrastructure paid for by ALL taxpayers refusing to serve someone because of their gender, their skin color or their religon is a private dispute. If a business chooses to partake of the benefits provided by society as a whole then they need to be willing to play by the rules that society establishes.

"It is a mistake to believe that the progressive desegregation of American society and economy is a result only of a change of federal law - rather than the enlightenment of individual attitudes."

Riiiiiiiiight. That Jim Crow stuff? Pshaw. Just a coincidence that desegration all happened after Truman desegrated the military, Brown v. BOE, and the 1964 CRA. The south was THIS close to doing it all on their own until the Feds came along. Their "enlightened" attitudes must be why they capitulated so easily...

Posted by: schrodingerscat | May 24, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

The key element of Republican strategy is deception. To get the herd stampeded in the right direction, you must at all costs keep your wolf skin on. You can't show your true colors to the public herd or they will know that their interests are not the interests of the Republican Party.

Keep 'em focused on gay marriage, abortion, secular socialism (Newt's bogey man), scary white wine drinking and brie munching liberals--anything but the real agenda. And here comes Rand Paul. He blows it and he'll need a Sarah Palin mouth chastity belt or they will be outed as the reactionary, wacko ideologues they are.

I hope Paul keeps stirring it. Sooner or later the disguise wears off and voila--there you have the real Republican Party--enemy of our democracy and the ongoing, American Revolution.

Posted by: explorers100 | May 24, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul is a sicko racist who really ought to lose, and lose badly.

Posted by: Nymous | May 24, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Republican
Always
No to
Democrats

Politician
Against
United States
Law

No you know what Rand Paul stands for.

Posted by: jameschirico | May 24, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Pauls statement didn't reach the public because the media didn't want it to. He is what he is, there is no controversey, its just an extremist running for Senator. He made it this far because few knew his views. He won't be a United States Senator, despite Greg Sargent writing that its likely.

Posted by: DMcCall2 | May 24, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Actually, many people are vindicated. It took one day for this Palin-esque nutjob to expose himself. He not only revealed his racism, but also the sheer lunacy of the Pauls' "free-market libertarianism." Most rational Americans are now recognizing who these people really are.

Posted by: revbookburn | May 24, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

These career GOP politicians sure are afraid of the Tea Party people.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | May 24, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Let me put in a little plug for Dem Jack Conway: sounds like a sensible, tough guy who would really do right by Kentucky. McConnell is a has-been party of No symbol, Paul a cuckoo clock (what will he say next?) Conway sounds like the right man for the job!

Posted by: dudh | May 24, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

McConnell AND Rand Paul are both morons... If you want and think that ANYTHING except half-crispy chicken in a bucket and bad, stupid politicians you are sadly mistaken....

These clowns represent bozos of the top order.

Posted by: rbaldwin2 | May 24, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Paul has terrible views such as believing that government should not perpetually deficit spend.

How is government supposed to expand if we can't force debt upon the next generation?

Posted by: corruptsociety | May 24, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps we should wait till November before writing Paul's obituary. We have yet to hear the obese diva harmonize.

Posted by: Chippewa | May 24, 2010 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul's ideology as everone must know by now, is his guiding force force, without it, there is nothing left. There is no doubt that if he is elected in November, you can expect to hear more blunders and absolutely silly comments from this man whose politcal beliefs are more suited to the 1830's than 2010.

No sooner than he had was forced to admit that his views on the Civil Rights Act was not in keeping with a vast majority of Americans, he came up with another shocker. Describibg the devastating oil spill in the gulf, his best response was that accidents happen. He could not stop there by simply stating the obvious, he came up with perhaps his stupid statement yet. Paul believes that the Obama Administration is mistreating BP. Of the 305 million souls that reside in the USA, Rand Paul is the only person with this viewpoint.

Many Americans believe that the Administration is not doing enough while others believe nothing else can be done at this point since BP is more likely to have the know-how and resouces to get the job done.

If Rand Paul wins in November, he is going to be a lot of fun, perhaps even for the late night comics. The American public will find out that this man is unable to help himself; he tongue will be his worst enemy.

Posted by: archie136 | May 24, 2010 10:47 PM | Report abuse

He certainly has his counterpart in Florida's idiot Alan Grayson. Enough entertainment on both sides to go around.

Posted by: SavingGrace | May 24, 2010 11:10 PM | Report abuse

Alienated whites -- the core of the tea party -- couldn't care less about being labeled racist. They've already BEEN labeled racist. Does anyone REALLY think that someone otherwise in agreement with their politics would bolt over this?

See, if you play the racist card _all the time_, it loses its power. And with the tea party, it is played 24-7-365. The Paul episode shows that many avoid being described racist not out of any regard for blacks as human beings, but because they would be shunned by fellow whites.

It is indisputable that Paul would _tolerate_ discrimination. He wouldn't practice it himself (he says) but he thinks others should be able to if they want.

Posted by: gbooksdc | May 24, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

How the hell does one get a byline at WaPo nowadays?

Greg, if this the first race McConnell "inserted" himself in, what is his claim to the "golden touch"?

Your mighty effort at propping up McConnell are noted. If the GOP regains the Senate, you will be rewarded.

Posted by: ashrink | May 24, 2010 11:51 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company