Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Rand Paul's bout with reality

Even though he's dead wrong, I've got to admire Rand Paul for standing by his strongly held convictions. The Republican candidate for Senate from Kentucky really believes in limited government. So much so that he willingly dug a hole for himself by repeatedly telling MSNBC's Rachel Maddow that he had issues with the provision that ended discrimination in public accommodations under the Civil Rights Act. But as the novice Tea Party darling learned the hard way, ideological purity always loses when it collides with reality.

In fairness, Paul told Maddow over and over again that he was just fine with all the other provisions of the landmark act that made it possible for me and my relatives to live while black. He was clear that he abhors racial discrimination and never said he wanted to repeal the Civil Rights Act. Thus, I don't think that Paul's statement that he would have voted for it had he been in the Senate qualifies as backtracking.

That being said, Paul continues to smack up against reality by riding his purity horse. That's what he did during an interview with George Stephanopolous this morning, but not before whining about not having a political honeymoon. Last I heard, such a luxury is reserved for newly elected mayors, governors and presidents. Paul is just the Republican nominee for a Senate seat. At the rate he's going he'll be lucky to actually win it.

By Jonathan Capehart  | May 21, 2010; 1:23 PM ET
Categories:  Capehart  | Tags:  Jonathan Capehart  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Palin, Dobson must repudiate Rand Paul or accept his extremism
Next: The Democrats killed the bipartisan Wyden-Bennett bill

Comments

Whining about not having a honeymoon is so childish.

Hello, you are in the big leagues now. If you can't it then get out.

Posted by: maritza1 | May 21, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

What a steaming pile of parrot droppings.

It is clear to me that Mr Capehart has little experience with the admixture of reality and a principles. He lacks either the former or the latter or both.

Further, this manufactured issue isn't about reality VS principles at all. It is about a non liberals being harrangued by the left's well oiled race baiting machine. A machine that is proud to consider Mr capehart here as one of the cogwheels in its big, ugly mechanism.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | May 21, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Lucky to win? He's running in Kentucky and he's already up by 20 points. Who needs the reality check here? Rand Paul or Capehart.

Posted by: peterg73 | May 21, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

peterg wrote: "Who needs the reality check here? Rand Paul or Capehart."

Who needs it? I vote Rand Paul. Capehart has been a successful journalist far longer than Rand Paul has been a wannabe politician. And who will still be standing whether Rand Paul wins the election or goes down in flames---Capehart will. The joy of journalism.

Posted by: martymar123 | May 21, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

You are far more generous to Rand Paul than I would be. Paul's repugnant notion that a self-correcting market would weed out businesses that discriminate on the basis of race was proven incorrect by the 100 years of segregation, discrimination, and prejudice after the Civil War. White businesses thrived because the majority culture was and is still white. And, when African-Americans had no place else to shop except the local white-owned store, they were treated as inferior and denied privileges and courtesies granted to white customers. Paul's position deserves, even demands, continued rebuke until he retreats back into the fantasyland from which he has apparently just emerged.

Posted by: chuckwarnock | May 21, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Actually, if a nutcase like Paul is leading by 20 points, I'd say it's the voters of Kentucky who need the reality check.

Posted by: NomoStew | May 21, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

I pretty much agree with your analysis. I don't believe the Pauls are racists as many proclaim; they are just on the wrong side of a property rights vs. civil rights issue that was permanently and rightly decided over forty years ago. It's too bad that they feel the need to retain this ideological puritanism because their message of limited federal government otherwise has considerable merit.

Rand needs to focus on which battles he really wants to fight and stop letting the pundits bait him into sounding off on nonsense issues like chastising the President as un-American for coming down on BP - hell, BP isn't even an American company! His political inexperience and naivete are getting in the way of his other advantages as an outsider who is not (all too obviously) a professional politician.

Posted by: FadingFast | May 21, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

peterg73 says that Rand Paul is up by 20 points. I wonder how many polls have been taken since he made these egregious statements, and how much name recognition his Democratic opponent has. I suspect that Dr. Paul will find that polls are fickle things.

This is not about race or the Civil Rights Act. This is about Dr. Paul's philosophy of governance and the extent and proper use of federal power, particularly when it comes to regulation, legislation, and public accommodation. Dr. Paul is far outside the American mainstream on these issues and will not stand a chance once Kentucky voters understand that.

Posted by: daiconradmi | May 21, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

If you really want to downsize government you can, it's called "anarchy." Absolute state's rights? Sure, if a state likes slavery then go for it! No taxes? Sure, and that means no public funding for schools, roads, police, fire, safety, navigation, science, defense. Absolute "private property rights" -- sure, go ahead and use your property for anything you like, anything at all, after all, it is your property. And, oh yeah, join the Tea Party" the new wave that is shaping the future of America.

Posted by: johnnormansp | May 21, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

peterg73 writes:
He's running in Kentucky and he's already up by 20 points.

-----
According to Rasmussen....The poll always quoted by (R)s and Conservatives.

Pollster only has him up by +3.4

The problem with Rasmussen is that they use some stagnant likely voter formula which they only refine when it gets within a week or two of the actual election.

They are consistently an outlier at this stage of campaigns.

So I wouldn't count the tea from the teabags until it steeps... And he's in lost of hot water now... Might not be much tea left to brew in November.

Paul's issues have become nationalized now and it's stirring up the lethargic Progressive base. He picked the wrong issue for (R)s to be focus on .... drowning out everyone else message.

He'll still probably win.... but in other races , his views will have a negative impact for Republicans and Conservatives.

Posted by: SkiPete | May 21, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul like so many of his supporters just loves limited government right up until he requires government service. Prime example big deficit hawk but has no problems with going in the hole for the medicaid doc fix. Yes siree no problemo as long as it's not his ox being gored.

Posted by: snake_taylor | May 21, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

What gives the Federal Government the right to tell individuals in a sovereign state how they can associate? The last time I checked the 1st amendment said "Congress shall make no law respecting ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble."

This should have been dealt with at the state level, or the Constitution should have been amended.

How is this different from any other use of force to impose one's version of morality upon others?

It looks like the author is misrepresenting Rand's position. Rand SUPPORTS ending discrimination in PUBLIC accommodations. It's PRIVATE companies that the Federal government has no authority to push around. Maybe this is a good thing or a bad thing. But in either case, that was the agreement.

Posted by: thormat | May 21, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

This person has an unerring knack for not answering questions.

But the one thing I would like to see discussed is his equation of the right of businesses to refuse to allow guns on premises and discriminating against people on the basis of race, etc., in hiring and service. My constitutional law education is pretty dated, but it seems to me he's mixing apples and oranges. Although he states he wouldn't want to see the important legislation of the 1960s rescinded, his analysis is pretty scarey for future applications.

Can someone weigh in on this or recommend someone who has?

Posted by: SofiaMT | May 21, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

"If you really want to downsize government you can, it's called "anarchy." Absolute state's rights? Sure, if a state likes slavery then go for it! No taxes? Sure, and that means no public funding for schools, roads, police, fire, safety, navigation, science, defense. Absolute "private property rights" -- sure, go ahead and use your property for anything you like, anything at all, after all, it is your property. And, oh yeah, join the Tea Party" the new wave that is shaping the future of America."

Nice try, but your strawman argument won't work here. Libertarians do not believe in anarchy. And please check the Constitution, because I can assure you that defense IS a constitutional function.
What a farce, too, as if the US never had ANY roads, schools, police, fire depts, etc before the Federal income tax. Go back to worshipping BHO and Rachel Maddow, and let the grown-ups finish recovering our precious constitutional freedoms by electing Dr Paul.

Posted by: linguist64 | May 21, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

And here we have the essence of today's liberal thinking:
+++++++++++++++
Actually, if a nutcase like Paul is leading by 20 points, I'd say it's the voters of Kentucky who need the reality check.

Posted by: NomoStew
++++++++++++++++++

Let me translate: "What's wrong with Kansas?"

the basis of this is pretty simple and very typical of America's liberals. Either one agrees with the liberal agenda or one is stupid. yeah, that's a flag to rally around! that's a sales pitch that will have people flocking to the left.

I wonder why Obama didn't use that instead of mischaracterizing himself as a centrist? No doubt Axelrod could have come up with something like "vote for Obama because if you don't sneering liberals on WaPo comment boards will think you're stupid."

My goodness the arrogance and conceit of some people is breathtaking

Posted by: skipsailing28 | May 21, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

"If you really want to downsize government you can, it's called "anarchy." Absolute state's rights? Sure, if a state likes slavery then go for it! No taxes? Sure, and that means no public funding for schools, roads, police, fire, safety, navigation, science, defense. Absolute "private property rights" -- sure, go ahead and use your property for anything you like, anything at all, after all, it is your property. And, oh yeah, join the Tea Party" the new wave that is shaping the future of America."

Nice try, but your strawman argument won't work here. Libertarians do not believe in anarchy. And please check the Constitution, because I can assure you that defense IS a constitutional function.
What a farce, too, as if the US never had ANY roads, schools, police, fire depts, etc before the Federal income tax. Go back to worshipping BHO and Rachel Maddow, and let the grown-ups finish recovering our precious constitutional freedoms by electing Dr Paul.

Posted by: linguist64 | May 21, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

And now this one:
++++++++++++++
Rand Paul like so many of his supporters just loves limited government right up until he requires government service. Prime example big deficit hawk but has no problems with going in the hole for the medicaid doc fix. Yes siree no problemo as long as it's not his ox being gored.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

this is laughably ill informed. this is just a poor repetition of the latest Democrat party talking point.

Simple fact is that Rand Paul is an opthalmologist. In his practice he treats Medicare patients. He has a right to be paid for the services he rendered.

he doesn't REQUIRED government service he PROVIDED service. It seems that this is just to complex a concept for hate spewing liberals.

And what about the doctor fix? I can pretty much guarantee that the congress will pass it, even though they gamed the obama care bill by seperating it out.

If the doc fix is not passed then physicians will begin limiting the number of Medicare patients they see. It is simple survival.

IMHO the easiest way to deal with the problem of Medicare's insolvency and paying for services that Medicare patients recieve is vouchers.

but the Obama statists don't want to even think (to the extent that they can think) about something that would give Americans more freedom. Heck no.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | May 21, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

He is plain stupid. He is a doctor, he may say tomorrow that he wouldnt treat somebody who needs immediate medical attention because he thinks he needs to play golf. Well, its his individual freedom...he can choose not to treat him...who cares if the person dies...
He does not seem to understand that there needs to be a balance between individual freedom and government intervention. It is stupid to be at any of the two extremes. People with extreme ideals....are considered extremists, and I would not trust a state or country to them....one needs to be sane....not extreme..be ready to accept others ideas if good/right and change one's beleifs when one realizes that there are better ones...changing ones views is not a sign of weakness...it is a sign of openness, magnanimity, intelligence...I would trust someone who is thus sensible ...not extremes that includes the Tea Partiers..

Posted by: unique123 | May 21, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Following is a statement Rand Paul made regarding this administration's response to BP and the environmental devastation going on in the Gulf of Mexico:

"What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, ‘I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP. I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. I’ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it’s always got to be someone’s fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen.”

Oil gushing, yes gushing - not leaking, into the Gulf of Mexico and being described by experts as the most extensive man-made disaster in the history of our planet and this is what he has to say. Accidents happen? That's it?!

BP’s execs are lucky that it’s a mere boot heal and not a guillotine, which is what I vote for.

We have many problems to solve in this country and we don't need to add to them by electing to the Senate someone such as Mr. Paul, who holds a "no big deal" attitude on multiple issues.

Repeat after me Mr. Paul: "Open mouth, insert foot."

Posted by: PatC1 | May 21, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Thinking like Rand Paul's, aside from being nihilistic tripe, is actually a danger to the people in a state such as Kentucky, which has crippling problems that cry out for government attention. Read the stats in this run down from NY Liberal State of Mind Blog:

Rand Paul's New American Animal House

http://nyliberalstateofmind.blogspot.com/2010/05/rand-pauls-new-american-animal-house.html

Posted by: rdl114 | May 21, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Will you stick up for me sir when the liberals come to take my salt away. Take away my nudey mags. Take away my black/death metal cds with profanities in them? Will you stick up for my individual rights, not because I'm a whiteboy who strongly was opposed to the rap/rock crossover in the late 90's that gave us Limp Bizkit/Korn and other nonsense. Will you fight for my right to choose to biggy size those fries, or get two double cheeseburgers?

Posted by: zappainfrance | May 21, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse


To SofiaMT,

Here's my take on it.


The points about guns, black caucus, united negro college fund, the boy scouts, etc miss the fundemental point. Allowing a business to discriminate based on any form of bias prevents people from working or engaging in commerce. Without access to these two fundemental activities you cannot be a fully integrated human being in society. None of the organizations or activities you are citing degrade other people to the point of being sub human or allow them access to work or commerce. Whereas the bias Mr. Paul seems ok with allowing does exactly that.

Posted by: kchses1 | May 21, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

"He is plain stupid. He is a doctor, he may say tomorrow that he wouldnt treat somebody who needs immediate medical attention because he thinks he needs to play golf. Well, its his individual freedom...he can choose not to treat him...who cares if the person dies..."

So let me get this straight...Dr. Paul is a physician, thus he is your slave.

If a person needs medical care they can get it any time they want. They just need to pay for it. If some doctors don't want to work weekends then it creates more opportunity for those doctors that are willing to work weekends.

Economic Ignorance + Arrogance = Liberalism. It's a cancer that is destroying our society.

Posted by: thormat | May 21, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Segregation was not ended by the Federal Government. It was ended by the People, who in the words of MLK, had the courage to "disobey unjust laws" -- like the Jim Crow laws that infringed on the rights of private business owners to serve whoever they pleased, in a way that both parties (business and customer) agreed on.

If someone were to open a business today that had a sign saying "No Blacks Allowed", it wouldn't go over too well. That's not because there are laws to prevent it, it's because there has been a cultural change that was started by people who were willing to take a stand for what was right. The Federal Government did not swoop in and save the day. The People did.

But people have been conditioned to believe that they have no power, and only The Government can take care of them. Take a look around, and see how well that's working out, as the Government-run economy rewards stupid and unjust practices, and crumbles under the weight Government control... for our own good... because We The People aren't smart enough to think for ourselves, or to decide how to spend our own hard-earned money.

Embrace the oppressors, because, although they have reduced us to slaves, they're doing it for our own good. The neo-liberals and neo-conservatives are suffering from a case of Stockholm Syndrome.

Posted by: MrTracker | May 21, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Segregation was not ended by the Federal Government. It was ended by the People, who in the words of MLK, had the courage to "disobey unjust laws" -- like the Jim Crow laws that infringed on the rights of private business owners to serve whoever they pleased, in a way that both parties (business and customer) agreed on.

If someone were to open a business today that had a sign saying "No Blacks Allowed", it wouldn't go over too well. That's not because there are laws to prevent it, it's because there has been a cultural change that was started by people who were willing to take a stand for what was right. The Federal Government did not swoop in and save the day. The People did.

But people have been conditioned to believe that they have no power, and only The Government can take care of them. Take a look around, and see how well that's working out, as the Government-run economy rewards stupid and unjust practices, and crumbles under the weight Government control... for our own good... because We The People aren't smart enough to think for ourselves, or to decide how to spend our own hard-earned money.

Embrace the oppressors, because, although they have reduced us to slaves, they're doing it for our own good. The neo-liberals and neo-conservatives are suffering from a case of Stockholm Syndrome.

Posted by: MrTracker | May 21, 2010 9:36 PM ================
No the government is the best solution to everything. It wasn't the individuals like MLK and Rosa Parks. It was the government.

If you disagree and think you should infringe on government's right to control your life you are a racist that hates black people and want slavery back.

The above sarcasm the MSM might as well just come out and say because those are the lines they are pimping.

Posted by: Cryos | May 21, 2010 11:48 PM | Report abuse

peterg73 writes:
He's running in Kentucky and he's already up by 20 points.

-----
According to Rasmussen....The poll always quoted by (R)s and Conservatives.

Pollster only has him up by +3.4

The problem with Rasmussen is that they use some stagnant likely voter formula which they only refine when it gets within a week or two of the actual election.

They are consistently an outlier at this stage of campaigns.

So I wouldn't count the tea from the teabags until it steeps... And he's in lost of hot water now... Might not be much tea left to brew in November.

Paul's issues have become nationalized now and it's stirring up the lethargic Progressive base. He picked the wrong issue for (R)s to be focus on .... drowning out everyone else message.

He'll still probably win.... but in other races , his views will have a negative impact for Republicans and Conservatives.

Posted by: SkiPete | May 21, 2010 3:13 PM
============
No the MSM is slandering him so suckers like you rally to have your rights taken away.

So how do you like Obama renewing the patriot act, wiretapping and rendition? I thought that was shredding the constitution.

Funny not a peep from liberals when after Holder voluntarily giving foreign terrorists citizens rights, the FIRST american citizen terror suspect and the Obama administration is talking about limiting Miranda rights.

This is about the establishment of neocons and liberals using the back and forth to erode our rights.

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Posted by: Cryos | May 21, 2010 11:59 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul isn't a racist. Rand Paul is a racial segregationist.

His public position opposing Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which, "outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce" is de facto racial segregation.

Therefore Rand Paul is an oxymoronic nonracist racial segregationist.

Oxymoronic, because racial segregation is racist; nonracist, because Rand Paul believes racism is reprehensible; and racial segregationist, because private enterprise racial discrimination is racial segregation.

Hence Rand Paul is a nonracist racist. His ideology and reality don't jive. His ideology is nonracist, but when implemented, it promotes virulent racism.

Rand Paul has lost the support of desegregated Middle America and in exchange, he's gained the enthusiastic support of the Ku Klux Klan.

Posted by: kstahmer | May 22, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

"But people have been conditioned to believe that they have no power, and only The Government can take care of them. Take a look around, and see how well that's working out, as the Government-run economy rewards stupid and unjust practices, and crumbles under the weight Government control... for our own good... because We The People aren't smart enough to think for ourselves, or to decide how to spend our own hard-earned money."

Gosh, things sound pretty bad on your planet, but here on my planet, which we call "Earth", things are no better. The economy is in the toilet because Wall Street discovered that THE MARKET rewarded stupid and unjust behavior, and government did nothing to regulate it, because the man who had been guiding the economy for of these years, a man named Greenspan, was devoted to the philosophy of a libertarian author named Ayn Rand. Check out this picture:

http://www.newshoggers.com/.a/6a00d8345f80b469e20128779be2e4970c-320wi

And Government certainly has proved corruptable, though the the corruption seems to always come from the private sector.

I dunno what planet you're living on, but I think you might want to consider staying there. If you do come, here's a tip: make sure you avoid the Gulf of Mexico.

Posted by: debianski | May 22, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

@debianski:

Reality check - free markets had nothing to do with the economic crisis we face.

If we had free markets there would be no such thing as the Federal Reserve, the agency that prints money out of thin air and distorts the market by setting interest rates. This is the FUNDAMENTAL BASIS for our economy (and economies around the world in fact). In a free market, interest rates would be set by the market, not by the Fed.

Forcing interest rates to 1% for the years leading up to the crash made capital easy to come by and created incentives for malinvestment - this answers your 'stupid and unjust behavior' coupled with the bankers' control over Washington - bailouts are sure easy to come by!

Oh, and I'm guessing you'd approve of these bailouts - another example of free markets, eh? Think these bankers would continue making poor decisions if the firms imploded? Obviously not.

At least we can agree on your point about Greenspan.

Honestly, though, take some time to educate yourself on the fundamentals of banking, the Federal Reserve, and the economy in general before you go making posts about how the 'free markets' caused this mess. It absolutely sickens me to hear the blame placed on free markets when in reality a free market is the ONLY solution.

Posted by: jheathco | May 22, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Capehart, I'm sorry you have to endure all the abuse by the dimwitted racists here trying to defend the indefensible.

That said, re Rand Paul -- canceling a chance to be on "Meet the Press" because he claims to be TIRED? Does he have any idea how physically demanding the job of Senatorial candidate is? Or the job of Senator, for that matter? I earnestly hope that "MTP" gives the time saved for Rand Paul to his opponent, Conway, instead.

Posted by: ankhorite | May 22, 2010 11:06 PM | Report abuse

Here's another reality check with Rand Paul. His pro life position would save 40-50% of the black race from being aborted every year. A choice made and demanded by the left. No wonder the founder of Planned Parenthood accepted an invitation to speak before the KKK. How ironic how so many black people have been led like so many "lambs to the slaughter". They truly have sold their birthright for a "bowl of porridge".

Posted by: EddieP | May 23, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul is absolutely correct in challenging the unconstitutional actions taken by Congress going back to the Roosevelt Administration. We must restrict the federal government to save our republic. This is not racism. What Paul said was a defense of our republic and our Constitution.

Posted by: Will78 | May 23, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Just clarifying facts. Hard to agree on anything when there is so many inaccuracies.

Cyros wrote:

"Funny not a peep from liberals when after Holder voluntarily giving foreign terrorists citizens rights, the FIRST american citizen terror suspect and the Obama administration is talking about limiting Miranda rights."

Not true, there have been many terrorists who are American citizens. John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla were American citizens apprehended during the Bush administration. As well as the Tim McVeighs and others terrorists who fight a different kind of jihad.

Not sure who is claiming this is the first such terrorist, but it sounds like someone wants to make you feel like Obama is doing something dramatically different. Most likely that source wasn't paying attention when it happened in 2005-7.


Cyros wrote:

"Segregation was not ended by the Federal Government. It was ended by the People, who in the words of MLK, had the courage to "disobey unjust laws" -- like the Jim Crow laws that infringed on the rights of private business owners to serve whoever they pleased, in a way that both parties (business and customer) agreed on."

Also not true; it occurred through a mixture of individual efforts and state/federal government actions.

The Civil War is a good example. It was only through military domination that something as mild as the 13th and 14th Amendments were adopted by many states in the Union. Even after that, disenfranchisement and social segregation (white/black as well as rich/poor) remained a powerful part of life. People kept voting for laws to restrict "bad elements" from participating in society, and the Supreme Court upheld state laws drafted to prevent poor/minority folk from voting.

Even after the Supreme Court ordered desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education, many states did not comply (the Court had few teeth to enforce the obligation) until Congress threatened to withdraw educational funding. At that point states initiated pro-active solutions to bus and integrate students.

One can think like many respected conservatives that the need for government involvement in desegregation is gone. I disagree, but whatever. But federal action was integral in making slavery, segregation, and lynch-mob culture disappear as quickly and thoroughly as it did. "We The People" have been capable of extraordinary goodness, but decentralized desegregation has not been among our accomplishments.

Posted by: ledirigible | May 23, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe that such serious evaluation is being done on a comment that was meant to come off as banter between an interviewer and interviewee.

This kind of thing happens all the time between the liberal media and their liberal guests. Paul's problem was that he assumed he'd be treated with common civility.

Be real. A joke is a joke, not a whine.

As an independent African American free thinker, non-kool aid drinker, I am appalled at the way the race card is being applied to Rand Paul's philosophical ideas. Ideas about the place of government in our lives, and ideas that need to be discussed.

Of course he doesn't want to role back the Civil Rights Act, but that really is irrelevant to the liberally biased media.

It's disgusting and pathetic at this attempt by the left to take the focus off Obama and the horrible job he's doing in Louisiana, with the debt, and our international interactions in the Middle East.

I've got an idea, how about all of you journalists get Obama to give a press conference?

Posted by: bewrap59829 | May 24, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company