Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Rand Paul's political problem

Less than 48 hours removed from his landslide victory in the Republican primary race, ophthalmologist Rand Paul finds himself embroiled in a controversy over his position on the Civil Rights Act -- a mini firestorm Democrats have seized on in an attempt to end the open seat contest before it ever starts in earnest.

Things began to go badly for Paul last night when, in an appearance on Rachel Maddow's show on MSNBC -- the clip is above -- he gave the following answer (among a far wider conversation that Right Now's Dave Weigel has transcribed in full on his blog) when asked about whether lunch counters should have remained segregated.

"What I think would happen -- what I'm saying is, is that I don't believe in any discrimination. I don't believe in any private property should discriminate either. And I wouldn't attend, wouldn't support, wouldn't go to. But what you have to answer when you answer this point of view, which is an abstract, obscure conversation from 1964 that you want to bring up. But if you want to answer, you have to say then that you decide the rules for all restaurants and then you decide that you want to allow them to carry weapons into restaurants."

(A clue that Paul should have stopped going down this rhetorical road -- his mention of "an abstract, obscure conversation from 1964". That phrase screams "FULL STOP" to any political strategist.)

Democrats immediately pounced -- gleefully sending around the clip (as well as another interview Paul gave to National Public Radio that touched on the Civil Right Act) designed to cast the self-proclaimed candidate of the tea party as out-of touch with average voters in the Bluegrass State.

"Rand Paul is running for a narrow political philosophy that has dangerous consequences for working families, veterans, students, the disabled, and those without a voice in the halls of power," said state Attorney General Jack Conway, the Democratic nominee for the seat being vacated by Sen. Jim Bunning (R).

From the Democratic perspective, the aim is clear: kill Paul's candidacy before it has a chance to grow and, in so doing, avoid the mistake that Grayson made in the primary -- allowing Paul to use his grassroots support to build momentum.

Paul, sensing political disaster, released a statement aiming to clarify his statement -- noting that he opposes the repeal of the Civil Rights Act and added that "no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points."

Here's Paul's political problem in two easy steps.

1) He was trying to make a theoretical argument about what role the government does (or should) have telling private businesses what to do. (Weigel has the full explanation of what he believes Paul means here.)

2) Theoretical arguments are stone cold losers in the context of political campaigns.

Paul's primary candidacy did a remarkable job of keeping these sorts of philosophical arguments (or beliefs) far from the limelight as he focused almost exclusively on the idea that he represented a real change in the status quo in Washington.

Paul's opponent -- Secretary of State Trey Grayson -- and groups allied with him did everything they could to send signals to Republican primary voters that Paul's ideas had the potential to cause major problems in a general election where they would be plucked out of the theoretical realm and planted directly in the political one. (One ad -- sponsored by the American Future Fund -- showed a cuckoo popping out of a clock following a series of past statements by Paul.)

While the establishment quickly rallied to Paul -- National Republican Senatorial Committee communications director Brian Walsh issued a statement noting that it was Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights Act -- you can be sure that behind the scenes there is some level of consternation about Paul's tendency to relish philosophical fights that he simply can't win in a political context.

This controversy also speaks to a broader question as it relates to Paul's general election candidacy: will he bow the political conventions that he ran against during the primary or will he continue to assert his independence from traditional political rules and, by doing so, run the risk that the next several months are a series of episodes just like this one?

Paul is a genuine candidate of a movement formed in opposition to the party establishment that they believe did a disservice to conservative principles. It's why we have always been skeptical that a single unity rally -- like the one scheduled for Saturday in Kentucky -- will resolve the significant differences between Paul and Grayson (as well as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell).

Paul's comments virtually ensure that the planned rally will be overshadowed -- at least in part -- by this controversy. How Paul -- and McConnell -- act will be a telling window into how (and if) the two wings of the party can peacefully co-exist heading into the fall.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 20, 2010; 1:18 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Buck, Romanoff look to wins at Colorado assembly
Next: What Democrats won (and what they didn't) in PA-12

Comments

This debate between Ms. Maddow and Rand Paul is a nakedly obvious attempt by an extremely liberal advocate, with the power of the media, who is trying to entrap Paul into saying something she can use against him. He tried to treat the subject of discrimination honestly in which he decried any persecution of persons, while defending the ideas of freedom of thought and expression - constitutional rights that of which she may not know. She tried to dominate him with her unacceptably adversarial approach by asking questions and then not letting him fully answer. Perhaps she learned that in law school Another attempt by media figures to interfere with the selection of Republican nominees for public office - remember John McCain.

Posted by: treedbrent | May 25, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendId=125478331
_______________

Look at this Cheap Illusion-Dispaly Via Fox News's Neal Cavuto and Michael Steele Implying-Projecting the [Tea Party] as Opposite Of...

[Republican Party] Knowing their Both The Same Group...


Who will the [Tea Party] Caucus With ?

Answer: The Republicans

The GOP, Finances Both The GOP & [Tea Party]

Financially Backed By The Republican Money Machine Of [Dick Armey] and His Legion Of Republican Doom.

Rand Paul was Not Celebrating His Victory at the Local Mall Or Strip Mall, Public Park or at an All Access Civic Center, it was Held at a [Private Golf Club] of Rich and Powerful Elitist, who Backed Rand Paul.

Without The Establshment, You Have No Puppets, on either Side, its a Game of who can Out Fox The Local Yocals, to believe "I'm One of You" Rand Paul is an Opthamologist, He's Well to Do and the Son of a Congressman, who Gives the Locals what they want to Hear.

What a Con Game

Posted by: omaarsblade | May 22, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendId=125478331
__________________

Both Kentucky Democrats Garnered More Votes than Rand Paul:

Democrat Conway [226,773]

Mangiardo [221,269]

Libertarian-Republican-Tea Party Candidate Rand Paul Garnered [206,159] Votes

Had Mangiardo not been in the Kentucky Race, Conway would have a Far Larger Vote Total.

Mangiardo will make sure his Voters Vote for Conway, Uh Oh.
____________

Question: In the Primary, How is Rand Paul going to Garner 250,000 More Votes ?

Answer: He won't be able to Make up the Difference, Will Not even Come Close to that Number.

The Illusion of Media, Especially Fox News & AM-Hate Radio, was Democrats Won't be Motivated in Off Election Cycles or that they aren't Energized to Vote...

[Ha]

Posted by: omaarsblade | May 22, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

I read several comments on this page and I have to say, there were more intelligent comments here than there have been for some time. The strip club and republi-con Internet cafe must be closed this morning.

Posted by: rbeigher | May 21, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

The only people who are worse than Repuli-cons are Libertarians like Rand Paul and his daddy, Ron. Libertarians are conservatives gone horribly wrong. Rand Paul not only put his foot in his mouth on the Rachel Maddow show, he continued to insert his foot time and again on Good Morning American when he was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos. The more this moron talks, the more likely it will be that a Democrat will win the seat in Kentucky that is now occupied by another moron, but great ball player, Jim Bunning.

Posted by: rbeigher | May 21, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Paul's Freudian slip is a Tea Party sip into the rhetoric of racial bigotry dunked in his hypocricy.

Posted by: juliewriter1 | May 21, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

See the 5/20 issue of my modest e-mail op-ed e-zine, which is posted at http://www.mytown.ca/green-dog/.

The issue pretty well points out why Rand Paul identifies with the tea bag- er, partiers and vice versa.

I'm a (blush) Kentuckian.

Posted by: JoeWB | May 21, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Quit calling it the "Tea Party," and call it what it really is: THE BIGOT PARTY !

Posted by: thomasmc1957 | May 21, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

The probelm for Democrats is it happen way to early for them to make a big issue of it before election day.. He'll backtrack say it supports the bill and at some point there will be nothing to attack. It's like Obama and Rev Wright.. Obama backed away from him so by election day he was a non issue. Best thing for Paul is he learned a important lesson. Don't get in stupid arguments over things voters aren't thinking about...

Posted by: sovine08 | May 21, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

The libertarian call sounds good, it made Ronald Reagan famous, "Government is the problem." Human activity is much like a sporting contest, individuals and teams out to win. To make the games understandable, there are rules. Extreme libertarians would say, it is fine to have the basic outline (rules) of the game, but let the contestants play the game. There is no need for referees. It is not socialism, but common sense, to suggest that the game will run better with good refs, that the markets would run better with robust regulation. Regulation creates a level playing field in the market place, without which there is chaos. Can there be over-regulation? Of course, but that does not mean that the opposite is desirable. Real regulation, with teeth, applied judiciously is the goal. Good refs are necessary to sports, and good regulation is necessary to the free market system.

Posted by: gss49 | May 21, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Anyone who likes Limbaugh, Palin and Beck will love Rand Paul .

Posted by: WESHS49 | May 21, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Some conservatives are pushing back on this and saying that it really isn't about race. Oddly, I am in agreement with them but not in a way that they might appreciate.

I do not believe Rand Paul is a racist. But, I do believe he is wedded to a political ideology that gives aid and comfort to and directly sustains to the racists in this country. That ideology's philosophical underpinnings come from authoress and philosopher Ayn Rand's works which preach the supremacy of the individual over the state and from the conservative intelligentsia in the persons of Fyodor Hayek, Milton Friedman and Willim Buckley.

The problem with that ideology is that is is as obsolete as is socialism. Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx are dead. Both of their economic philosophies have been tried and found wanting. And both names are invoked to demonize and lionize, respectively.

What we are left with today throughout the world are economies based on the mixed remnants of both failed philosophies. What neither conservative nor liberals appreciate is that Marx's Dialectic--that the contentions of two mutually opposing forces will ultimately fuse into a synthesis of the two--actually turned out to be more true than the purist, absolutist notions of Adam Smith's Unseen Hand.

While much of Smith's Unseen Hand of individual selfishness is still a relevant force in economics, it is of necessity tempered by society's practical desire for a more secure safety net that fends off the natural impetus in capitalism to exploit resources--both human and material--to satisfy selfish motivations for power and wealth.

Lazzez Faire capitalism and pure socialism is as dead as Smith and Marx. The problem with conservatives is that they are forever trying to revive Smith's corpse.

Posted by: jaxas70 | May 21, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Even if this man did not have what I consider dangerous ideas, he's an opthalmologist and while he may be the best opthalmologist in the state of Kentucky- maybe he should have started with a town council seat, or a mayor? Why would his constituency believe that he actually has the tangible ability to operate in the Congress? What is his record of achievement on a local political level that would lead them to believe that he will be able to broker their interests in Congress instead of being a firebrand who will cause continual division?

Posted by: poppysue85 | May 21, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Lane said it perfectly (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/05/no_cheers_for_rand_paul.html):

"...There is no such thing as 'private' discrimination with respect to a public accommodation. Like any other claimed property right, it could not exist without government support."

Posted by: jhpg1 | May 21, 2010 7:13 AM | Report abuse

I had to chuckle when Rand Paul was discussing 'public' transportation being a legitimate area for government regulation, and inferring that it was publicly-owned throughout the country.

In the 1950s and most of the 1960s, 'public' transportation in cities was actually privately owned in the vast majority of the US. In the DC Metro area, the buses were privately owned until July 1, 1973.

Since 'public' transportation was privately owned, according to Mr. Paul that means they could discriminate if they wanted to do that, doesn't it?

Looks like Mr. Paul needs to brush up a bit on his 'history'.

Also, a few years ago, he advocated that Medicare have a $2,000 co-pay (not sure if that was yearly or per procedure). Come to find out that 50% of his ophthalmologic patients are on Medicare. Not the best business decision, IMO. And I thought, since he was an Ayn Rand adherent, that automatically made him a BRILLIANT business person.

Posted by: critter69 | May 21, 2010 6:58 AM | Report abuse

He appears to be dissembling about discrimination in private business... but it's pretty freakin' clear how he feels: he think any business should be able to discriminate.

Ugh.

Posted by: RoughAcresDOTus | May 21, 2010 3:26 AM | Report abuse

Rand Paul isn't a constitutionalist. He's a lunatic.

He believed in magic market forces, in thinking money, and he belongs in a mental hospital alongside everyone else who believes that junk.

Yeah, a diner puts rat poison in the soup and his customers die in convulsive agony in the parking lot, so people stop eating there and markrlet forces solve the problem. So much better than a government regulation.

Good luck with this guy.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 21, 2010 2:00 AM | Report abuse

Rand Paul is a principled Constitutional candidate!!

Our military, law enforcement, and ELECTED OFFICIALS need to HONOR THEIR OATH TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!!!

oathkeepers.org

Posted by: dan_kempf | May 21, 2010 1:40 AM | Report abuse

Maddow was almost obsequiously polite to that thick-witted weasel and still the wingnuts cry ambush because she wouldn't let him get away with not answering the question. And this guy wants to be in the Senate? Does he think he can skate on empty BS about takin' thuh country back an' freedm freedm freedm?

The press really fell down in the job letting this whack job get the nomination... poor Republicans are stuck with him now.

Six months of evading questions alternating with made-for-opposition-advertising unhinged junk. Good luck with this guy..

Posted by: Noacoler | May 21, 2010 1:16 AM | Report abuse

Teabagger Libertarianism is Anarchy-Lite


Teabagger Libertarianism is Social Darwinism


Teabagger Libertarianism is a means to justify selfishness


Teabagger Libertarianism is inherently is anti-civil rights, ant-labor rights and anti-environmentalism

Posted by: DrainYou | May 21, 2010 1:08 AM | Report abuse

I couldn't believe how he babbled on for at least five minutes without every coming close to answering the question. The history "lessons" he tried to provide, just highlighted the fact that he was trying to dodge the answer.

It got to the point where his voice was as annoying as the braying of the former half-term governor of Alaska.

They can defend him all they want, this problem is not going to go away.

Until he can answer the question in one sentence, believably and in a way that satisfies the majority of KY voters, Rand Paul is toast.

Posted by: lithium452 | May 21, 2010 12:57 AM | Report abuse

I couldn't believe how he rambled on for at least five minutes without every coming close to answering the question. The history "lessons" he tried to provide, just highlighted the fact that he was trying to dodge the answer.

It got to the point where his voice was as annoying as the braying of the former half-term governor of Alaska.

They can defend him all they want, this problem is not going to go away.

Until he can answer the question in one sentence, believably and in a way that satisfies the majority of KY voters, Rand Paul is toast.

Posted by: lithium452 | May 21, 2010 12:55 AM | Report abuse

An impressive performance by Paul. He certainly is a principled, gentlemanly and thoughtful guy. (What's he doing in politics?)

He's a libertarian. Of course he's not in favor of Title 10 (the government dictating clientele to private business). It is indeed a step down the slippery slope of outlawing beliefs and compromising (if not eviscerating) the First Amendment.

The operatives trying to freak-show Paul have the same mindset as the instigator of an intolerant lynch mob: If you don't think we should have the power to dictate, we will destroy you.

Posted by: threedy | May 21, 2010 12:34 AM | Report abuse

An impressive performance by Paul. He certainly is a principled, gentlemanly and thoughtful guy. (What's he doing in politics?)

He's a libertarian. Of course he's not in favor of Title 10 (the government dictating clientele to private business). It is indeed a step down the slippery slope of outlawing beliefs and compromising (if not eviscerating) the First Amendment.

The operatives trying to freak-show Paul have the same mindset as the instigator of an intolerant lynch mob: If you don't think we should have the power to dictate, we will destroy you.

Posted by: threedy | May 21, 2010 12:34 AM | Report abuse

An impressive performance by Paul. He certainly is a principled, gentlemanly and thoughtful guy. (What's he doing in politics?)

He's a libertarian. Of course he's not in favor of Title 10 (the government dictating clientele to private business). It is indeed a step down the slippery slope of outlawing beliefs and compromising (if not eviscerating) the First Amendment.

The operatives trying to freak-show Paul have the same mindset as the instigator of an intolerant lynch mob: If you don't think we should have the power to dictate, we will destroy you.

Posted by: threedy | May 21, 2010 12:34 AM | Report abuse

The quality of this debate is impaired by Rand Paul's poor organization of his sentences. To clarify theory of government at the level he addresses requires spontaneous, ingratiating speech which has the quality of a finely edited essay. Until Barack Obama appeared, we assumed this was too much to ask of a mortal. Now that we have his example, we no longer have an excuse for our rhetorical sinfulness.

Posted by: c-u-r-m-u-d-g-e-o-n | May 21, 2010 12:02 AM | Report abuse

Heretofore, the Republicans would carefully distance themselves from the kooks, just as Democrats do. It isn't hard. What happened here is astonishing, it would be like Jeremiah Wright attacked Obama, then won a primary and the Democrats were fine with that.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 20, 2010 11:39 PM | Report abuse

I nearly fell out of my chair laughing last night when Ayn Rand Paul was trying to equate Guns with Black People on Maddow's show.


These Teabagger clowns who try to pass themselves off as Constitutional intellectuals are hilarious....and scary.


Obviously, the tea party adulation, in all its authoritarian and uncritical glory, did not prepare Rand Paul for prime time. He's clearly uncomfortable with follow up questions and being confronted with his own stances. Even though he brought it on himself by telling the Louisville Courier-Journal and NPR that he thought the Civil Rights Act should be done away with, Paul whines about "red herrings" and that the act is forty years old, so why is anyone asking him about it?


Memo to Teabaggers:


Guns = Property


Black People = PEOPLE!


http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/rachel-maddow-corners-rand-paul-his-e


Posted by: DrainYou | May 20, 2010 11:32 PM | Report abuse

"Republican Senatorial Committee communications director Brian Walsh issued a statement noting that it was Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights Act."

Amazing how they keep dragging up this old chestnut. They never mention that just about all of those filibustering Democrats joined the GOP in protest at Civil Rights, as did all the Southern voters who couldn't live with the idea of rights for blacks. That's what the Southern GOP is made of - people who couldn't live with Civil Rights.

Posted by: JenDray | May 20, 2010 11:29 PM | Report abuse

d, I find it comical how the MSM has put blinders on to prevent the general public from knowing just who the Pauls are.

The MSM rarely if ever mentions the "Ron Paul Newsletter" and his "Political Report," which contain some of the most racist sewage ever written. The Pauls have been talking this bigoted junk for decades but the press kept it under wraps.

Oh well.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 20, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Read the link: Rand Paul shows that the acorn does not fall far from the bigot tree:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/248564

Posted by: drindl | May 20, 2010 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul, Rand's dad and hero:

'The New Republic also re-prints a number of excerpts from the newsletters in a companion article, and provides PDF links to the newsletters themselves. Some key points:
Analysis of the Los Angeles riots of 1992:

Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.

A 1990 newsletter describes Martin Luther King Jr. as a communist sympathizer and "a world-class adulterer" who "seduced underage girls and boys" and "replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration." In February of 1991, the civil rights leaders is referred to as "the x-rated Martin Luther King".
In June of 1990 the newsletter states:

I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.

In October of 1992, advice is given on how to best protect oneself from the "urban youth"; advice which encourages illegal activity:

"If you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example).

A solicitation letter for The Ron Paul Investment Letter and the Ron Paul Political Report - which is written on "Congressman Ron Paul" stationary and signed by Paul, includes the words:

I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove--perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica.

The same letter urges people to act now to send them their money, because the government was about to switch the American Dollar with "new money"

There's no time to waste. The new money may not come out until next year. Or it may be imposed tomorrow. You should subscribe today."


Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Glenn Beck -- it's all about money and investing in their gold companies. It's very simple -- only the simple-minded don't quite get it.

Posted by: drindl | May 20, 2010 11:10 PM | Report abuse

"Uh Sarah??? Sarah??? I think you be very quiet about all of this. What? For once you have nothing to say about YOUR Teaparty?...That's what I thought. You Betcha!

Posted by: david865 | May 20, 2010 10:54 PM"
_____________

Sadly, we know what Palin thinks on the subject. Google "Palin" and "Gregory Charles Royal."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 20, 2010 11:05 PM | Report abuse

Uh Sarah??? Sarah??? I think you be very quiet about all of this. What? For once you have nothing to say about YOUR Teaparty?...That's what I thought. You Betcha!

Posted by: david865 | May 20, 2010 10:54 PM | Report abuse

By this standard, Harry reid should be dead meat!

Posted by: 15of18 | May 20, 2010 10:46 PM | Report abuse

I am talking to you Karl, Club for Growth, Chamber of Commerce, you too Michael, the RNC needs to embrace Rand Paul now. You did not create him, but he is all yours. But since you did not create him, he owes you nothing.

Hey Michael?
Do you know what your party thinks of you?
Well do ya, Punk?

Posted by: shrink2 | May 20, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

This was a great day for leftists.

The Ron/Rand relationship with the Republican Party is consummated. Enjoy the warm glow Republicans, your house afire is probably someone else's problem. Embrace the libertarians, embrace the libertarians, warmly.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 20, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse

My guess is that Paul will not do well come election time. As such, Paul's thoughts on anything don't amount to much for me but his positions do make me wonder if the rest of the TP'ers are of the same mind.

Posted by: hoser3 | May 20, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

"Actually, it is precisely because....

[Idiotic rationalization of Rand Paul's racist meltdown on Rachel Maddow's show omitted]

Posted by: CincinnatiRIck | May 20, 2010 9:59 PM"
__________________

Just shortened it up a bit, CRick. All the best. One question: Your white sheets. Starch or no starch?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 20, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Actually, it is precisely because, unlike our President or Attorney General, Paul has read the law that he is commenting on, that he understood the difference between the tenth title of that Act and the other nine.

Trying to "educate" Maddow is a fool's errand. And so perhaps, Paul is the fool, but not for his views. I just listened to the entire conversation and so far from "demolishing" Paul, Maddow was a study in obtuseness. Now I don't agree with Paul (or his father) in their libertarian views but, over and over, Paul patiently and consistently explained his distinction between "public" and "private." Maddow, intent on a "gotcha" rather than educational interview, either couldn't or wouldn't get it. I don't know that Paul "won" anything in this confrontation but Maddow's credibility certainly lost.

I was impressed with Paul's patience, his ability to disagree without being disagreeable and his willingness to go forth into a hostile venue in an attempt to elucidate his views. I might not vote for him but now I could at least feel that, in addition to being a breath of fresh air, he might make a principled and honest legislator. Well, perhaps I'm just repeating myself insofar as that, too, would be a breath of fresh air.

Paul is affirming support for nine of the ten titles of the Civil RIghts Act and says he would have marched with MLK against governmental discrimination. He also said he would have supported the sit-ins at the Woolworth lunch counters...his problem is with the government appropriating private property rights without compensation. He is questioning (or at least saying we should be open to a discussion of) the wisdom of that tenth title...the one that gets into private as opposed to public discrimination. This is a difficult conversation but, if one is intellectually honest, one that needs to be had. The problem is that this subject is emotionally charged...we could delve into it with far more civility and rationality if say the Kelo decision was the vehicle. But Maddow was not interested in enlightenment and kept going for a killer sound bite instead.

The question that will be settled in Kentucky now is whether it is wise, in a political campaign, to be as honest and deep about such an emotional issue as Paul is being. He is gambling on a level of maturity in the audience. Obviously that gamble was ill-considered where Maddow is concerned but one must give him credit for trying.

Posted by: CincinnatiRIck | May 20, 2010 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Yeah yvonne I bet you were outside the White House protesting the Patriot Act, weren't you.

You cretins are always seeing monsters, wrapping yourselves around the axle over imagined "tyranny" when a Democrat is in office yet yet cheerleading bona fide attacks on liberty by Republicans.

As if any of you knucklewalkers actually know anything about the Constitution. It's just a word you like to throw around.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 9:18 PM
---------
As a matter of fact Noacoler, I was and I also protested the Iraq War. All your party wants from you (Democrat or Republican), is your vote, then you can go back to sleep.

Posted by: yvonne3 | May 20, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Moron...maybe the giddy commentary by Cilizza will come down to earth finally...

Posted by: LABC | May 20, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Moron...maybe the giddy, lisping commentary by Cilizza will come down to earth...

Posted by: LABC | May 20, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Moron...maybe the giddy, lisping commentary by Cilizza will come down to earth...

Posted by: LABC | May 20, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Brig-ade (aka prison-water), you want a Ron Paul hate fix like jweiss1 did. Here's a straight-up, mainlined uncut hit for you. Ouch.
______________

"A solicitation letter for The Ron Paul Investment Letter and the Ron Paul Political Report - which is written on "Congressman Ron Paul" stationary and signed by Paul, includes the words:
I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove--perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica."

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/248564
____________

BTW, brig-ade, is hate a renewable or non-renewable energy source. Just askin'.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 20, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Moron...maybe the giddy, lisping commentary by Cilizza will come down to earth...

Posted by: LABC | May 20, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Actually, it is precisely because, unlike our President or Attorney General, Paul has read the law that he is commenting on, that he understood the difference between the tenth title of that Act and the other nine.

Trying to "educate" Maddow is a fool's errand. And so perhaps, Paul is the fool, but not for his views. I just listened to the entire conversation and so far from "demolishing" Paul, Maddow was a study in obtuseness. Now I don't agree with Paul (or his father) in their libertarian views but, over and over, Paul patiently and consistently explained his distinction between "public" and "private." Maddow, intent on a "gotcha" rather than educational interview, either couldn't or wouldn't get it. I don't know that Paul "won" anything in this confrontation but Maddow's credibility certainly lost.

I was impressed with Paul's patience, his ability to disagree without being disagreeable and his willingness to go forth into a hostile venue in an attempt to elucidate his views. I might not vote for him but now I could at least feel that, in addition to being a breath of fresh air, he might make a principled and honest legislator. Well, perhaps I'm just repeating myself insofar as that, too, would be a breath of fresh air.

Paul is affirming support for nine of the ten titles of the Civil RIghts Act and says he would have marched with MLK against governmental discrimination. He also said he would have supported the sit-ins at the Woolworth lunch counters...his problem is with the government appropriating private property rights without compensation. He is questioning (or at least saying we should be open to a discussion of) the wisdom of that tenth title...the one that gets into private as opposed to public discrimination. This is a difficult conversation but, if one is intellectually honest, one that needs to be had. The problem is that this subject is emotionally charged...we could delve into it with far more civility and rationality if say the Kelo decision was the vehicle. But Maddow was not interested in enlightenment and kept going for a killer sound bite instead.

The question that will be settled in Kentucky now is whether it is wise, in a political campaign, to be as honest and deep about such an emotional issue as Paul is being. He is gambling on a level of maturity in the audience. Obviously that gamble was ill-considered where Maddow is concerned but one must give him credit for trying.

Posted by: CincinnatiRIck | May 20, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul and Rev Wright, perfect together.

Posted by: Really5 | May 20, 2010 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe quoted from Ron Paul,
"As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."

Has he been reading your mail?


Posted by: Brigade | May 20, 2010 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Bigsurmac wrote,
"Some of the fence-straddlers on this website are attempting to question the credentials of Southern Democrats (Harry Truman< Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and William J. Clinton) as honestly supporting civil human rights.
Through the past six decades, the heavy lifting for non-discrimination, desegregation and human rights for everyone -=- has been accomplished by the Deomocratic Party -- with steadfast opposition presented by the GOP."

Just spewing this sort of gibberish doesn't make it true. Harry Truman was from Missouri. Lyndon Johnson gets credit for the Civil Rights Act. Most of the Southern Democrats don't. Bill Clinton was, what, 16 years old when the Civil Rights Act was passed? Jimmy Carter was a state congressman in Georgia when Lester Maddox was governor. I can be pretty safe in promising you that you didn't hear anything about civil rights from Jimmy Carter's mouth until AFTER the law was passed.

Amazing how all the southern Democrats supposedly couldn't wait to run to the Republican party and cozy up to Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and all the Republicans who helped overcome the filibusters and pass CRA. NAACP Chairman Roy Wilkins presented Dirksen with a special award for his leadership on the Civil Rights legislation.

Sometimes the facts just don't fit the legend.

Posted by: Brigade | May 20, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Repeal is as much a part of the Bill of Rights as extension. It's happened before. Ever hear of Prohibition? The Volstead Act? AKA the 18th Amendment?

I think the Second should be repealed and all those "cold dead fingers" people taken up on that pledge.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Ron-Ron is Ron Paul of "Ron Paul Newsletter" fame. You know, Randy's Dad. What's Ron's Newsletter about? Well...
_________________

"The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King Jr. -- described as a "pro-Communist philanderer." One newsletter, from June 1992, right after the LA riots, says "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

Another says, "The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible.""

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 20, 2010 9:32 PM | Report abuse

yeah it's "elistist" to not wholeheartedly embrace every fetish that some dork regards as a liberty.

Dork.

I would just LOVE to see all those RKBA lunatics go up against the cops and get gunned down, probably end up raising the national IQ by 28 points.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Noacole;
"Yeah yvonne I bet you were outside the White House protesting the Patriot Act, weren't you."

And I'll bet you are texting from outside the White House protesting Obama as he has extended and revised that same Patriot Act.

Posted by: jonweiss1 | May 20, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Active in Republican party campaigns from the late 1930s through the 40s, 50s and 60s --until the lying, thieving, corrupt Dixie-Crats carried their political treasuries to the GOP and were welcomed with open arms.
That move was based totally upon passage of the Civil Rights Act. PERIOD.
Dr. Paul is seeking to save his NeoCon cake and eat it.
He is frantically trying to straddle a barbed-wire fence, without experiencing a pierced posterior.
Having experienced that situation with barbed wire fences many times in my youth,
I can assure Dr. Paul the simple act of straddling a three or four wire barbed wire fence was no challenge compared with his present effort to straddle what amounts to a roll of concertina wire.
Some of the fence-straddlers on this website are attempting to question the credentials of Southern Democrats (Harry Truman< Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and William J. Clinton) as honestly supporting civil human rights.
Through the past six decades, the heavy lifting for non-discrimination, desegregation and human rights for everyone -=- has been accomplished by the Deomocratic Party -- with steadfast opposition presented by the GOP.
Sadly, Jim Crow is rearing his bestial head with tea bags dangling from Ol' Jim's hat brim.
Mostly aging, reactionary Tea Party voices are raised to destroy a future for their grand0children and great-grandchildren.
Thankfully, the young people have their eyes on the future and are not mired in a tragic and sordid racist past.

Posted by: bigsurmac | May 20, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Active in Republican party campaigns from the late 1930s through the 40s, 50s and 60s --until the lying, thieving, corrupt Dixie-Crats carried their political treasuries to the GOP and were welcomed with open arms.
That move was based totally upon passage of the Civil Rights Act. PERIOD.
Dr. Paul is seeking to save his NeoCon cake and eat it.
He is frantically trying to straddle a barbed-wire fence, without experiencing a pierced posterior.
Having experienced that situation with barbed wire fences many times in my youth,
I can assure Dr. Paul the simple act of straddling a three or four wire barbed wire fence was no challenge compared with his present effort to straddle what amounts to a roll of concertina wire.
Some of the fence-straddlers on this website are attempting to question the credentials of Southern Democrats (Harry Truman< Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and William J. Clinton) as honestly supporting civil human rights.
Through the past six decades, the heavy lifting for non-discrimination, desegregation and human rights for everyone -=- has been accomplished by the Deomocratic Party -- with steadfast opposition presented by the GOP.
Sadly, Jim Crow is rearing his bestial head with tea bags dangling from Ol' Jim's hat brim.
Mostly aging, reactionary Tea Party voices are raised to destroy a future for their grand0children and great-grandchildren.
Thankfully, the young people have their eyes on the future and are not mired in a tragic and sordid racist past.

Posted by: bigsurmac | May 20, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler wrote,
"actually johnweiss I'm not really all that concerned about freedom"

I've noticed that about you liberals.

Posted by: Brigade | May 20, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler wrote;

"I'm not really all that concerned about freedom"

This is quite evident by your comments.

"fetishizing unimportant freedoms like gun ownership"

As I said, I consider ALL of the Bill of rights as vital, I do not pick and choose the ones I like to endorse. You apparently, feel elitist enough to think that you are qualified to make decisions on what is important and what is not, thanks for revealing your penchant for dictatorial power, just like you hero...Obama.

"I'm a lot more interested in seeing responsibility catch up to freedom than in expanding freedom, and I've said many times that I favor the repeal of the Second Amendment."

It is fully evident that you abhor any expansion of freedom, since freedom is abhorrent to liberals. That you advocate repealing any of the Bill of Rights comes as no surprise.

And by the way, nice dodge by changing the subject.

Posted by: jonweiss1 | May 20, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Yeah yvonne I bet you were outside the White House protesting the Patriot Act, weren't you.

You cretins are always seeing monsters, wrapping yourselves around the axle over imagined "tyranny" when a Democrat is in office yet yet cheerleading bona fide attacks on liberty by Republicans.

As if any of you knucklewalkers actually know anything about the Constitution. It's just a word you like to throw around.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Ugh. I am SO out of it. I need help.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 8:53 PM

We've already figured that out.

Posted by: Brigade | May 20, 2010 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Brig-ade, will you join Randy and Ron-Ron for some white grape juice or white wine? Later, they will have a special reading of excerpts from Turner Diaries followed by a showing of Birth of a Nation (Director's Cut). Shaz-aaam.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 20, 2010 8:30 PM
------

You lost me there. Who's Ron-Ron?

Posted by: Brigade | May 20, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

actually johnweiss I'm not really all that concerned about freedom, seeing what a hash we Americans have made of it, fetishizing unimportant freedoms like gun ownership and ignoring freedoms that really matter, like a free press.

I'm a lot more interested in seeing responsibility catch up to freedom than in expanding freedom, and I've said many times that I favor the repeal of the Second Amendment.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 9:07 PM | Report abuse

No matter what color you are or what political party you call yourself, you'll find racism. Right now the majority of racism appears to be coming from the democratic side, you people just can't see beyond the color of a persons skin. Is Rand Paul a racist? I think not, he's a constitutionalist, he believes in the liberties of all americans. Every politician takes an oath to protect the Constitution of the US but very few take it seriously and as a result We the People continue to loose our rights. Wake up!

Just an American expressing my freedom to speak, while we still have that freedom.

Posted by: yvonne3 | May 20, 2010 9:05 PM | Report abuse

So, what did we learn today?

We knew there are intellectual places where the two political parties have no real difference: lies, corruption and pandering.

Neither are fiscal conservatives. They blow money on their agendas and they scrimp and save when it comes to the other. Both parties want to shove their values and rules into everyones' lives.

So, our politics are really social, the culture war is what we are doing, Republican social values versus Democratic social values.

Is it possible? We could become a lot more like like Pakistan than we are like Canada?

Left and Right are different. That might seem silly, but for a long time we have been hearing about how they are not.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 20, 2010 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler wrote,
"...because of the father who raised him, the despicable bigot..."

Al Gore?

Posted by: Brigade | May 20, 2010 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Hey slopehead read what I said below about racists and free speech

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler,

Funny innit how all these conservatives see the essence of the Constititution as protecting not only insavory speech but specifically racist speech...
---------------------------------
It's even more comical how the 'freedom loving' liberals are, "oh so concerned" with freedom, until it comes to speech they happen to disagree with. It is unfortunate that they are so narrow minded, that they cannot seem to distinguish the difference between tyranny and freedom, and in fact embrace tyranny as freedom.

Posted by: jonweiss1 | May 20, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Funny innit how all these conservatives see the essence of the Constititution as protecting not only insavory speech but specifically racist speech, and the only racism they're really concerned about is mostly imagined racism against whites.

Yes, let nobody impugn the quintessential small-town authenticity of stupid crackers.

Ugh. I am SO out of here.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler wrote,
"Then why did southern Democrats switch to the Republican Party en masse when the CRA was passed? Was that because they were all in favor of civil rights and saw the GOP as more to their liking?"

More nonsense. Yeah right, Robert Byrd, Al Gore Sr., J. William Fullbright (Bill Clinton's mentor), George Wallace, Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, they all became Republicans. Hell, I'll bet Jimmy Carter is actually a Republican.

Posted by: Brigade | May 20, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe,

You seem to be a Rand/Ron Paul-ite experiencing withdrawal symptoms.

LOL @ U, I voted against Paul in the recent election, but alas Trey Grayson lost. I am simply a person who has read the Constitution and understand that the First Amendment (Free Speech portion) is actually a part of the Bill Of Rights, something that the people here seem to have missed. I did get an especially good chuckle out of the attempts by the left wing liberal loons here, to say that they advocate free speech, but at the same time, seem too clueless to comprehend that restricting speech, even if the speaker is a bigot, is a refutation of their own position.

Then for you to cite the daily KOOKs as a credible source is on par with three stooges slapstick for a great laugh.

Posted by: jonweiss1 | May 20, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

@noa: it's hard to believe that Boehner/McConnell believe that Paul relitigating the issue of segregated public accommodations in 2010 is a winning strategy. This may doom Fix's dream of a GOP takeover of the House and Senate, a false narrative he's been pushing all year.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 20, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Oh, Rand doesn't want to repeal the CRA, natcherly natcherly, he just doesn't want it enforced. Which means, operationally, the same as repealing it.

Watch the wingnuts feign to not get this point.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 3:28 PM
-------

For a moment I wasn't sure if you were talking about Rand and the CRA or Obama and Federal Immigration Law. Not enforcing; same as repealing.
Watch the wingnuts feign not to get this point.

Posted by: Brigade | May 20, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

That's right Brigade, most of the Dixiecrats who became Republicans are dead. Thanks for taking a pointless dodge for a precious kernel of gotcha. Revel in your victory, troll.

Those who are still alive, however, form the base of your precious pee party movement

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler wrote,
"And libertarians will never get past the "distant third" label because they are lunatics and dreamer, to say nothing of grimly inhumane."

Some more of your faulty analysis. Barack Obama possesses these same qualities, and they didn't slow him down a step.

Posted by: Brigade | May 20, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Brig-ade, will you join Randy and Ron-Ron for some white grape juice or white wine? Later, they will have a special reading of excerpts from Turner Diaries followed by a showing of Birth of a Nation (Director's Cut). Shaz-aaam.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 20, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Chris -

Please explain why you allow the NRSC Communication Director's statement that "it was Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights Act" to go without comment or challenge? For instance, is it not also true that many of those Democrats were "Dixiecrats" who have since migrated to the Republican Party.

It's like saying that Democrats are opposed to civil rights because most slaveholders in 1860 were Democrats, and that Republicans are champions of civil rights because Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Who honestly believes that Abraham Lincoln would be a Republican today, or that the Republicans would even want him in their party?

Posted by: grandma01 | May 20, 2010 1:38 PM
---------

There were a number of posts today promoting this liberal nonsense. If you want to say that all of the racists today are Republicans, then knock yourself out. But if you want to say that all of the Dixiecrats became Republicans then you are simply a fool.

Most all of the Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act are dead, not Republican. The exception would be Robert Byrd, and I can never really tell whether he's dead yet or not. They didn't have to become Republicans, they just had to become bigger liars than they already were, and people like you swallowed the lies hook, line and sinker. Al Gore tries to rewrite history by saying his father was a Civil Rights pioneer. His father was an unrepentant racist who did everything in his power to stop the Civil Rights Act from becoming law. Failing that, he offered an amendment which would have made the legislation inconsequential and which was soundly defeated. And he sent his son to a "whites only" private school.

The next time you want to claim these southern Democrats became the Republicans of today, why not sweeten the story by mentioning such things as Medicare and Social Security which they and their ilk worked to pass. Republicans of today indeed.

Posted by: Brigade | May 20, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler,
And only a right wing nutjob would equate restoring the right to discriminate as a form of free speech.

You're some kind of slope-headed throwback.
---------------------------------------------

Isn't it wonderful that a person can object to bigotry and then resort to name calling all in one written statement? It is equally amusing that a person can advocate civil rights while at the same time justifying the limiting of free speech. Truly the sign of a twisted mind.

Posted by: jonweiss1 | May 20, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

jweiss1:

You seem to be a Rand/Ron Paul-ite experiencing withdrawal symptoms. So let us give you a quick Ron Paul fix, an injection of pure uncut burning hate.

From the "Ron Paul Political Report":

"Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740

Feeling better now, jweiss1? There's a lot more of this kind of "wit and wisdom" from Mr. Ron if you'd like to read it. LOL.

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

What is especially galling about Paul's critics is the hypocrisy coming from the professional race hustlers of the Left, like Jesse Jackson. Jackson's own son, Jesse Jr....who's salary is paid by tax payers and who is a public servant...belongs to the Congressional Black Caucus. How many non-black members does that publicly funded group have? NONE. A white member of Congress, Steve Cohen, tried to join...but was refused because he is not black. THAT is racism, pure and simple...as well as blatant hypocrisy. Perhaps Rachel Maddow can ask some of the CBC members to explain their racist policy?

Posted by: cjb56 | May 20, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Its amazing that you can watch this video of Rand Paul NEVER answering the question and the American people NEVER call the politicians on this tactic! This has become the standard for political interviews, change the subject, start talking about something else, skirt the issue, but NEVER answer a question with your true beliefs. If I had to guess, based on this interview, he thinks that people should be able to discriminate in private if they want to. If that's what he thinks, why doesn't he say so - afraid he won't get the seat! If you ask me, he is full of you know what...I for one would like to see some concrete answers about exactly what things in "big government" he thinks we should do without - medicare? social security? the Tea Partiers only talk rhetoric but no specifics...it's hard to have a logical debate with them because they seem to simply ride on their hatred of everything and everyone who is not one of them!

Posted by: denverrick1 | May 20, 2010 8:14 PM | Report abuse

I don't see how it's possible to say "I oppose racism," and at the same time say "I see nothing wrong in supporting someone else's right to engage in racist behavior."

Oh wait... I forgot that the ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth is a prerequisite for public service. Elect him, he'll fit right in.

Posted by: Nemo5 | May 20, 2010 2:50 PM

-------

You must have been in rehab when all the crap about Sotomayor and the New Haven firefighters hit the fan. There was a decision---overturned by the US Supreme Court---which said it was okay to disregard test results that were to be used for promotions because the people who tested best were too white.

Now you know: it's possible to 'oppose racism', at least in theory, and still support 'someone else's right to engage in racist behavior.' I guess Sotomayor talks out of both sides of her mouth.

Posted by: Brigade | May 20, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Just what we need, another stupid, conservative Republican in the senate.

Posted by: janye1 | May 20, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Fix: "Paul is a genuine candidate of a movement formed in opposition to the party establishment that they believe did a disservice to conservative principles."
_______________________________

You mean "conservative principles" like segregated lunch counters, "living while brown" racial profiling laws, abolition of the Civil Rights Act, abolition of the Americans with Disabilities Act, reinstitution of literacy tests for voters, carrying misspelled n-word signs at public rallies, and spitting in the faces of black congressmen.

Are those the "principles" to which you are referring?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 20, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

This is what happens when you push a Libertarian anti-tax private-enterprise freak's buttons: the racism comes out.

Libertarians hate paying taxes because their "hard-earned" money (private property) is "stolen" from them by the government and "their" wealth is redistributed (socialism) to the lazy shiftless descendants of slaves and illegal immigrants who contribute “nothing” to society.

Posted by: bettypagelookalike | May 20, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Your words make it evident that there is nothing better in the mind of a left wing loon, to attack a persons credibility, than unsubstantiated innuendo. And only in the mind of a left wing loon can advocating free speech, be equated with advocating a return to Jim Crow.

==

And only a right wing nutjob would equate restoring the right to discriminate as a form of free speech.

You're some kind of slope-headed throwback.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

As you can see from all the rightwing bile on this thread, shrink, this is going to be one of the ugliest and most divisive elections we've had. it will certainly be a referendum on Obama's -- race.


Posted by: drindl | May 20, 2010 3:00 PM
-------

"Rand Paul ought to be checked at the door, but then again, it is Kentucky."

BEST COMMENT OF THE DAY!

Posted by: drindl | May 20, 2010 3:03 PM

You can always count on Drindl for some of the less thoughtful posts. Keep playing the race card; it's the only one left in the deck. Talk about being a few cards short.

"it is Kentucky" Hardee, Har, Har. Great humor. No regional bigotry here, at least not much. Is it just whites in Kentucy who have feeble minds, or would it be the (gasp) blacks, too?

I guess no one's told you that the two Kentucky senators' votes count exactly the same as the two senators' votes from your state. Of course I've kinda gotten it that you usually don't know what you're talking about. That's why all the cutting and pasting.

Posted by: Brigade | May 20, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe

There's no walking back from calling for a return to the days of segregated lunch counters and Jim Crow. Congressman Clyburn has even suggested that the country club which held Randy's victory party was likely, shall we say, "restricted." Sounds likely to me.
-------------------------------------------
Yep,

Your words make it evident that there is nothing better in the mind of a left wing loon, to attack a persons credibility, than unsubstantiated innuendo. And only in the mind of a left wing loon can advocating free speech, be equated with advocating a return to Jim Crow.

Posted by: jonweiss1 | May 20, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

janet8, you are pathetic. If that's your idea of a hit job, you are a weak little worm who has no business anywhere near discussion of politics.

Paul is a weasel. plain and simple.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 20, 2010 3:16 PM
-------

Check this out, Noacoler. One of your buddies. And you accuse me of being snarky and argumentative.

Posted by: Brigade | May 20, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Randy's quicky shopping list at Piggly Wiggly:

White potatoes
White toilet tissue
Clorox Bleach
White Onions
White Fish
White writing paper
White bread
Ivory Soap
White beans
White rice

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 20, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

democrats are really pressing their luck with the lengths they are willing to go to to drag race into any argument so they can call people racists. playing games on this subject is not something americans have any tolerance for.

Posted by: dummypants | May 20, 2010 3:19 PM
-------

In this political environment, that's just about the only card they have to play. Look to see it again and again. What was disconcerting about Rand Paul's performance last night: a five year old would have known he was going to get hit with the race card, and Paul seemed unprepared.

Posted by: Brigade | May 20, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Racist Rand? Toast.

There's no walking back from calling for a return to the days of segregated lunch counters and Jim Crow. Congressman Clyburn has even suggested that the country club which held Randy's victory party was likely, shall we say, "restricted." Sounds likely to me.

Henceforth, let there be no further blather from the Fix about Rand and his baggers being, as he has called them, "quasi-libertarians," por favor.

When you go on national TV and support private businesses' right to discriminate against blacks and express opposition to the Civil Rights Act, as Randy did, you exposed yourself as -- how do we put this delicately? -- a BIGOT. Also, if you are an apologist for his longings for Jim Crow segregation, you are, by definition, a BIGOT.

Of course, the racist rantings of Randy's Dad in the "Ron Paul Newsletter," give you some idea as to where Randy got his odd ideas about civil rights and blacks from. Like Father, Like Son.

From newsone.com's excellent expose on Ron Paul's newsletters:

"In this story Ron Paul writes about “needlin” and blames packs of young black girls for spreading AIDS to white women. I could find no evidence of this “epidemic” and the article seems to have no point other than to make white people scared of Black people.
* * * *
In this piece he criticizes Martin Luther King as a pro-communist philanderer and says the MLK holiday is “Hate Whitey Day.” This is in great contrast to 2008 when he told Wolf Blitzer that Martin Luther King was one of his heroes. When activists suggested naming a city after Martin Luther King Paul suggested other names such as “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis.”
* * * *
In another piece he blamed Black people for the riots that happened in Chicago in 1992 after the Bulls won the NBA Championship."

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/
_____________________

Special thanks to Rachel Maddow for exposing this racist Randy. The MSM knew what Randy was about long ago but had every intention of covering it up until after he was installed in the Senate, kinda what they did for George Allen (they knew about him long before Macaca). Dr. Maddow sorta messed up that plan. Big Time.

Case closed.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 20, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

You tea tards do realize that not one person in Congress who opposed the Civil Rights Act was a liberal, right? They were CONSERVATIVES, just like you. You can't have it both ways.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 20, 2010 3:29 PM
-------

Koolkat is the real deal. A genuine mooncalf. I'm a conservative and I don't/didn't oppose civil rights. The recently elected Pennsylvanian Critz seems to be fairly conservative, but he's still a Democrat. Can't have it both ways, huh?

Posted by: Brigade | May 20, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

frederick2 wrote,
"This is most troubling development. We can see how white men are just holding on to things and return to good old days. I understand -- im white and 70, but fellows that old world is gone -- as it should be . . .
The R. Pauls live in a dream world of mint julips. It's over. Soon white people will be in the minority -- it can't happen to soon for me --"

You could help things along by checking out right now.


Posted by: Brigade | May 20, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Unlimited government? Where do you come up with this, after the GOP bailed out Wall Street and Detroit?

Your head is in a very bad smelling place—

Posted by: lichtme | May 20, 2010 2:57 PM

-------

You'd better hurry up and get the word out. Obama and the Democrats are trying to take credit for bailing out Wall Street and Detroit. They keep saying something about avoiding a depression.

Oh, and your tongue is in a very bad smelling place.

Posted by: Brigade | May 20, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Reading these comments from the Obamabots are truly comical to view. You pompously sit at your computers and type "racist" about Rand Paul because he supports free speech, yet not one word from the loony left when Barry Obama broadcasts on world wide television, demonstrating his own bigotry, when he appealed to the African-American, Asian, Latinos, and women (but no appeal to Caucasian males) to work for victory in the upcoming elections. Apparently, to Obama white men need not be involved in the election process.

Posted by: jonweiss1 | May 20, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

hahahahaha, oh hohoohoohho this is going to be good.

Until someone gets shot.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 3:21 PM

Isn't that supposed to be 'until someone loses an eye?'

Posted by: Brigade | May 20, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Poor Rand. Talk about getting off on the wrong foot. He seems to have a bad case of political naivete. What was he doing on Rachel Maddow's show the day after he won his primary? Doesn't he or anyone on his team know anything about her? Hillary Clinton managed her first campaign for the senate without accepting any hostile interviews.

And he obviously isn't too good at controlling an interview. I seem to recall that the issue of whether privately owned businesses which are open to the public can discriminate on the basis of race was debated and settled about 50 years ago. I suppose if someone asked him for two good reasons why Kentucky was right to secede from the Union in 1861 he'd try to come up with a couple.

It's just not good politics to be debating the Civil Rights Act in 2010.

Posted by: Brigade | May 20, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

bgjd1979,
So Paul claims he isn't a racist, but believes business people should have the freedom to not only be racist, but to treat minorities in a disgusting, humiliating and inhuman way.
----------------------------------------
And apparently you feel that anyone who is a Bigot should be denied the very rights they seek to deny those of another race, how very bigoted of you. I advocate free speech, I do not advocate differential treatment. Which is the same position that Rand Paul espoused. It seems that the lefties here advocate free speech, as long as it is speech they agree with. Well, I defend your right to free speech, no matter how stupid and bigoted it may be.


shrink2,
Say as many bigoted things as you like, just go for it. Pull out all the stops. Tell us the truth. We need to hear it, right? You won't be prosecuted. Being a bigot is legal and that will never change.
-----------------------------------------
It will remain legal, that is until those like Obamas Supreme Court choices, decide as Kagan has, stated that "some speech needs to be regulated", and as Sotomayor says that judges "make law", I dare say that they would never deem radical left wing liberal speech to need regulating.


MrTracker,
no one has missed the point at all. Rand has the right to free speech, and so do those who want to advocate for the right to run white only lunch counters. But Rand is running for the Senate, a legislative body. The position he takes, exercising his free speech rights, is that the government has no business telling me that I can't keep blacks out of my restaurant.
My free speech rights entitle me to say anything I want about such a candidate.
------------------------------------------
But not the bigoted restaurant owner....RIGHT?


rlkinny,
OK. So you're saying Rand Paul is a bigot? Most of us liberals wouldn't say that. We just think he has an overly simplistic view of society and the role of government.
-----------------------------------------
So it is "overly simplistic"? Is that elitism the same mindset that finds a right to abortion in a Constitution that does not even mention the procedure? Or deems the right to own a gun not to be found in the words "The Right Of The People, To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed?

Sounds a great deal like, simple . . . . hypocrisy.

Posted by: jonweiss1 | May 20, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

actually there were very few laws to support it, which is why it persisted until laws were adopted to prevent it.

We here in Nashville are honoring the 50th anniversary of the lunch counter sit-ins. There were no laws requiring lunch counters to exclude blacks. None of the downtown lunch counters did.

and what the heck does any of this have to do with the war on drugs? who's war on drugs?

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 20, 2010 6:39 PM

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

Really? Then what is this all about?

Jim Crow laws:
"Restaurants: It shall be unlawful to conduct a restaurant or other place for the serving of food in the city, at which white and colored people are served in the same room, unless such white and colored persons are effectually separated by a solid partition extending from the floor upward to a distance of seven feet or higher, and unless a separate entrance from the street is provided for each compartment. (Alabama)"
http://www.nps.gov/malu/forteachers/jim_crow_laws.htm

War on Drugs? Well, there's the fact that most users of illegal drugs in the US are white, but most of the people in prison for it aren't. Then there's the crack/powder sentencing disparity that puts blacks away for a lot longer than whites for the same amount of cocaine. Not to mention the fact that drug prohibition was brought about by a campaign of racial fear-mongering to begin with.

Oh, and there's that little Mexico thing -- the result of a black market that our laws support.

Maddow should have brought that up if she really wanted to discuss a relevant issue of racial injustice. But I doubt that was her intent.

Posted by: MrTracker | May 20, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

....."Paul, sensing political disaster, released a statement aiming to clarify his statement -- noting that he opposes the repeal of the Civil Rights Act and added that "no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points....."

who said anything about repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

and yes, serious people are thinking of REVISITING the law to add to it. Not change the core. To add to it. Times have changed, but not intent of that wonderful law.

This guy is seriously nuts. Road the coattails of his father.
Be afraid, be very afraid.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | May 20, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse


he sounds stupid.

he talked "apples vs oranges".

criminey

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | May 20, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul is not the only person associated with the Tea Party that has racist leanings. Just listen to what the Tea Party says. Read the signs they carry at rallies. They want to "TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!!!!." I think they want to take it back from an African-American president and a woman speaker of the house. If they carried about the Constitution they would have screamed over invading Iraq. If they cared about the deficit they would have marched in the streets as George Bush ate up an inherited surplus and ran the country into debt and a near depression. The Tea Party is a front for racists and mysoginists.

Posted by: oldwoman | May 20, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul has his canned answers all ready like one of the Barbies from the Civil Rights decade, the ones that had the plastic pull-ring coming out of their bellies.

He's oh so careful to state, over and over and over, that he abors discrimination, but he never fails to go on to say that government has no right to do anything to stop it. Oh my, you know, freedom? Why, who wants to say anything ne-ga-tive about freedom?

"Waiter! More freedom!"

Do I think Rand Paul is a racist? Yes I do. Not because of his hair-splitting positioning, but because of the father who raised him, the despicable bigot who writes about "fleet-footed" black youth and so much else. And because Junior's stated abhorrence of bigotry so clearly takes a back seat to his worship of free markets and the private sector, whose right to discriminate must remain untempered by law.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

"....it is not only Black people who cannot read but anyone chosen for the Obama Cabinet, that suffers from illiteracy."

Don't stop, you are just hitting your stride.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 20, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Well if they do that, Joe, they will create a lucrative commercial opportunity ... a market others are not serving... for someone with your more enlightened racial attitudes, who will open a new store, and take the business the bigots refused. And over time, the bigots will inevitably be run out of business, as people with more rational attitudes and policies out-compete them. Racist attitudes are probably more susceptible to modification if they recognized as losers in the marketplace, anyway, than if the government simply steps in and tells everyone "thou shalt not discriminate"... which probably just makes bigots more intransigent than ever, but leaves them with their bigoted beliefs.

Posted by: Observer44
______________________
so blacks have to brown bag it until the free market ends bigotry altogether, and it would have, if only government hadn't tried to do it, which only encouraged the bigots. and just how long should blacks have been willing to eat lunch at their desks waiting for generations of bigots to learn from going out of business that bigotry was the problem?

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 20, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

So now the anti-politician is now playing the seasoned politician by (not so effectively) backtracking on his statements

Posted by: JRM2 | May 20, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

drindl,
This pretty much sums up the caliber of response by rightwingers and the core of what we are talking about.
-----------------------------------------
Considering that several of the Obama Cabinet members have come out with blatantly stupid comments about the law in Arizona and then when brought to task for their comments, admitted that they had never read the law that they so cavalierly criticized. Since it has not only been Obama and Holder, who have been so silly but many of the WHITE members of the cabinet, Napolitano and Posne come immediately to mind, it is not only Black people who cannot read but anyone chosen for the Obama Cabinet, that suffers from illiteracy.

Posted by: jonweiss1 | May 20, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Well if they do that, Joe, they will create a lucrative commercial opportunity ... a market others are not serving... for someone with your more enlightened racial attitudes, who will open a new store, and take the business the bigots refused. And over time, the bigots will inevitably be run out of business, as people with more rational attitudes and policies out-compete them. Racist attitudes are probably more susceptible to modification if they recognized as losers in the marketplace, anyway, than if the government simply steps in and tells everyone "thou shalt not discriminate"... which probably just makes bigots more intransigent than ever, but leaves them with their bigoted beliefs.

Posted by: Observer44
________________

If that is true, why is that were hardly any integrated resturants in the south in 1964? Being a racist in a racist enviroment is never bad for businss.

You might want to spend a few minutes studying history before spouting your Paulian, philosophical claptrap

Posted by: bgjd1979 | May 20, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Observer44, how much is the ticket to Fantasy Island going for these days?

Seems you are a frequent flier.

Posted by: TOMMYBASEBALL | May 20, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Paul said he doesn’t want to cut Medicare payments to doctors like himself, because “physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living“


Whoa whoa whoa, maybe this guy isn't so bad after all. I better take a second look at the Libertarian agenda. Bigot, schmigot, who cares? His views on health care are progressive (prices rise!), liberal (hey, what is health worth?), bottom line baby. Doctors gotta get paid.


Posted by: shrink2 | May 20, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul is a racist, he is a spokesperson for the tea party and a candidate for the US Senate. I find it hard to believe that he is the person, the people of Kentucky will choose to represent their point of view in the US Congress. People are angry and frustrated by the inaction in Washington and the incompetencies surfacing every day from government agencies. Rachel Maddow gave Paul lots of room to explain his position on civil rights and desegregation. Paul deemed himself a racist. Since the congress makes laws for all the people, his viewpoint matters. He can do a lot of harm if elected. We have seen by the Party of NO action in 2009 and 2010, that we need problem solvers in Washington, not more arrogant obstructionists. Please Kentucky don't do this to us.

Posted by: CarmanK | May 20, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul is a racist, he is a spokesperson for the tea party and a candidate for the US Senate. I find it hard to believe that he is the person, the people of Kentucky will choose to represent their point of view in the US Congress. People are angry and frustrated by the inaction in Washington and the incompetencies surfacing every day from government agencies. Rachel Maddow gave Paul lots of room to explain his position on civil rights and desegregation. Paul deemed himself a racist. Since the congress makes laws for all the people, his viewpoint matters. He can do a lot of harm if elected. We have seen by the Party of NO action in 2009 and 2010, that we need problem solvers in Washington, not more arrogant obstructionists. Please Kentucky don't do this to us.

Posted by: CarmanK | May 20, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

that is, none of the downtown Nashville lunch counters served blacks. so much for your free market. it's not a hypothetical. even now, electing someone who thinks it was wrong to ban discrimination in restaurants open to the public is not an exercise in debating an irrelevant hypothetical merely because he is backtracking and claiming that he won't try to get it changed.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 20, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

I suspect that Rand Paul may not be a racist, but he is no intellectual because he proved his argument would leave open the door for unintended consequences such as racism.

He couldn't defend his views, however pure in intent.

He just didn't think it through and that is unfortunate for him and his Tea Party.

Posted by: JRM2 | May 20, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Myyyyyyyyy heroine!!! Rachel Maddow again easily allows, ALLOWS the opposition to look so ...... dumb! Regarding the Civil Rights stance of Mr. Rand, a box of rocks would have an easier time of showing Rand up.
And THIS... is how the TTTTTTTT Party is going to take over the political world of the USA this fall and 2012....? Ho boy... no need for seat belts on this trip!

Posted by: dakotahgeo | May 20, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

you're joking, right? not even the most rabid free enterprise theorist thinks that the free market is that efficient and effective on a small scale. And a small town is a small scale.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 20, 2010 6:04 PM

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

Well, Joe, I guess we'll never know, since this is purely hypothetical. I think segregation existed because there were laws to support it.

How's that War on Drugs going, by the way?


Posted by: MrTracker
________________________
actually there were very few laws to support it, which is why it persisted until laws were adopted to prevent it.

We here in Nashville are honoring the 50th anniversary of the lunch counter sit-ins. There were no laws requiring lunch counters to exclude blacks. None of the downtown lunch counters did.

and what the heck does any of this have to do with the war on drugs? who's war on drugs?

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 20, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

So Paul claims he isn't a racist, but believes business people should have the freedom to not only be racist, but to treat minorities in a disgusting, humiliating and inhuman way.

In other words, Paul is not a real bigot, he just wants to make the world safe for bigotry and protect bigots from government.

Posted by: bgjd1979 | May 20, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Should private businesses be able to decide who they want or don't want to do business with? Of course. In a free society, anyone should be allowed to make poor business decisions, and those businesses should also be allowed to fail when they do.

Posted by: MrTracker
_________________________
and if a couple rich folk with that point of view buy the two drug stores and the diner in a small town and post signs saying "we don't serve blacks" you will defend their right to do that even though blacks will have to drive to the next town to eat? And what if there are only one or two such places within lunch hour's distance from where blacks work? You still want to defend this and tell blacks they just have to brown bag their lunch and let the white folk go to the diner?

Posted by: JoeT1
----------------------

Well if they do that, Joe, they will create a lucrative commercial opportunity ... a market others are not serving... for someone with your more enlightened racial attitudes, who will open a new store, and take the business the bigots refused. And over time, the bigots will inevitably be run out of business, as people with more rational attitudes and policies out-compete them. Racist attitudes are probably more susceptible to modification if they recognized as losers in the marketplace, anyway, than if the government simply steps in and tells everyone "thou shalt not discriminate"... which probably just makes bigots more intransigent than ever, but leaves them with their bigoted beliefs.

Posted by: Observer44 | May 20, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

The general theme here from the Rand Paul opponents seems to be that if a person is a bigot, that they must surrender their right to free speech. Last I heard being a bigot was not illegal nor even prosecutable, only the ACTS of discrimination are so punishable. Looks like most of the Anti Rand Paul people here are prepared to bring on the thought police.

Posted by: jonweiss1

==

I've been chomping on the bit waiting for someone to bring this up.

Let me state it emphatically: I support racists' rights to free speech. Absolutely. I wish racists would stop talking about "political correctness" and "porous borders" and "quotas" and state their views on gays, blacks, Latinos, etc. openly and in plain language. You bet.

Because when they do so it allows the rest of us to identify them unambiguously, so we can proceed to shunning them and ostracizing them, as they deserve.

Trust me, there is little in this life more satisfying than seeing a bigot escorted out of the workplace between two security guards, his career over, for a single unguarded remark.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

"The general theme here from the Rand Paul opponents seems to be that if a person is a bigot, that they must surrender their right to free speech. Last I heard being a bigot was not illegal nor even prosecutable..."

Thank you jonweiss, you are honest and I appreciate that.

By the way, if something is not illegal, it can't be prosecutable, but what the hey...

To clarify, being a bigot is not illegal. Bigots have the same free speech protections we all share and that is ok.
Say as many bigoted things as you like, just go for it. Pull out all the stops. Tell us the truth. We need to hear it, right? You won't be prosecuted. Being a bigot is legal and that will never change.


Posted by: shrink2 | May 20, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

I think it is safe to say that since the tea party keeps on bringing up the notion that there rights are being taken away that the issue of civil rights during the interview was appropriate.

Posted by: JRM2 | May 20, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

as noted by someone else, Paul is now backtracking so fast (and so ineffectively) that all you defenders of him here need to reassess whether you want a libertarian who doesn't believe his own views are important enough to actually pursue. No point supporting him for wanting to bring back segregated restaurants if he isn't going to try.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 20, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

you're joking, right? not even the most rabid free enterprise theorist thinks that the free market is that efficient and effective on a small scale. And a small town is a small scale.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 20, 2010 6:04 PM

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

Well, Joe, I guess we'll never know, since this is purely hypothetical. I think segregation existed because there were laws to support it.

How's that War on Drugs going, by the way?

Posted by: MrTracker | May 20, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

The general theme here from the Rand Paul opponents seems to be that if a person is a bigot, that they must surrender their right to free speech. Last I heard being a bigot was not illegal nor even prosecutable, only the ACTS of discrimination are so punishable. Looks like most of the Anti Rand Paul people here are prepared to bring on the thought police.

Posted by: jonweiss1
________________________
no one has missed the point at all. Rand has the right to free speech, and so do those who want to advocate for the right to run white only lunch counters. But Rand is running for the Senate, a legislative body. The position he takes, exercising his free speech rights, is that the government has no business telling me that I can't keep blacks out of my restaurant.

My free speech rights entitle me to say anything I want about such a candidate.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 20, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

The general theme here from the Rand Paul opponents seems to be that if a person is a bigot, that they must surrender their right to free speech. Last I heard being a bigot was not illegal nor even prosecutable, only the ACTS of discrimination are so punishable. Looks like most of the Anti Rand Paul people here are prepared to bring on the thought police.

Posted by: jonweiss1 | May 20, 2010 6:16 PM
-------
OK. So you're saying Rand Paul is a bigot? Most of us liberals wouldn't say that. We just think he has an overly simplistic view of society and the role of government.

Posted by: rlkinny | May 20, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

MrTracker - The problem with you tea baggers is you think academic exercises actually fool people into believing your pabulum.

"That would be a poor business decision, and it would create a demand for a diner that isn't run by racists. Then some smart person would come along and take away their customers. You don't have to spend your money there if you don't want to."

Racism, my friend, is not an academic exercise.

First, if "the government came along and forced them to take money from blacks...." So?

You have the right to harbor whatever sick thoughts your feeble mind can dream up. You do not have the right to act on those society has deemed offensive or illegal.

If ALL people are being served properly who cares if the owners are racist or even, shudder, gay? What you think is your thing. What you do is what matters.

You also say "The Federal Government likes to meddle in economies in order to "help" the little guy. Kinda like that effort to get all the poor and minority people into their very own houses. Remember that?"

Not sure what that screed is all about. The recent housing market fiasco had more to do with greed and an uncontrolled market (remember that??????) than it did with any initiative to help the poor or minorities. As many well off people have been caught up in this as the poor. To deny that is a lie.

The housing bubble and the resulting affect on the economy is a pretty good argument for NOT having an unfettered market.

Meanwhile, please take note that for 8 years before the scoundrel Obama was elected by a large majority of the voters in America we had 8 years where the Federal Government was only too happy to meddle into the private lives of its citizens. Average Americans who had no connection to terrorist groups, questionable organizations or any criminal activity had their personal records perused with impunity.

Average Americans who happened to be homosexual, Arabic, Moslem or even just non-white were constantly in jeopardy of loosing their jobs or facing persecution with the Federal Governments support.

This, I would assume, is the type of government you want?

If you believe that a racist would decide to serve a black because it was in his economic interest and not because he had no other choice you are simply a fool.

Posted by: TOMMYBASEBALL | May 20, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

It's the hypocrisy and Paul is rich with it:


"Tea party darling Dr. Rand Paul won an upset victory in Kentucky’s Republican Senate primary by running on a “resolute pledge to balance the federal budget and slash the size of government.” In an interview following his win, Paul explained that his campaign was “all about federal spending” and the “tea party message.” Republicans “need to regain our believability as fiscal conservatives,” he added.

But as former Bush speech writer David Frum noted, “Paul’s libertarianism stops where his pocketbook starts.” Frum highlighted a Wall Street Journal story from last week in which Paul said he doesn’t want to cut Medicare payments to doctors like himself, because “physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living“

Posted by: drindl | May 20, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

The story here should start with an analysis of the question by Maddow. In which country has she lived since 1964? Why ask a question about lunch counter desegration in 2010? Paul's biggest mistake was in even responding to such a question. And, we were all instructed by the current administration and the media that we now live in a 'post racial' era. Yet, the race issue keeps being brought back by these very same folks.

Posted by: Thenviron
____________________________
Put another way, being FOR lunch counter segregation in 2010 is pretty darn relevant in 2010, don't you think? Even if you agree with him. Since lunch counter segregation was outlawed in the '64 CRA, how is it not relevant to ask him if he is serious about a position that puts him squarely against the main provision of the '64 law? It's not Maddow's fault that Paul is for the right to exclude blacks from your restaurant, and it's not Maddow's fault for finding an obscure question to trip him with. It's not an obscure question when the man says stuff that practically begs for the question to be asked, and it's not a trip up when he gives the answer that he really means. Even if he defends himself with "I won't try to repeal that provision even though I don't agree with it," that's news too. It's relevant to know that he's for the right to discriminate even though he wouldn't. It's relevant to know that he doesn't think that the government shouldn't be able to tell a restaurant that they can't exclude blacks. It's relevant to know that the government shouldn't tell employers who build two story buildings that they have to install an elevator so that employees in wheelchairs can get to the second floor for meetings in the executive suite (which will certainly be on the second floor)

And if he really means that he doesn't want to repeal it, then he should explain why his libertarian views don't mean enough to him to act on.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 20, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

To bumblingberry and all: That's great to be supportive of Rue Paul but you'd better set your boy straight on his stand. Since he has come out with a back pedal statement I guess y'all better retract your earlier thoughts. Where do you TP'ers stand anyway?

Posted by: hoser3 | May 20, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

The general theme here from the Rand Paul opponents seems to be that if a person is a bigot, that they must surrender their right to free speech. Last I heard being a bigot was not illegal nor even prosecutable, only the ACTS of discrimination are so punishable. Looks like most of the Anti Rand Paul people here are prepared to bring on the thought police.

Posted by: jonweiss1 | May 20, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

The story here should start with an analysis of the question by Maddow. In which country has she lived since 1964? Why ask a question about lunch counter desegration in 2010? Paul's biggest mistake was in even responding to such a question. And, we were all instructed by the current administration and the media that we now live in a 'post racial' era. Yet, the race issue keeps being brought back by these very same folks.

Posted by: Thenviron | May 20, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse
------
OK. I'll bite. Maddow's question was in response to Rand Paul's comments earlier that day on a radio show, where HE was the one who brought up the Civil Rights Act and said that he would not have voted at least for one section of that Act. He was trying to bring up a theoretical point to distinguish between the public and private sector. Rachel's point was spot on -- in a complex social society, that's not a realistically clear distinction. (Remember "separate but equal" -- it was clearly separate but certainly not equal.) I think her question got at the heart of the dilemma that the Tea Party represents -- a superficial interpretation of individual rights that do not take into account the inter-connectivity of today's society.

Posted by: rlkinny | May 20, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

And we should take seriously someone who refers to Rachel Maddow as "Rachel Madcow?" I don't think so, any more than we should take seriously those immature posters who mangle the President's name.

But when you refer to repudiation of racism as a "preconceived notion" you let the cat out of the bag. I listened to as much of Paul's evasive and rambling answers as I had patience for, and it was pretty obvious to me that despite all his generic disclaimers he emphatically favors the right to discriminate.

In fact, having lived through the Civil Rights era, I can tell you that Paul's positions are really no different than those stated by segregationists back in the 60s. Against racism but willing to tolerate it in the name of "freedom" is indistinguishable from embracing racism.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

"Apparently, Neither Mr. Obama OR Eric Holder have read the Civil Rights Act. But they have a good excuse. Neither can READ!!

Posted by: markypolo "


.

This pretty much sums up the caliber of response by rightwingers and the core of what we are talking about. 'marky' asserts that black people can't read.

Enough said.

Posted by: drindl | May 20, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

A few months ago I told some of the people here that the Republicans had decided to become the party where bigots could feel safe, where, as someone here wrote earlier, the non-white agenda was something to be fought.

I was treated to a "Screw you!" by a Republican and some observant liberals were annoyed that I might have been intemperate, that I should be more careful tiptoeing around Republican feelings. Well, it was true then and it is true now.

The racist poo stuck all over this board is something to behold.

It isn't that it ever went away. The change is, now Republicans think they are going to back to the days when Democrats were able to spin political gold from the anger of bigots. Today, race baiting people dropping out of the middle class will not be as effective, but they are doing it anyway.

Suddenly the Republican establishment embraces Rand, when his father was properly considered a pariah, a kook, just three years ago.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 20, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

First, i did not vote for Dr. Paul in the recent election, I voted for Trey Grayson, I do not feel that Dr. Paul is going to be a good Senator, but essentially he's what we are stuck with.

That being said, I listened to the Rachel Madcow interview and as I expected, it was a typical left wing ambush, followed by false conclusions from a liberal who cares more about their preconceptions than anything that Dr. Paul had to say.

Essentially, Ms. Madcow was fishing for an answer that Dr. Paul refused to give so she simply made up her own story. It essentially centered around the idea purported by the host that if a restaurant owner wants to refuse service to anyone, that they do not have that right, if the refused customer is Black. Mr. Paul agreed, that race should not be allowed as a determining factor. But Ms. Madcow had no qualms about advocating the position that denying the restaurant owner their right to free speech and of freedom of association (if she could twist it to be in any way related to race) as being completely acceptable. Essentially putting forth the point that if a person complains about race discrimination, then the person complained against can have no valid defense.

Dr. Paul tried in vain to point out that he does not agree with discrimination of any kind, but he will defend a bigots right to speak, no matter how stupid the commentary. Whereas Ms. Madcow seems intent on stifling free speech if it is in conflict with her preconceived notions.

Posted by: jonweiss1 | May 20, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

That would be a poor business decision, and it would create a demand for a diner that isn't run by racists. Then some smart person would come along and take away their customers. You don't have to spend your money there if you don't want to.

Posted by: MrTracker | May 20, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

do you really believe that it would be a "poor business" decision in a state like kentucky? seriously? government has to protect us from the "tyranny of majority". remember that.


Posted by: birdynumnum
_______________________
so MrTracker - blacks would have to brown bag it unless and until someone decided that there was enough business from blacks to support another diner, or that everyone wanted to eat with blacks so that a non-segregated diner would take enough white business from the segregated diners to succeed? So blacks just have to brown bag it and wait for the free market to eventually work everywhere that mattered?

you're joking, right? not even the most rabid free enterprise theorist thinks that the free market is that efficient and effective on a small scale. And a small town is a small scale.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 20, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

The story here should start with an analysis of the question by Maddow. In which country has she lived since 1964? Why ask a question about lunch counter desegration in 2010? Paul's biggest mistake was in even responding to such a question. And, we were all instructed by the current administration and the media that we now live in a 'post racial' era. Yet, the race issue keeps being brought back by these very same folks.

Posted by: Thenviron
_________________________
when you correctly suspect, based on his previous statements, that he would actually claim that he was for lunch counter segregation, you ask a question about the '64 CRA. The man opposes its central provision. That's relevant in 2010.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 20, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Apparently, Neither Mr. Obama OR Eric Holder have read the Civil Rights Act. But they have a good excuse. Neither can READ!!

Posted by: markypolo | May 20, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Rand Paul and his supporters seem to have missed the lessons from our segragationist past. To allow the sytematic discrimination of people to access work or commerce even within a privately held business is to prevent those people from being full citizens of the United States. This effectively denies them the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And while the US Constitution does not specifically enumerate the right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happieness the constructions of the Constitution were designed to guarantee all citizens those rights. When people are denied access to the means of fulfilling those rights it is the responsibility of the State and if they fail to do so the Federal Government to protect peoples access to these means. Mr. Paul and his supporters are wrong.

Posted by: kchses1 | May 20, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC is still on the air, who knew?

Posted by: sperrysphere1957 | May 20, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

That would be a poor business decision, and it would create a demand for a diner that isn't run by racists. Then some smart person would come along and take away their customers. You don't have to spend your money there if you don't want to.

Posted by: MrTracker | May 20, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

do you really believe that it would be a "poor business" decision in a state like kentucky? seriously? government has to protect us from the "tyranny of majority". remember that.

Posted by: birdynumnum | May 20, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Should private businesses be able to decide who they want or don't want to do business with? Of course. In a free society, anyone should be allowed to make poor business decisions, and those businesses should also be allowed to fail when they do.

Posted by: MrTracker
_________________________
and if a couple rich folk with that point of view buy the two drug stores and the diner in a small town and post signs saying "we don't serve blacks" you will defend their right to do that even though blacks will have to drive to the next town to eat? And what if there are only one or two such places within lunch hour's distance from where blacks work? You still want to defend this and tell blacks they just have to brown bag their lunch and let the white folk go to the diner?

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 20, 2010 4:53 PM

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

That would be a poor business decision, and it would create a demand for a diner that isn't run by racists. Then some smart person would come along and take away their customers. You don't have to spend your money there if you don't want to.

Or the government could come along and force the racists to accept money from black people, thereby rewarding the racists by keeping them in business.

The Federal Government likes to meddle in economies in order to "help" the little guy. Kinda like that effort to get all the poor and minority people into their very own houses. Remember that?

Posted by: MrTracker | May 20, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Once again, pull the sheet off the Klansman, what do you get! In this case, Rand Paul and the Teabaggers. These people are not only racist, but are also Fascist in their world view.

All the while wrapped in the American flag,while high five-ing each other because the U S lost that olympic bid; and proclaming Jesus as their savior. Fact is, these are the types of people that went to Civil War against said flag and are more likely the kind of people that were spitting and throwing stones at Jesus as he suffered on the cross. Jesus was not well liked by the CONSERVATIVES of his day!

What part of "WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL" do these people NOT understand? Try as they may, one can not cherry pick the word "ALL". Rand Paul, Teabaggers, Neocons, Corporatist, ect... are all hypocrites! Do as I say- Not as I do! They do not want to participate in a democracy. They want to RULE...PERIOD!!!

Posted by: SCRIBE3 | May 20, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

"

after having watched Rand on Rachel when he wasn't avoiding the question, his answer seemed to be that he favored the government banning discrimination WITHIN government enterprises but did not favor the public accommodations section which bans discrimination by private businesses. I'd like to know how far his non-interference views go! What abt the clean water and air acts, OSHA, financial regulation, recent health insurance changes banning refusal for pre-existing conditions, mines and drilling?....

Posted by: Glenn11"


This hits the issue square on the head. This isn't an issue about race. It's an issue about government involvement and while the racial issue will be problematic for Paul, his ACTUAL views will be problematic as well.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 20, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Okay, here goes: I don't believe for a minute that Rand Paul is a racist. But I don't believe he's electable, either. Or that he would be an effective senator.

First off, I'm going to suggest that if he's anything like his dad, he's a man of principle. Trouble is, principles don't fly in Washington... especially not his kind. It's hard to be a politician and advocate a restraint of politics.

And it doesn't help, ultimately, that he's tied to the Tea Party movement. While a handful of their complaints might be legitimate, they have mostly proven themselves to be unthinking nut jobs who embrace impossible paradoxes of logic. ("You damn socialists... keep your hands off my Medicare!")

What Rand was doing was indeed trying to float a theoretical point. But this is the problem with theory. In a world that's about as far from the Socratic symposium as you can get, nobody listens or stops to comprehend theory.

As for this person's comment:
"These two - and most of the media can't stand it that a Republican won anything. "

Wake up, for crying out loud. The media has it's left elements, yes. But it's sagging heavy with its right-leaning elements too. If you lump them all together as one, it means you don't read or pay attention. Period. Can we, at long last, put this media myth to bed?

And this comment, from same:
"Rand Paul won because he is the candidate that Kentuckians liked - and he will be the next US senator from Kentucky. Swallow that Maddow."

Sigh... swallow that yourself. You Republicans embrace Paul's views now, but you were damned opposed to them when your candidates ran against Rand's father Ron in the presidential primaries. You wouldn't even let his voice or views into most of your debates. Embrace him now and you'll just find yourself persecuting him down the road too, for sticking to a view you don't have the stomach to embrace.

Personally? I think this entire wave of "a message to incumbents" is overblown. Maybe, in fact, this is what's happening. But the fact is, Kentucky already has two GOP senators, voted red in the last election, and besides - Rand won a primary against another Republican. That doesn't mean he'll beat the other party.

As for Specter in PA, here's a guy that's waffled between both parties during his career... who's also 80 years old and has already had a bout with cancer... and who ticked off Democrats when he wasn't one, aggressively. And we're "shocked" that he didn't keep his seat?

Posted by: washpost56 | May 20, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

It's interesting to note all those who cite the fact that it was the Democrats who filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I agree that Southern Democratic Senators filibustered the bill. They disagreed with the progressive senators, both Democrat and Republican, who supported the bill. Those same Senators provided the base for the Republican New Southern strategy that evolved in the late 60's. I doubt whether any of the Republicans who supported the Civil Rights Act in 1964 would even be able to be nominated in the new "tea party" Republican party.

Posted by: rpericso | May 20, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Should private businesses be able to decide who they want or don't want to do business with? Of course. In a free society, anyone should be allowed to make poor business decisions, and those businesses should also be allowed to fail when they do.

Posted by: MrTracker
_________________________
and if a couple rich folk with that point of view buy the two drug stores and the diner in a small town and post signs saying "we don't serve blacks" you will defend their right to do that even though blacks will have to drive to the next town to eat? And what if there are only one or two such places within lunch hour's distance from where blacks work? You still want to defend this and tell blacks they just have to brown bag their lunch and let the white folk go to the diner?

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 20, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

after having watched Rand on Rachel when he wasn't avoiding the question, his answer seemed to be that he favored the government banning discrimination WITHIN government enterprises but did not favor the public accommodations section which bans discrimination by private businesses. I'd like to know how far his non-interference views go! What abt the clean water and air acts, OSHA, financial regulation, recent health insurance changes banning refusal for pre-existing conditions, mines and drilling?....

Posted by: Glenn11 | May 20, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

The story here should start with an analysis of the question by Maddow. In which country has she lived since 1964? Why ask a question about lunch counter desegration in 2010? Paul's biggest mistake was in even responding to such a question. And, we were all instructed by the current administration and the media that we now live in a 'post racial' era. Yet, the race issue keeps being brought back by these very same folks.

Posted by: Thenviron | May 20, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

I have been restricted from comments for too many comments over some undefined period of time. I attribute this to my reference to our president as, President "Talks". My comments are not more than 3-4 per week. This is asserting the power of capitalism, albeit in violation of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. Re the article about Mr. Paul, the "attack dogs" have been unleashed. Please take me off your "Limited List"


Posted by: treedbrent
--------
You are revealing your ignorance of what the Bill of Rights is all about. It protects free speech, among other rights, from government censorship. It does not require the WaPo to print your rants and screeds. BTW - I see plenty of other posts from the Right on this forum today so I disagree with your contention. And if you're so unhappy with the WaPo may I suggest that there is the Rupert Murdoch media where opinions like yours abound.

Posted by: dldbug | May 20, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like Rand Paul is trying to out-foot-in-one;s-mouth Joe Biden. Think maybe Biden coached Paul?

:)~


When it comes to hypocrisy, Dems are second-to-none. They will "gleefully" jump on Paul, while suffering from selective-amnesia when it comes to things, Biden, Reid, Pelosi and Obama has said in the past.

See, for example, these gems recently by Nancy Pelosi:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKrBvmVw5-g


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pq689Pt0gcg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

Posted by: tncdel | May 20, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Should private businesses be able to decide who they want or don't want to do business with? Of course. In a free society, anyone should be allowed to make poor business decisions, and those businesses should also be allowed to fail when they do.

Posted by: MrTracker | May 20, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

columbiaheights: he can't have it both ways, nor can you. you and he can say he doesn't want to repeal the CRA, but you can't run from the fact that he disagrees with it's central provision - he categorically said that government has no business telling a drug store lunch counter that they have to serve blacks. That's precisely what the CRA says. So he's sticking to that position but won't try to repeal the CRA? that's like saying I'm for the right to discriminate, but won't lift a finger to try to defend that right, so it really doesn't matter what I think.

He'll probably say the same thing on the ADA. He'll say people in wheel chairs should be satisfied with ground floor offices, but now that the law has been passed, I'll still make business owners install elevators.

what's the point of being a libertarian if you agree not to try to repeal the things you are against because you know no one will stomach saying that?

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 20, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

well said Noacoler.
Rand Paul is a closet racist. Unfortunately kentucky and the the south in general are full of them.
People with a confederate flag in their hearts.

Posted by: Franktheliberal | May 20, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul's position is pretty clear: He doesn't believe that representing a business as serving the public necessarily obligates that business to actually serve the public.

Without the 1964 Civil Rights Act, even though I am about as white as bleached flour, I could not have found a place to eat or sleep in the company of my black and Hispanic co-workers on a recent business trip throught East Texas. That limits MY rights. That limits ALL of our rights.

Paul is free to cling to his jaundiced philosophy, but neither he nor his political advocates should pretend that his philosophy does not acqiesce in the practice of racial discrimination in the most fundamental way.

Posted by: Stonecreek | May 20, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Aside: here in WA state the signs are starting to go up for November, and you can always tell who the Republicans are because their signs DON'T STATE PARTY AFFILLIATION. Republican is poison.

*************************

hahaha...I noticed that as well in other states. Tea Party Kool aide is laced with cyanide.

Posted by: Reesh | May 20, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

The problem that I find with libertarianism is that it is a political philosophy that is dogmatic and absolute. Let's take the one issue that is paramount to most true believers: motorcycle helmet laws. Yes, I understand that it must be cool to ride down the road with the wind in your hair, a la Brando but I have to pay, in the form of higher car insurance premiums, for your expensive intensive care for that brain-stem trauma you incurred when spilled the bike on hard pavement.

Posted by: dldbug | May 20, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

How very predictable you are, Cillizza. Taking your positions from Limbaugh.

I needn't repeat what DDAWD already said. Critz is a member of the Democratic caucus. That's one more Democrat between Republicans and the committee chairmanships. Newsflash: Democrats will run conservatives in conservative districts so they will win elections, while Republicans are purging the people who can win elections in favor of people who can't. Like Rand Paul.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Paul's right. And he is being honest about it. And his statements show that he is not racist or wanting to repeal the Civil Rights Act. I have no idea why a intellectual talk (to the extent that anything with that d*ke Rachel maddow can be intellectual) matters. This is beltway cr*p.

Posted by: columbiaheights | May 20, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

jerdjon: why don't you ask Paul why he didn't answer the question the way you suggest? He was certainly asked in the first place because he has said so many things that suggest his answer would sound like it did.

And he can't use your answer because it isn't his position. The civil rights act banned segregation in private businesses open to the public, like lunch counters. He said unequivocally that the government had no business preventing a private business like a drug store with a lunch counter from discriminating against anyone.

you can't blame Maddow, or the KY newspaper, or NPR for asking him to spell out the implications of his actual views. he said what he said, and he clearly means it. If you agree with libertarianism to that degree, fine, if not, don't pretend it's in the imagination of the liberal media and not in the mind of Paul. he is exactly what he appears to be.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 20, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

I have been restricted from comments for too many comments over some undefined period of time. I attribute this to my reference to our president as, President "Talks". My comments are not more than 3-4 per week. This is asserting the power of capitalism, albeit in violation of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. Re the article about Mr. Paul, the "attack dogs" have been unleashed. Please take me off your "Limited List"

Posted by: treedbrent | May 20, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

I have been restricted from comments for too many comments over some undefined period of time. I attribute this to my reference to our president as, President "Talks". My comments are not more than 3-4 per week. This is asserting the power of capitalism, albeit in violation of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. Re the article about Mr. Paul, the "attack dogs" have been unleashed. Please take me off your "Limited List"

Posted by: treedbrent | May 20, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

I'd say the young Paul was hoisted on his own petard. Of course, this is why Libertarians have never gotten anywhere politically. It's just childish prattle that appeals to those who can't deal with the complexities of modern life. Repealing government regulations and doing away with those agencies instituted to enforce those regulations is just not workable.

Our relatively high standard of living depends on everyone giving up their freedom to run amuck, to discriminate, to defraud, to poison the air, waters, and food that we eat. Sure freedom of speech sounds like a universally sound precept but what about yelling "fire" in a crowded auditorium or making false accusations in front of mob incensed by some public outrage? Do we and should we have the right to advocate the violent overthrow of the government; to advocate violence generally or anything else considered reckless or illegal?

Just an example: many civil libertarians, like Dr. Paul, say that they abhor racism and discrimination but stop short of saying it should be prohibited by law. Paul in essence said while I don't agree with the KKK, I think they have a right to express their views even if repugnant. There are 6-8 million followers of Islam in the US. That's a high enough number to allow them to become a voting majority in some locality. Suppose that a substantial portion becomes radicalized and advocates for a dramatic change in that community like the adoption of Sharia Law. They demand the Muslim right to multiple wives, that Muslim women be excluded from the obligation to show their faces to any man but their husband (like driver's licenses), they demand that non-Muslim women be required to dress themselves in a manner they see as modest, and they take to the streets to demand that such changes be made? Would America, and Libertarians, view those incidents the same as KKK racist exercises in freedom of speech? Let's get real. Everyone's freedom ends when it impacts others. Libertarianism is childish pablum for unthinking minds.

Posted by: Reesh | May 20, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul is amazing. He sounds like he'd make a great Catholic Bishop.

Posted by: genejanowski | May 20, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Ultra liberals Cillizza and Maddow team up to crucify Rand Paul over a few words that perhaps could have been said differently and better.

These two - and most of the media can't stand it that a Republican won anything.
Rand Paul won because he is the candidate that Kentuckians liked - and he will be the next US senator from Kentucky. Swallow that Maddow.

==

You're gonna give me a coronary from laughing so hard.

Cillizza a liberal? Chris "Bad News for Democrats" Cillizza? You're daft, son.

Paul hasn't won an election yet, he won a primary, by definition the work of the most partisan Republicans in the state. IINM the Senate has the right to not seat him, should he win election, and I doubt he will.

Look. The guy doesn't play well with others. He's spoiling for a fight, he holds views that're entirely outside the pale. Nobody would want him on their committees, he's vastly more toxic than Bush or Cheney, whom Republicans still need to run from.

This is Doug Hoffman squared and cubed.

Aside: here in WA state the signs are starting to go up for November, and you can always tell who the Republicans are because their signs DON'T STATE PARTY AFFILLIATION. Republican is poison.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

So Rand Paul thinks that private businesses that serve the public should be able to discriminate if they want, but that they won't because it'd be bad from a business pov. Just like Wall Street will police itself? But you're forgetting that much of Kentucky is one the same page as Paul and his stance isn't likely to hurt him much there.

Posted by: wd1214 | May 20, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed there were still parts of the country with stores and other establishments that said, White and Colored entrances. And this was only the discrimination that was visible on the surface. This legislation was born out of the blood of Freedom Riders and other Civil rights workers who faced diehard racists who threatened and employed violence in the name of "Segregation Now, Segregation Forever". To argue a lawyerly defense of libertatian principles in a critique of the law is stupid and ignores the great benefits of the law in freeing America from a shameful past.

Posted by: dldbug | May 20, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

How ironic that Paul should be running his mouth in KY while those of us in Nashville are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the lunch counter sit-ins and the lawyers who defended those arrested for peacefully asking to be served.

I can't believe Paul actually said that a business large enough to have a two story building should be able to skip an elevator and tell the folks in wheel chairs that they have to settle for offices on the first floor (undoubtedly not the floor the execs will be on). but he did.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 20, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Actually his crazy comments will probably play well in Kentucky and the rest of the South. They will enable him to raise millions in campaign contributions. He is seemingly a perfect replacement for Jim Bunning a cuckoo if ever there was one.

Posted by: jbowen431 | May 20, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

I couldn't help but get annoyed at the false argument Paul consistently fell back on, equating discrimination in private businesses based on race to barring the carrying of guns in a private business. You can leave your gun at home, you can't leave your blackness.

Posted by: delawaretom | May 20, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

They do not seriously believe that conservatives are opposed to the Civil Rights Law.

==

Oh, really?

Then why did southern Democrats switch to the Republican Party en masse when the CRA was passed? Was that because they were all in favor of civil rights and saw the GOP as more to their liking?

And why is it that as racism had to go underground, and racists were no longer regarded as gentlemen, we've had non-stop complaining about "political correctness" for the last 45 years?

The resentment has never gone away, racism hasn't gone away, it was just forced underground. And with the election of a black president its pressure increased to the point that it's out in the open again, with proxies and code words that aren't fooling anyone.

Rand Paul believes business owners should be allowed to discriminate. He's said so. That's unamerican. That's not who we are as a people, certain present company apparently excepted.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

"...By tarring the good names of heroes like Paul and Pallin and Beck and Rush..."

oh stop it, you're killing me, I can't breathe...rukidding, you have a career in comedy, ur th'natural, just do it, you'll be syndicated in weeks.

Whew, don't do that again without warning me, please.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 20, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Rand's problems are a lot bigger than one controversial stance on a bill that almost all Americans have long since accepted as the status quo; all of his major talking points involve an ideology that is so far outside the mainstream that they have no chance of being implemented, even if he wins the election.

Posted by: Koko3 | May 20, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

I would expect nothing different from the Post and MSNBC. Suddenly they, the Post, writes an article about Rand Paul. Because they think they have something negative but they just don't realize that the American public has had it with the Post and MSNBC (no one watches that network). We don't care what you report or your opinion of anything any longer

Posted by: JoeyAmerican | May 20, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Ultra liberals Cillizza and Maddow team up to crucify Rand Paul over a few words that perhaps could have been said differently and better.

These two - and most of the media can't stand it that a Republican won anything.
Rand Paul won because he is the candidate that Kentuckians liked - and he will be the next US senator from Kentucky. Swallow that Maddow.

Posted by: Kansas28 | May 20, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Why should any government be able to dictate to me, a private business owner, and property owner who I can sell my product to? Let the market decide! If people won't buy my product because of my business practices then It's up to me to decide how to react. And, why can't I sell my property to whoever I want. Granted, it may be a bad idea to limit the prospectve pool of buyers, but, again THAT'S UP TO ME!!!

Posted by: Dutchman3 | May 20, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Looks like the freedom-haters and constitution-bashers are coming out of the woodwork to denounce Paul and anyone who stands with him. Spin it anyway you like, but you'll have to eat your lying words when we take back our government in November. The days of entitlement, relative morality, collectivism and social justice are drawing to an end. By tarring the good names of heroes like Paul and Pallin and Beck and Rush, you guarantee that we will come out in force to the polls while you sip your $5 cappucinos in your Volvos and read lefty, treasonous rags like the Post and the New York Times. For whom does the bell toll?

Posted by: rukidding1 | May 20, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

For anyone interested in private property rights, this guy is a breath of fresh air. For lovers of eminent domain *ahem* Kelo *cough* this guy is a nightmare.

Posted by: millionea81 | May 20, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

"Whoa! All you self-righteous government-lovers hate it when a true blue patriot like Mr. Paul has the courage to stand up and say what so many of us believe . . . I have the right to decide how to run it . . . including barring those who I find morally objectionable or in conflict with my beliefs."

---------

That's a cool trick--calling other people "self-righteous" while defending your "right" to discriminate against those who do meet YOUR high moral standards. At least self-righteous hypocrites still have the right to make fools of themselves.

Posted by: writinron | May 20, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

@grandma: don't bother correcting 37th on the history here, this has been explained to him dozens of times by others and to no effect. As a matter of fact don't bother reading his posts at all, he's an unhinged meth addict who posts that unintelligible hysteria 20 hours a day here.

It's pretty obvious from his writing how he gets by with so little sleep .. he's fried his brain with crystal meth.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

"...as the Republican Party's structure fire sends flames high into the sky and throws off heat so intense...the crowd recoils in horror. This can't be.

There is someone still in the burning building, way up there leaning out a window framed by the light of the flames closing in around her. She is screaming, but not for help? No, she is screaming, "Democrats are doomed! Democrats are doomed!"

Posted by: shrink2 | May 20, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul, and all other conservatives, should refuse to answer "gotcha" questions posed by the scumbag liberal media. When asked these kinds of questions, the answer should be: "I am in favor of civil rights according to the Civil rights Act of 1964. I will not dignify your stupid question with any more of an answer. The only reason you ask this question is to try to conjure up a lie regarding my political philosophy. You can take these stupid liberal "gotcha" questions and stick them where the sun doesn't shine." This is the only answer these conniving idiots should get. They do not seriously believe that conservatives are opposed to the Civil Rights Law. These media vermin are merely looking for a way to get their foot in the door to express their own brand of lying bigotry. The only "racists" that exist are liberal politicians and their cohorts in the liberal media. These are the racists that everyone of every race should fear and hate. They are bigots of the most disgusting variety. They despise freedom for all races and are constantly looking for ways to eliminate all kinds of freedom; most especially freedom of speech and expression.

Posted by: jerdjon | May 20, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to say that I'm a lawyer, I was in college in the '60s and I come from a multiracial family (for two generations). I agree with Rand Paul on this issue. I think it was not the best solution to have government impose desegregation on businesses. I believe that for several reasons -- compliance was a significant issue; it generated push-back where it might not otherwise have arisen; it gave government the seeming authority to regulate ideas at a fine level of granularity rather than at the principle level and most importantly, I think it slowed up the process of operational equality by bogging it down with regulation and litigation.

Equality cannot be delivered by the government. It must be owned by the citizens.

Posted by: johne37179 | May 20, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

37thand0street -

Do you even know what a "Dixicrat" was? Do you know that Strom Thurmond was a Democrat before he switched parties in 1964 because he disagreed with the Democratic party's support of civil rights legislation? Or do you even care?

My point simply, and history bears this out, is that the Southern Democrats of the 1800s and 1900s have migrated to the Republican Party, so it is disingenous at best to even try to make a connection between the Democratic Party of today and the "Dixicrat" element of the party of the past. Ask yourself, would Strom Thurmond be a Democrat today, and if not, why?

And by the way, saying something in ALLCAPS doesn't make it true.

I hope you have the strength and the wisdom to open your heart mind.

Posted by: grandma01 | May 20, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

"There is nothing gleeful about having to do the work of the press at this late date."

Bob Sandersen. Great point. It's a problem with modern journalism. A lot of the legwork of looking into a candidate's background and past statements is left up to partisans, the candidate's opponents and comedians like Jon Stewart. No wonder Stewart was voted the most respected name in news.

Posted by: mypitts2 | May 20, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

It's true - Libertarians are Republicans on crack. And now the 2 have joined forces with other anti-government extremists.....Birthers, Beckers, Oathers, Birchers, Teabaggers, militias ---
Holy Moly!!

Posted by: angie12106 | May 20, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

It's true - Libertarians are Republicans on crack. And now the 2 have joined forces with other anti-government extremists.....Birthers, Beckers, Oathers, Birchers, Teabaggers, militias ---
Holy Moly!!

Posted by: angie12106 | May 20, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul by his comments has rightfully claimed the title of king of the bewildered herd. He and Sarah Palin, as his queen, should no more be allowed to hold political office than should a child be allowed to play unsupervised with a loaded gun.

Posted by: TheghostofLennyBruce | May 20, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Gonna be a lot harder to play the "charges of racism" as "false" now.

Unless he does like Palin and only accepts softball internviewers, he's going to get pressed on this again and again. He can't say what he really thinks, it's too repellent, so he'll evade and split hairs, and he's not smart enough to do that effectively. Nor will he be able to keep it up, clearly a hothead spoiling for a fight wherever he can find one.

Pass the popcorn.

Yeah, this crap will play well with the real racists, and he's got their votes in the bag. It won't play so well with the rest of America.

I doubt this guy could get elected to a municipal office in rural Alabama.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

When all else (like fiscal discipline) fails, run back to the race card!

Rachel Maddow ambushing Rand Paul...
not exactly programing that interests me.

But if hating someone, you paint a hater, flips your switch...burn on.

I attended a conference today with a black Southern University police officer I went to law enforcement basic training with 27 years ago. Rachel nor Rand will ever have the brotherhood we do, nor be able to laugh at such political poppy-cock.

Posted by: BluePelican | May 20, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

It must be an airid news day when this is the best that can be reported on.
Nothing but a waste of time.

Posted by: dsigeorge | May 20, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

"White I am not a Paul fan, the message was misunderstood and twisted for political purposes. He is a Libertarian and like all Libertarians, wants to limit government involvement in private lives."
—bethg1841

Y'know, Jefferson Davis had some similar ideas....

Posted by: Bondosan | May 20, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

In 1964 I was a young Republican until Barry Goldwater and Strom Thurman joined old Southern Demos to try to stop the Civil Rights Act. Don't try to tell me opposition to Civil Rights was a Democratic principle. The Southern stratagy was a Republican stratagy and is apparently alive and well.

Posted by: bgjd1979 | May 20, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Just another slanted article from The Post trying to impose their ideology on their readers. Paul will be among many who go to Washington to reclaim our country for EVERYONE.

Posted by: bassboat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Slant? These were words straight from his mouth. In his quest for freedom he believes you can skirt responsibilities that come with it. If he does get elected no one in the senate will work with him because most of his ideas are toxic even for the republican party.

Posted by: whatdyousay | May 20, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

rukidding1: are you referring to America's "heritage" of segregated drinking fountains and lunch counters?

your "private" business get's public sewer and water, public electricity and gas, police and fire protection, trash collection, some at taxpayer expense. A drug store open to the public has no libertarian argument for the right to discriminate.

EdSantaFe: it may be hard for you to interpret what Rand meant by the quote in the article, but the "yes" response to "should it be OK for a private business to discriminate" is pretty darn clear.

37thand0: the subject is Paul and his position. Which party now or then has the best civil rights record is beside the point. Paul can't exactly run on a platform of "yes, I'm a racist, but my democrat opponent can't use that against me because Robert Byrd fillibustered the CRA," now, can he?

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 20, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

re: "National Republican Senatorial Committee communications director Brian Walsh issued a statement noting that it was Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights Act"

WOW . . . HAS HE FORGOTTEN THAT THEY ARE NOW ALL REPUBLICANS . . .

Revisionist history doth live within the southern political fantasy!

Posted by: enb38 | May 20, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Incredibly revealing moment, though not surprising. Rand Paul fundamentally believes that the government should not be involved in helping people or defending the powerless. It's an absurd, utopian vision that would make our country a dramatically worse place to live than it is today.

Posted by: jeffwacker | May 20, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I'm lovin' every minute of it! It's about time that someone (Thanks R. Maddow!)took a magnifying glass to the Tea Party "philosophy" and its ramifications.

The point isn't that Rand Paul is racist. The point is that Rand's dream government would allow things like segregation and slavery to stand. Its libertarianism at the crackpot fringe--and politically its a BIG loser. Keep up the good work Rand! I didn't think the Dems had a shot at Kentucky :)

Posted by: youba | May 20, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

White I am not a Paul fan, the message was misunderstood and twisted for political purposes. He is a Libertarian and like all Libertarians, wants to limit government involvement in private lives.

Posted by: bethg1841

"WHITE I am not a Paul fan...."

Freudian slip??????????????

Posted by: TOMMYBASEBALL | May 20, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Wow, I can't to see IBM, Microsoft, NBC, FOX NEWS and others putting up no JEWS, BLACKS OR CATHOLICS allowed.

Or how about the major chain motels banning HISPANICS.

Better yet, how about Doctor's offices having signs, NO WHITES ALLOWED.

To Paul this is good for the country and democracy.

I understand where he's coming from, but can't believe anyone of his stature would

The "teabaggers" and Republicans have shot themselves in the foot again.

Posted by: JedG | May 20, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Paul wasn't even a glimmer in his daddy's eye when the rest of us were marching against discrimination before 1964. He knows nothing. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was not based on anything abstract. It was based on real world hate. It was passed to eliminate the ability of anyone from telling you and me to get out of "my hotel" because of the color of one;s skin, or one's religious beliefs. Ignoramuses like Mr. Paul is so obviously trying to skirt his hidden desire to keep people who are not white or Protestant out of public accomodations just because they are different from his casper milque toast whiteness. If Mr. Paul was a member of a minority group in, say, Asia, and he was pushed out of a restaurant or other business because of his color he would be among the first to scream bloody murder. The civil rights legislation was not merely about blocking black people from eating somewhere, or staying at a hotel. It encompassed the guy who wore a Jewish star (me) and walked into a local Cleveland restaurant back in 1970, and being shown the door. The owner of that restaurant was a throwback to the 16th century. He hated Jews, Greeks, black people, and just about anyone else who was not like him.

Mr. Paul does not belong in Congress. Unless it is to shine the shoes of its members.

Posted by: agrossman1 | May 20, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Just another slanted article from The Post trying to impose their ideology on their readers. Paul will be among many who go to Washington to reclaim our country for EVERYONE.

Posted by: bassboat | May 20, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

The entire liberal ship of state (aka Titanic, aptly so) is veering toward the iceberg in nov that will effectively end this kooky experiment in idiocy.

As the end of time for leftists approaches, they will get ever more virulently outraged and unhinged. Watch as drivl and Ped become the "normal" behavior on the extreme left, the last remaining 8 or 10 percent of communists that have not exhausted their unemployment insurance.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 20, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Whoa! All you self-righteous government-lovers hate it when a true blue patriot like Mr. Paul has the courage to stand up and say what so many of us believe. My business is my property. I pay the bills and I have the right to decide how to run it free from government interference, including barring those who I find morally objectionable or in conflict with my beliefs. If you don't like it, take your business someplace else. That's freedom of choice and freedom of association the way our founding fathers envisioned it. Way to go, Mr. Paul. It's men of grit and determination like you who will help us reclaim America's heritage and put everything back in its rightful place.

Posted by: rukidding1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And in barring who you find offensive your tramping on someone else's freedoms and in a country that is supposed to be about liberty and justice for all have no place here.

The government on all levels has rules and regulations restaurants and other places in the public have to follow from cigarette bans, cleanliness, to how many people you can have in your building. Funny how you and Paul never mentioned any of those pesky little laws.

The tea bag party has hide behind it's closet racism long enough. When they talk about taking their country back, they mean to the 18th century when they ruled over the population all while thumping the constitution and bible like they do now. We're not going back! Can you hear us now!

Posted by: whatdyousay | May 20, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

rukiddin1 writes
"My business is my property. I pay the bills and I have the right to decide how to run it free from government interference, including barring those who I find morally objectionable or in conflict with my beliefs. If you don't like it, take your business someplace else. That's freedom of choice and freedom of association the way our founding fathers envisioned it."


Your freedom to open & operate that business comes with some responsibilities, including the requirement to obey the laws of the land, one of which is that you are not allowed to discriminate based on race, religion or gender. If that is too heavy a burden to bear, you have the freedom to not operate the business. Having said that, there is absolutely not a requirement to do business with everybody who walks through the door. If you don't like the looks of somebody, you can decline the option to conduct a business transaction. Now, if by coincidence a businessperson happens to choose not to do business with any black people, or women, or latinos, or jews, they might find themselves on the receiving end of a lawsuit; and rightfully so.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 20, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

If this is the Dems best attack against Paul... they're doomed. This is NOTHING!!!! Voters are so past badly worded statements. Paul will learn which is good and he will win in November.

Posted by: sovine08 | May 20, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

The racist, hillbilly meth addicts in eastern KY ought to love this guy.

Posted by: eed017 | May 20, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Lets see here...I will count articles written by Wapo starting today and see how many will be negative and how many are positive concering Rand Paul...

In recent years, Wapo heavily had a smear campaign against Bob McDonnell, where literally had negative articles almost everyday a year prior to election. But in the end Wapo failed miserably. Let see how Wapo will do this time.

Posted by: johnrick | May 20, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

I would expect nothing different from the Post and MSNBC. Suddenly they, the Post, writes an article about Rand Paul. Because they think they have something negative but they just don't realize that the American public has had it with the Post and MSNBC (no one watches that network). We don't care what you report or your opinion of anything any longer

Posted by: JoeyAmerican | May 20, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Dr. Paul can spin as much as he wants. But he DID say that he disagreed with the decision to bar private employment and accommodation segregation. Oddly he is perfectly happy to have the Federal Government tell woman that they have to bear a child, but if you tell a restaurant on an interstate highway that it has to serve black people, he finds that Constitutionally offensive.
The fact that he NOW says he will not try to overturn the 50 years of mandated desegregation is really trivial in comparison to what we learn about him from the statement he does not disavow.

Posted by: djah | May 20, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

osullivanc1 - I once heard a radio interview Rand did.

She was asked if she came upon a lake and saw a man drowning would she throw him the life preserver she was holding.

Her answer? It was all based on your pay back: "There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them."

Libertarianism in a nutshell

Posted by: TOMMYBASEBALL | May 20, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

My business is my property. I pay the bills and I have the right to decide how to run it free from government interference

==

no, you don't.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

SO howz the Republican safe-haven-for-bigots strategy workin' for ya? Have we heard from Michael Steele on Rand Paul's views lately?

Posted by: shrink2 | May 20, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

"Democrats pounce on Kentucky candidate's criticism of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
__________________
That's pretty funny considering it was Congressional Democrats who opposed (and voted against) the Civil Rights Act IN 1964!!!!"

Yes, Southern Democrats as well as both Southern and Non-Southern Republicans like Barry Goldwater.

You tea tards do realize that not one person in Congress who opposed the Civil Rights Act was a liberal, right? They were CONSERVATIVES, just like you. You can't have it both ways.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 20, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

The anti-government crowd should just move to Somalia where there is no government.
Personally, I like our cleaner air and drinking water - which we'd never have if we depended on corporations to give a damn about us.
Apparently, Paul believes Wall Street shenanigans that led to millions of us losing homes, jobs, 401Ks, pensions, etc. -need no change. Americans should just continue trusting the corporations. ha!

Kentuckians must have been smoking some of Paul's "legalized" pot when they voted for this idiot.

Posted by: angie12106 | May 20, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Two people who commented at Red State said it all about Rand Paul and this particular issue:

1. "My understanding from Paul’s ... comments is that he doesn’t support repealing the Civil Rights Act and is not a racist or in favor of segregation or anything like that. BUT - his core belief that the federal government should have extremely limited authority to pass legislation that regulates businesses makes it impossible for him to support the idea of outlawing a business’s right to discriminate and segregate if they choose to."

2. "While I disagree with his view, Rand Paul is free to make it, but he should stick by it if he does, and that interview was 15 minutes of him dancing around his own position because he knows it’s an unpopular libertarian position. He can blame Maddow if he wants, but he will keep being asked specific questions using specific scenarios on whether or not he thinks the government has the right to impose desegregation on private business owners."

Posted by: mypitts2 | May 20, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Oh, Rand doesn't want to repeal the CRA, natcherly natcherly, he just doesn't want it enforced. Which means, operationally, the same as repealing it.

Watch the wingnuts feign to not get this point.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

I watched/listened to all 19:35 minutes of the of the interview and what I take from it is that Rand Paul is NOT discriminatory or racist, but is a pure Constitutionalist.

In other words the Fed Gov't should not dictate to private businesses how to run their businesses, no matter if we don't approve. It's not in the Constitution.
Posted by: janet8 | May 20, 2010 3:08 PM
___________________________________________
I just love it when Conservatives with absolutely no understanding of the Constitution invoke it to make absurd arguments.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;


Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Posted by: Lefty_ | May 20, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Whoa! All you self-righteous government-lovers hate it when a true blue patriot like Mr. Paul has the courage to stand up and say what so many of us believe. My business is my property. I pay the bills and I have the right to decide how to run it free from government interference, including barring those who I find morally objectionable or in conflict with my beliefs. If you don't like it, take your business someplace else. That's freedom of choice and freedom of association the way our founding fathers envisioned it. Way to go, Mr. Paul. It's men of grit and determination like you who will help us reclaim America's heritage and put everything back in its rightful place.

Posted by: rukidding1 | May 20, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I read that passage four or five times and could not detect any slur against the Civil Rights Act.

---------

Did those multi-syllable words trip you up???

Posted by: EdSantaFe | May 20, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I read that passage four or five times and could not detect any slur against the Civil Rights Act.

---------

Did those multi-syllable words trip you up???

Posted by: EdSantaFe | May 20, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

A quote says it all:

MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?

PAUL: YES. I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race.

That doesn't make Paul a racist, but it does make him someone who believes that government has no role in preventing discrimination.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 20, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

the liberal economy is back in reverse gear:

But the sharp market losses in recent weeks could unnerve consumers and businesses. Interbank and short-term borrowing rates are hitting the highest levels in months. The weaker European economy and stronger dollar also could hurt exports.

Meanwhile, stimulus spending has probably peaked. Fiscal policy will increasingly be a drag on growth, especially after including budget cuts and tax hikes by cash-strapped cities and states.

Finally, rapid inventory restockpiling has inflated GDP gains and fueled a V-shaped manufacturing recovery. But that restocking cycle has largely played out. Along with global concerns, that suggests manufacturing’s fast pace could slow considerably.

Meanwhile, the latest data raise concerns that the job growth and the recovery are faltering.

New jobless claims unexpectedly jumped by 25,000 last week to 471,000, the Labor Department said Thursday.

Applications for loans to buy a home crashed 27% last week to a 13-year low after the homebuyer tax credit expired, the Mortgage Bankers Association said Wednesday. The MBA also said mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures rose again in Q1.

when asked to comment on the situation, Present ident Obumbler proclaimed he saved the job of Sestak just this week, avoiding talk of the job he "created" for him to bribe him to drop the bid for office. He then noticed his teleprompter had gone dark and promptly excused himself from the room.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 20, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Well for a guy championing rugged individuialism, Paul sure caves in fast, and on nothing more than a hardball question.

Scratch a libertarian, find a whiner, every time.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Another day, another crowd gathers to watch horrified by the destructive power, but fascinated...as the Republican Party's structure fire sends flames high into the sky and throws off heat so intense no one can get close enough to even try to put it out. It isn't safe, the whole thing could collapse.

Posted by: shrink2
---------
Best post of the day. That's why I'm re-posting it.

Posted by: dldbug | May 20, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

I think that Rand Paul should speak his mind more often, especially in front of a television camera or other recording device.

Posted by: Anglo_Rider | May 20, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

I read that passage four or five times and could not detect any slur against the Civil Rights Act.

Maybe the Dims have written their narrative about Rand in advance and are trying to make it fit whatever circumstance presents itself.

Posted by: screwjob15 | May 20, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

yawn...what the big deal here? civil rights act is settled law. that doesnt mean the federal government was within its consitutional powers. there's nothing inconsistent with recognizing that congress and/or the executive overstep their boundaries from time to time and that, sometimes, its necesarry.

surely, liberals dont think that its constitutional to deny an accused habeus corpus, even though Lincoln went so far to suspend it in fighting the civil war. but by the logic of liberals currently engaged in character assasination, people who defend the right to habeus corpus are saying that they the north shouldnt have done everything in their power to win the war and end slavery. that certainly would put just about every politican and citizen in American in the racist category.

democrats are really pressing their luck with the lengths they are willing to go to to drag race into any argument so they can call people racists. playing games on this subject is not something americans have any tolerance for.

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

Democrats pounce on Kentucky candidate's criticism of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
__________________
That's pretty funny considering it was Congressional Democrats who opposed (and voted against) the Civil Rights Act IN 1964!!!!

------
Questions:

1. Who was the POTUS at the time who was pushing hard for the enactment of that bill and what was his party affiliation?

2. And after 1964 the majority of those (Southern) Democrats changed their affiliation to which party?

Times up. Put your number 2 pencils down.

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

The USA has always been a racist country. Just check your 19th C history.

The tea bags are taking the veils off a very dangerous subject and will pay for it in the end. Racist comments from Rand and his ilk (and yes that includes Boob Palin) will start to get bolder and bolder.

Watch and see.

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

It'll take a lot more than Macaca to stop Rand Paul and the Tea Party Movement.

==

You're right, it'll take voters and elections to stop the pee party movement, dead in its tracks.

Ayn Paul will pitch in a lot of help too.

(*guffaw*) look at that idiot.

The hairsplitting about government discrimination doesn't appear to be fooling anyone, even the wingnuts are trying to steer clear of the obvious.

hahahahaha, oh hohoohoohho this is going to be good.

Until someone gets shot.

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

robertmerry says, "You cannot in one breath say you are against it and then in the next make a philosophical argument supporting it on the part of others, in this case the rhetorical restaurant owners. It can only be one or the other, not both."

Yes you can. I don't agree with what the KKK says but I do agree that they have the right to say it.
I support the legalization of pot but should it happen I won't start smoking pot.

It is the same exact thing. It is not about racism. It is about government intruding into every aspect of my life. It is as if the government does not trust me to do what is right and then wants me to trust in government.

What a sham!

Posted by: tk221 | May 20, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Democrats pounce on Kentucky candidate's criticism of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
__________________
That's pretty funny considering it was Congressional Democrats who opposed (and voted against) the Civil Rights Act IN 1964!!!!

Posted by: WildBill1
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yup and that's when they all joined the Repug party. We vented our effluence through the CR act.

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

Another day, another crowd gathers to watch horrified by the destructive power, but fascinated...as the Republican Party's structure fire sends flames high into the sky and throws off heat so intense no one can get close enough to even try to put it out. It isn't safe, the whole thing could collapse.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 20, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

yawn...what the big deal here? civil rights act is settled law. that doesnt mean the federal government was within its consitutional powers. there's nothing inconsistent with recognizing that congress and/or the executive overstep their boundaries from time to time and that, sometimes, its necesarry.

surely, liberals dont think that its constitutional to deny an accused habeus corpus, even though Lincoln went so far to suspend it in fighting the civil war. but by the logic of liberals currently engaged in character assasination, people who defend the right to habeus corpus are saying that they the north shouldnt have done everything in their power to win the war and end slavery. that certainly would put just about every politican and citizen in American in the racist category.

democrats are really pressing their luck with the lengths they are willing to go to to drag race into any argument so they can call people racists. playing games on this subject is not something americans have any tolerance for.

Posted by: dummypants | May 20, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

So, if Paul is against racism, where does he stand on the racist War on Drugs? Is he in favor of continuing to spend tens of billions each year to arrest hundreds of thousands of (mostly black) people?

What about marijuana? The name itself is Mexican, and the law prohibiting it was designed to control Mexican people in the first place. Just look at what's happening in the SW right now. Didn't Calderon just say that we need to reduce demand for Mexican drugs in the US? Isn't it mainly cannabis that many people in this country are dying to grow themselves? Why do we still have laws in place that give the cartels so much business?

Sounds like Obama -- who once did a good job of articulating the racism of the drug war -- has dropped the ball.

Sooner or later, people are going to have to learn to take personal responsibility and manage their own lives, and their own communities... the Federal Government won't be able to afford it much longer.

Posted by: MrTracker | May 20, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

I dont like one syllable names like Rand.

Posted by: veronihilverius | May 20, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

janet8, you are pathetic. If that's your idea of a hit job, you are a weak little worm who has no business anywhere near discussion of politics.

Paul is a weasel. plain and simple.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 20, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Listen to those Progressive do-gooders whine!

It's wonderful.

Posted by: jsbar | May 20, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

North Korea, accused of waging the deadliest attack on the South Korean military since the Korean War, flatly denied sinking a warship Thursday and warned that retaliation would mean "all-out war."

Well that settles it. Obambi will not be doing anything more about this situation.

In his entire time in office he has not solved a single problem presented to him. He seems to only exacerbate everything that comes his way. Why are liberals so clueless?

He has annoyed all our overseas allies and coddled our enemies to no effect. He has only passed laws that are now considered dismal failures. His economic efforts have fallen flat and worsened our outlook.

At what point will the loons on this thread and in the MSM admit their mistake in electing the most inexperienced and utterly incompetent pol in history?

How about a summit or commission to resolve all these outstanding issues? that always works.

-----------
The absolute illogic and pointlessness of your rant is stunning. Please advise of what region your from. I want to avoid the place in case it's something in the water.

Posted by: dldbug | May 20, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Democrats pounce on Kentucky candidate's criticism of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
__________________
That's pretty funny considering it was Congressional Democrats who opposed (and voted against) the Civil Rights Act IN 1964!!!!

Posted by: WildBill1 | May 20, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

So the Tea Bag philosophy is turning into a potent mix of kooky Libertarianism, racism, and entitlement slashing (except for the entitlements that the Baggers depend on). All those Baggers are going to go wild when Paul gets up on the podium with Sarah Palin. But are there enough racist kooks in this country to elect someone like that? I don't think so.

Posted by: gposner | May 20, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Rachel Maddow did a hit job because the Liberals are afraid of the Tea Party

Posted by: janet8 | May 20, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

_______

No. We want Rand Paul to get a lot more attention.

The more people hear what he thinks, the better they will be able to contain the racist hate that inspires teabaggers.

Posted by: lichtme | May 20, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse


Rand Paul lacks any perspective on this issue. He has grown up rich and white in a post-civil-rights-movement America.

He has no idea what he would be putting other people through with his little dream of an America where everyone will just be relied upon to do the right thing, what ever they think that is.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | May 20, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Did someone say "Macaca " ?
Good night Rand boy.

Posted by: jmsbh | May 20, 2010 3:06 PM
_____________________________________________

It'll take a lot more than Macaca to stop Rand Paul and the Tea Party Movement.

Maybe you should read the leaves.

Posted by: jsbar | May 20, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Wild stuff here, especially from the Paul apologists. Do you not understand? Racism is racism. You cannot in one breath say you are against it and then in the next make a philosophical argument supporting it on the part of others, in this case the rhetorical restaurant owners. It can only be one or the other, not both. He should have let the first answer stand and moved on but in his moment of hubris, his moment of triumph, he could not help himself. He felt he had already been elected. Not so. The views he espouses and his supporters here espouse belong to the nineteenth century and era of Jim Crowe and separate but equal. This is the twentieth century and we are not going back Racism pure and simple. You may not like being called that but that's what he is and what you are if you support his statement.

One other thing, having a certain skin color or having a certain ethnic background is not a choice, but gun ownership is. Think about it, PLEASE, for a change? Use your brains not your emotions.

Posted by: robertmerry | May 20, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse


Rachel Maddow did a hit job because the Liberals are afraid of the Tea Party and since Rand Paul brought up the Tea Party when he won, the Libs think to discredit him is to discredit the Tea Party.

I watched/listened to all 19:35 minutes of the of the interview and what I take from it is that Rand Paul is NOT discriminatory or racist, but is a pure Constitutionalist.

In other words the Fed Gov't should not dictate to private businesses how to run their businesses, no matter if we don't approve. It's not in the Constitution.

He spoke the truth as he sees it. A politician who says what he actually feels.

Did Rachel ever ask the Black Caucus if they were racist since they only include black members of Congress. And if it's a Federal Law you cannot be discriminatory in Public Bldg's, etc., then how does the Black Caucus get away with skirting the law?

Personally, I wouldn't go to a place that discriminates, but I can understand his point as a candidate who believes in limited government.

Maddow set a trap but it's up to the voter's to decide in November.

BTW, why didn't she villify Obama for being mentored by a racist preacher or being financed at Harvard by the racist al Mansour formerly of the Black Panthers who said he wanted to reach down the throats of white people and pull out their flesh?

It's a double standard by the liberals once again.

Posted by: janet8 | May 20, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul is a socialist welfare queen:

**Kentucky taxpayers receive more federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid than the average state. Per dollar of federal tax collected in 2005, Kentucky citizens received approximately $1.51 in the way of federal spending. This ranks the state 9th highest nationally and represents a rise from 1995 when Kentucky received $1.28 per dollar of taxes in federal spending (ranked 13th nationally).**

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/30.html

--teabaggers are national socialists—

Posted by: lichtme | May 20, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

So Maddow is now accused of "badgering" because she asked a tough question. And of course the Right will spew their tired old talking points about the mean old "lamestream media".

Expect no more interviews from Mr. Paul by anyone other then from Rupert Murdoch's minions.

Posted by: dldbug | May 20, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

North Korea, accused of waging the deadliest attack on the South Korean military since the Korean War, flatly denied sinking a warship Thursday and warned that retaliation would mean "all-out war."

Well that settles it. Obambi will not be doing anything more about this situation.

In his entire time in office he has not solved a single problem presented to him. He seems to only exacerbate everything that comes his way. Why are liberals so clueless?

He has annoyed all our overseas allies and coddled our enemies to no effect. He has only passed laws that are now considered dismal failures. His economic efforts have fallen flat and worsened our outlook.

At what point will the loons on this thread and in the MSM admit their mistake in electing the most inexperienced and utterly incompetent pol in history?

How about a summit or commission to resolve all these outstanding issues? that always works.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 20, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Let's face it, Ayn Rand had some really weird and creepy ideas,obsession with individual will, heroic individualism, it reminded me of the totalitarian ideologies Randians profess to oppose. It's going to be an interesting midterm election.

Posted by: osullivanc1 | May 20, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

_____________________________________________
Individual will, heroic individualism (as opposed to being part of a herd) is creepy?

No wonder the country is in the mess it is in.

Posted by: jsbar | May 20, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Did someone say "Macaca " ?
Good night Rand boy.

Posted by: jmsbh | May 20, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Tea tard candidates like Paul have misinterpreted Sarah Palin's exhortations. They think she said, "Drool, baby, drool!"

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 20, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Now I know what Rand says in public (MSNBC) or when surrounded by Tea party buddies as well as what he says to a black nurse that works at his clinic.

Same as those who profess that they are against racial discrimination and laugh when derogatory comments and even threats to life are made against other races at the privacy of their house or club.

Posted by: biggy3 | May 20, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who thinks Paul doesn't have a real (e.g., not cooked up by left-wing fascists) problem did not watch the interview. Count how many times he absolutely refuses to say if he believes a restaurant should be able to legally refuse to serve black people. Now with a sympathetic right-wing radio host the next day he's trying to say he supports the 1964 law, as if that answers the question, but it doesn't. He has yet to say yes or no: Should it be legal for a business (and not a private club, either, like he tried to say with Maddow...) to refuse to serve blacks. Or gays. Or whoever. In 2010, that's a problem unrelated to liberal commie conspiracies. Have the courage of your Tea Party convictions, doc. Answer the freaking question.

Posted by: TomR3 | May 20, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

"Rand Paul ought to be checked at the door, but then again, it is Kentucky."

BEST COMMENT OF THE DAY!

Posted by: drindl | May 20, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Also in the ranks of successfull liberal businessmen:

Warren Buffett & Bill Gates - both billionaires who agree that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were a bad idea.

There's more.

Posted by: dldbug | May 20, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

'Liberals should stop accusing Republicans of racism and let them speak for themselves...ok lets see...ah, here is greg,

"After a year of Obama, folks there are ready for someone who will stand up to the non-white socialist agenda.

Posted by: greg3"


As you can see from all the rightwing bile on this thread, shrink, this is going to be one of the ugliest and most divisive elections we've had. it will certainly be a referendum on Obama's -- race.

Posted by: drindl | May 20, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Paul should have responded to Maddow's badgering by simply responding: Private business' that discriminate do so at their own peril. Boycotts and other protests are very effective against business that openly violate the sensibilities and practice open bigotry.

Numerous business have been shut down for many other reasons by community boycotts and very large ones at that, for reasons less offensive than open bigotry.

The Civil Rights Act of 64, especially the codicil of including women as minorities is a vast overreach by the federal government and for the most part it has been an utter failure. The ill will between the races and the sexes I may add, have been exacerbated by such heavy handed, blunt instruments as preferential treatment as remedies for past discrimination.

As Machiavelli once said "Nothing is more dangerous or unpredictable in its result then tinkering with human nature."

Progressives are not going to "Reeducate mankind" to their likening no matter how hard they try.

Posted by: jsbar | May 20, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Let's face it, Ayn Rand had some really weird and creepy ideas, and her cult-like supporters are going to have to defend them now. Have you ever read "Atlas Shrugged"? I did for a course at college. Some really far out stuff, with its obsession with individual will, martyrdom, heroic individualism, it reminded me of the totalitarian ideologies Randians profess to oppose. It's going to be an interesting midterm election.

Posted by: osullivanc1 | May 20, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

and then of course there's Palin, who wants to sound like a libertarian tea party type, but then comes out in favor of regulating Wall Street. she's tied herself in a pretzel.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 20, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

I love the closing lines from Rand Paul complaining the Civil Rights issue is 'a political issue'. Gee, he is running for political office. What else would he like to discuss, flower arranging?

As for his comparison of carrying a gun into a restaurant, ugh. Come on. Guns are optional, you can have one or not. Race, at least in this culture, is something that is part of your being. White, black, and so on. You don't take it off, can't be checked at the door.

Rand Paul ought to be checked at the door, but then again, it is Kentucky.

Posted by: 44fx290 | May 20, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

It is pretty clear that what Rand Paul is against is unlimited government and that is probably what has the left in a fit.

For those that worship at the alter of big government, Paul is the anti-Christ.

Posted by: tk221 | May 20, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

________

Unlimited government? Where do you come up with this, after the GOP bailed out Wall Street and Detroit?

Your head is in a very bad smelling place—

Rand Paul is a socialist welfare queen:

**Kentucky taxpayers receive more federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid than the average state. Per dollar of federal tax collected in 2005, Kentucky citizens received approximately $1.51 in the way of federal spending. This ranks the state 9th highest nationally and represents a rise from 1995 when Kentucky received $1.28 per dollar of taxes in federal spending (ranked 13th nationally).**

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/30.html

--Republicans are national socialists—

Posted by: lichtme | May 20, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

I've read his statement and rhetorically ask: is this guy really a physician? I have no idea what he was talking about only what was implied.

Posted by: mark2008 | May 20, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

and that is the problem with libertarians. they want the novelty of being same, but they do it with bumper sticker slogans, not policies. Limited government sounds fine until you say that means no government ban on segregation or let's repeal the ADA. and on, and on.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 20, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

It is pretty clear that what Rand Paul is against is unlimited government and that is probably what has the left in a fit.

For those that worship at the alter of big government, Paul is the anti-Christ.

Posted by: tk221 | May 20, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

________

Unlimited government? Where do you come up with this, after the GOP bailed out Wall Street and Detroit?

Your head is in a very bad smelling place—

Posted by: lichtme | May 20, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Still impossible to find a liberal who can actually run a profitable business. Is that why they love government and unions so much?

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 20, 2010 2:50 PM

Ever heard of Microsoft?

Posted by: TOMMYBASEBALL | May 20, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Could the downfall of all things Liberal be attributed to public education?

This week we learned that Nappy, the incompetent head of DHS is incapable of reading a ten page law before pronouncing judgment. and that Eric Holder, the most perplexed AG of our time, is also not able to read anything not loaded into a policy propoganda document by his spinners.

Reading is Fundamental.

Try it sometime Libs. your guy berry is a master at it, propping up his entire fraudulent career with a simple ability to read from the teleprompter. Yet the rest of you can't catch on?

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 20, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

My gosh, his public/private distinction is just ridiculous. What a moron. Then again, it is Kentucky, and they did vote for Bunning and McConnell. So what else would you expect?

Why he didn't just come out and say "I support the Civil Rights Act" I can't say, except to observe that where's there's smoke, there's fire.

Posted by: 44fx290 | May 20, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

37thandO: sure he's personally against segregation. I will concede that. But he's also against government telling the owner of a Nashville drug store that he can't refuse to serve blacks. If you want to take that extreme a view on limiting the role of government in commerce, fine, but you have to be prepared for the consequences. He said he was against discrimination but for everyone else's right to discriminate if they want to, free of any government involvement.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 20, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Obama: Left-wing
Nation Magazine Facing
$1 Mil Budget Deficit

The far-left Nation magazine is facing a $1,000,000 budget shortfall. Though it attributes it to a weak market for print journalism, conservative periodicals are doing quite well. In fact, the present ident the Nation worked so hard to elect could spell the magazine's downfall. The irony is delicious. The magazine's Washington Editor Chris Hayes wrote a fundraising email saying that ''newspapers and magazines are having a rough time.'' Well, not all magazines. National Review's circulation has increased by roughly 25,000 since 2008.


Still impossible to find a liberal who can actually run a profitable business. Is that why they love government and unions so much?

--------------
What about George Soros?

Oh that's right, I forgot: When a liberal is a successfull businessman he becomes an "elitist".

Posted by: dldbug | May 20, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul confirms everything bad that's been said and claimed about the tea party.
they really are just white elitists being funded by big corporations trying to bring back a "white america".

Posted by: MarilynManson | May 20, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

It is pretty clear that what Rand Paul is against is unlimited government and that is probably what has the left in a fit.

For those that worship at the alter of big government, Paul is the anti-Christ.

Posted by: tk221 | May 20, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

The unifying idea among the rancid tea bags is thinly veiled racism. So why is this schmuck's comment so surprising?

Posted by: EdSantaFe | May 20, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

White I am not a Paul fan, the message was misunderstood and twisted for political purposes. He is a Libertarian and like all Libertarians, wants to limit government involvement in private lives.

==

And libertarians will never get past the "distant third" label because they are lunatics and dreamer, to say nothing of grimly inhumane.

Hope you enjoyed Ayn Paul's nomination, it's all downhill from here. This guy is going to spend the next six months alternating between evasive answers and unhinged junk.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Obama: Left-wing
Nation Magazine Facing
$1 Mil Budget Deficit

The far-left Nation magazine is facing a $1,000,000 budget shortfall. Though it attributes it to a weak market for print journalism, conservative periodicals are doing quite well. In fact, the present ident the Nation worked so hard to elect could spell the magazine's downfall. The irony is delicious. The magazine's Washington Editor Chris Hayes wrote a fundraising email saying that ''newspapers and magazines are having a rough time.'' Well, not all magazines. National Review's circulation has increased by roughly 25,000 since 2008.


Still impossible to find a liberal who can actually run a profitable business. Is that why they love government and unions so much?

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 20, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

I don't see how it's possible to say "I oppose racism," and at the same time say "I see nothing wrong in supporting someone else's right to engage in racist behavior."

Oh wait... I forgot that the ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth is a prerequisite for public service. Elect him, he'll fit right in.

Posted by: Nemo5 | May 20, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

I don't see how it's possible to say "I oppose racism," and at the same time say "I see nothing wrong in supporting someone else's right to engage in racist behavior."

Oh wait... I forgot that the ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth is a prerequisite for public service. Elect him, he'll fit right in.

Posted by: Nemo5 | May 20, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Realist201 - You don't mean Christie do you?

You don't even know his name????????

Posted by: TOMMYBASEBALL | May 20, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Why would the Framers agree with Paul? Based on what? Some were staunch federalists, some not. Some wanted a very expansive reading of the language, other a less expansive reading, but still always an elastic reading -- a "textualist" approach.

And so far as discrimination, our understanding of "all men are created equal" is significantly different than it would be to most living in 1787-1789. The demographic makeup, the economy, the technology of that era bear little resemblance to the world today.

If you want to make an "originalist" nonsense argument, then we should not have any govenrment doing things like subsidizing railraods, airports, any steam or other owered device. No government regulation of broadcast media etc. sinc e the words" steam train" are not in the Consittution.

An interesting poit for you righties who love to defend scalier and his originalism -- scalia is always quick to strike down legislation and government action as "unconstitutional." That power of judicial review is not part of the Constitution, nor was it the "original intent" to have the judiciary exercize such power.

Posted by: John1263 | May 20, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul's real problem is that both of the Democrats who ran in the Primary got more votes than either he or his GOP establishment opponent.

But that would require real reporting, which is something the Washington Post is weak on.

Posted by: WillSeattle | May 20, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Tbaggers golden boy, Rand Paul was backed into a corner and had to respond. He tried dancing around the question but bottom line was that "private" business has the right to discriminate at any level on any terms against blacks, gays, disabled, whomever they wish. Well, what an American is this guy! Tbaggers can no longer hide their agenda and their candidates.

Posted by: utahmink | May 20, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul, LOL

Posted by: 44fx290 | May 20, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

I can't wait to hear Paul explain his position on Social Security. Better yet, I want to hear the reaction of the "keep the government out of my MediCare" crowd when Paul expalins to them he wants to do away with Social Security. And MediCare now that I think over Libertarian positions.

THAT WILL BE ENTERTAINMENT!

Posted by: AMviennaVA | May 20, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Liberals should stop accusing Republicans of racism and let them speak for themselves...ok lets see...ah, here is greg,

"After a year of Obama, folks there are ready for someone who will stand up to the non-white socialist agenda.

Posted by: greg3"

Posted by: shrink2 | May 20, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

wow, you liberals must have really seen the writing on the wall this week. any support for Obumbler will result in electoral defeat.

so far Chairman Zero is 0 for 4 - VA, NJ, PA, MA. the only guy that won on the Dem ticket proclaimed everything Obama contrary to his views - guns, god, spending, Obamaplunder, etc.

So to counter that effect of being laughed out of office for unbrideled spending and utter weakness in all other things, you claim that anyone who dares ask any questions about your contemptible socialist agenda is necessarily a racist?

Note to self, liberals, try to update yout tactics once every 50 years or so.

Is that the beginning and end of the Lib strategy for the year? good Luck with that. anyone with a semblence of a brain (obviously exclusing liberals) is long past that foolishness.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 20, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

This is most troubling development. We can see how white men are just holding on to things and return to good old days. I understand -- im white and 70, but fellows that old world is gone -- as it should be -- all people should have a chance to have a good life. Just because you have money doesn't mean anything. Most people with money didn't earn it.

The R. Pauls live in a dream world of mint julips. It's over. Soon white people will be in the minority -- it can't happen to soon for me --

Posted by: frederick2 | May 20, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Tbaggers golden boy, Rand Paul was backed into a corner and had to respond. He tried dancing around the question but bottom line is that "private" business has the right to discriminate at any level on any terms against blacks, gays, disabled. Well, what an American is this guy! Tbaggers can no longer hide their agenda and their candidates.

Posted by: utahmink | May 20, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul is going to be a train wreck. He is even quirkier than his dad. As a Democrat, I am delighted he won the Republican primary. Even if he beleives this line he shouldn't be so stupid as to say it out loud. He isn't especially quick on his feet. More weirdness to follow.

Posted by: wrw01011 | May 20, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

This is most troubling development. We can see how white men are just holding on to things and wishing to return to the good old days. I understand -- I am white and 70, but fellows that old world is gone -- as it should be -- all people should have a chance to have a good life. Just because you have money doesn't mean anything. Most people with money didn't earn it.

The R. Pauls live in a dream world of mint julips. It's over. Soon white people will be in the minority -- it can't happen to soon for me --

Posted by: frederick2 | May 20, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

This is most troubling development. We can see how white men are just holding on to things and wishing to return to the good old days. I understand -- I am white and 70, but fellows that old world is gone -- as it should be -- all people should have a chance to have a good life. Just because you have money doesn't mean anything. Most people with money didn't earn it.

The R. Pauls live in a dream world of mint julips. It's over. Soon white people will be in the minority -- it can't happen to soon for me --

Posted by: frederick2 | May 20, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers - I think that you have outed Rove!!!!

"Bumblingberry" isn't a plagerist or someone who is too stupid to write his own stuff so he steals it from someone famous.

No, he is Rove himself!!!!

Excellent work, detective

Posted by: TOMMYBASEBALL | May 20, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Once again the Washington Post is trying to villify anyone that runs against Obama and the Dems - it will not work, just as it didn't against McDonnell, Brown, & Cristy.

Posted by: Realist201 | May 20, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

A DAVID DUKE POPULIST?

Rand Paul's problem is not political. It is social. He appears to hold sociopathic beliefs. He appears to adhere to a supremacist, survival-of-the-fittest ideology. This is not "libertarianism," which values personal liberty and free will. This sounds like eugenics. Ron Paul's rhetoric sounds like that of a closet eugenicist -- an unapologetic supremacist.

***

FED CELLULAR 'TORTURE TOWER' MICROWAVE WEAPON SYSTEM SILENTLY IRRADIATES, TORTURES, HARMS UNAWARE 'TARGETED' AMERICANS: VETERAN JOURNALIST

• "A quiet genocide targeting "dissidents" and "undesirables" -- enabled by the naivete of those who cannot comprehend that a multi-agency Homeland Security-led fusion center torture matrix could institutionalize such evil in America."

WHEN WILL OBAMA STOP APPEASING A ROGUE BUREAUCRACY -- AND START ROLLING SOME HEADS?

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america
OR NowPublic.com/scrivener re: "Obama: Take Down Fusion Center Gestapo..."

Posted by: scrivener50 | May 20, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul is going to be a train wreck. He is even quirkier than his dad. As a Democrat, I am delighted he won the Republican primary. Even if he beleives this crap he shouldn't be so stupid as to say it out loud. More weirdness to follow.

Posted by: wrw01011 | May 20, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

@37thand0street

You ignore the fact that a Democratic president signed the Civil Rights Act into law. Nevertheless, you're technically correct that it was Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights Act. That's because there were very few Republicans representing the South in Congress in 1964. The GOP was still hated in the South then. Of the 35 GOP Senators in 1964, just two -- Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and John Tower of Texas -- were from former Confederate states. Further, of the 181 GOP House members that year, only 13 were from former Confederate states, and there were no, as in zero, GOP House members from Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia or South Carolina.

The Democratic Party is no longer the party of conservative white Southerners. They switched to the GOP in the 1980s and 1990s and took their racial views with them.

Posted by: SilverSpring8 | May 20, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul

Your going over plowed ground. We fought a civil war over your issues and you lost. Look up 1865 in a history book if you own one?

Posted by: pathenry | May 20, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Bumblingberry, you'd better watch your back. There is some guy named "Gregory" ripping-off your brilliant writing and posting it at moonbattery.

I can understand letting the WSJ slide on taking your stuff because it IS the Wall Street Journal. But Dude, when moonbattery takes your stuff, well it's time to man-up because that's just, well, moooonbattery. No one goes there for intelligent writing.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | May 20, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul wants to know how the deficit grew: Number One are the Bush/Cheney $1.7 Trillion and Growing in Tax Cuts for the most Wealthy and Least Likely to serve in the military, all while we are Fighting in Two Wars costing Hundreds of Billions.

My Taxes and what I pay for Gas and Food is lower now than when Bush and Cheney were in office; but then again I make much less than 250k/year. With Bush we were all being gouged $4~$5/gallon for gas while Oil companies enjoyed subsidies and tax breaks.

Time is long overdue for the Bush Era Tax cuts for the Rich to Expire.

Posted by: liveride | May 20, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

The Founding Fathers would agree with Paul.

==

The founding fathers had slaves. This is the 21st century, for most of us anyway. Thanks for posting more useless garbage, we were starting to run low.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

whether he is personally a racist is actually not relevant. what is relevant is that he does not have the sense to understand what consequences his hair brained proposals would have.

Posted by: John1263 | May 20, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Why isn't the Bushington Post investigating his racism instead of your heavily implied criticism of online dems for sending this video around to each other?

Posted by: solsticebelle | May 20, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

"Now name 5 current southern Democratic office holders who say they would have voted against the Civil Rights Act or who there is even a whisper about racism and I will give you both Paul's, George Allen, Trent Lott, Jim DeMint, etc., etc, etc."

The problem is that you folks whisper that everyone who disagrees with you is a racist. Nobody is going to pass your stupid test.

Posted by: bobmoses | May 20, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I watched the interview with Paul and when pressed he kept saying he was against GOVERNMENT discrimination. When asked about a restaurant discriminating against gays, blacks, Hispanics or the handicapped he kept repeating he was against GOVERNMENT discrimination. His response reminded me of the BP execs who keep saying they will pay every LEGITAMATE claim when asked if they will pay for lost tourism or losses to the fishing industry or property damage due to the spill. It’s not what they say as much it is what they are NOT saying.

Posted by: thomgr | May 20, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

"This is the last time Rand Paul will appear in an open and honest interview. From here on out he'll do a Bush / Palin and stick to Fox and pre-approved questions."

Exactly right. He has already said he will not do a 'liberal' show again. Which to his ilk, means he's only talk to Fox from now on.

Fox listeners will be the only ones who vote for him anyway.

Posted by: drindl | May 20, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

There are other issues too. What about the fair wage act which requires workers to be paid more for overtime? What about prohibiting discrimination in employment or school placement?

I can see how if all the congress were of Rand Paul's persuasion, working people and minorities would get stomped. And that after they've already been stomped. The last last twenty years or so (since Reagan) have about wiped out the working middle class.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | May 20, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

pvilso24 - Give me the name of 10 southern democrats who voted on the Civil Rights act in 1964 who are: 1) still in congress and 2) still a Democrat.

OK, how about 5?

No?

Now name 5 current southern Democratic office holders who say they would have voted against the Civil Rights Act or who there is even a whisper about racism and I will give you both Paul's, George Allen, Trent Lott, Jim DeMint, etc., etc, etc.

Also, moron, it is not about what he actually says it is what about he appears to say. This is politics not grammar. You don't get credit for correct syntax.

If you are too stupid to see Paul opened himself up to a world of hurt I feel sorry for you.

Posted by: TOMMYBASEBALL | May 20, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Finally, these right wingers are being shown for what they are, bigoted, small minded, cave men/women who hate anyone that does not look like them. Will be waiting for Sarah to weigh in on Paul's side. Hopefully this is the beginning of the end. Otherwise we will have Dick Cheney as our leader and that is scary at many levels

Posted by: rtrorkt1 | May 20, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Did you see Ron Paul's appearance in "Bruno" (the Sacha Baron Cohen flick)?

Very (inadvertently) funny!

Here's hoping the apple didn't fall from the tree, and that Rand Paul's brief career in electoral politics will keep us in stitches for the next few months!

Posted by: HughBriss | May 20, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

White I am not a Paul fan, the message was misunderstood and twisted for political purposes. He is a Libertarian and like all Libertarians, wants to limit government involvement in private lives.

Posted by: bethg1841 | May 20, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

I'm impressed! Wow.

Bumblingberry writes for Karl Rove. I bet you earn a packet doing that. I'm proud of you.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703691804575254652185973976.html

Posted by: margaretmeyers | May 20, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

I hope Cillizza is aware that this is a non-issue to people living in Kentucky.
After a year of Obama, folks there are ready for someone who will stand up to the non-white socialist agenda.

Posted by: greg3 | May 20, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

I'll bet Michael Steele has the Republican Party's 50 state strategy for 2012 already in the can. He better, two and a half years isn't much time. Too bad no one gives a rat's ass what he or the RNC have in mind.

Republicans have lost control of their direction, their political platform is whatever the candidate of the day says it is. But that is what happens when you stoke fear and hatred in masses of downwardly mobile, not altogether very well educated people (trying to avoid the word ignorant).

Posted by: shrink2 | May 20, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

OMG Bumblingberry! Did you know there is osmeone at the Weekly Standard ripping you off? They print the same thing you posted here.

Gosh, I'd be mad!

Posted by: margaretmeyers | May 20, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

The Tea Party has a Clear Allegiance: The Rich, Oil and Coal

They are fighting for what's best for Wall Street Criminals, for Oil and Coal Industry Negligence resulting in Deaths and Pollution, and the Policies that allow them to continue doing so Without Oversight or Regulation.

Why isn’t the Tea Party organizing and demonstrating against Industries causing the Deaths and Lost Livelihoods of Millions of Americans? Why aren't they protesting Lack of Regulation against Wall Street, Oil and Coal companies that are Killing People and caused the Financial Devastation of Millions of Americans? Why aren't they protesting against BP and Halliburton's Gross Negligence in the destruction of Multi-Billion dollar Tourism and Commercial Fishing Industries in the Gulf Coast Oil disaster?

Because the Companies Responsible is who Started, Fund and Direct Tea Party actions.

The primary funding sources for the Tea Party are two conservative groups: Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks which receive substantial funding from David Koch of Koch Industries, the largest privately-held energy company in the country, and the conservative Koch Family Foundations. Koch industries are responsible for hundreds of Oil spills spread over multiple states.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/wanted-for-climate-crimes-cha

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries-secretly-fund

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries

Posted by: liveride | May 20, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

rand paul's political problem is way larger than his support for reinstating state based discrimintion -- I listened to the interview yesterday as it was taking place, and that was his position as much as he tried to avoid coming out and saying it....but paul is a benighted unreasoned troll is the real problem. He talks bumper stickers without a second of thought about the consequences of what he proposes. He is the typical libertarian. They propose eliminating all corporate controls as "liberty," for example, wothout thinking for a second of how that directly leads to a gross loss of liberty for nearly everyone except the very well connected and wealthy. Of course, if he does think beyond the bumper sticker then he is just a dangerous demagogue fronting for the very same interests who would have us all be slaves of their corporate empires.

Posted by: John1263 | May 20, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

It's not a private business when the government dictates who can come and go.

Posted by: kat17 | May 20, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Help! Help! I can't stop laughing. This is great news. This just goes to show you how screwed up the tea party crowd really is. LOL. Squares are now available on how low his percentage of the vote will be.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | May 20, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Loony liberals. Losing more credibility with each passing day:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bye folks!

Posted by: drindl | May 20, 2010 12:14 PM

that most recent attempt at an actual "life" lasted all of 2 minutes.

The WaPo Fix, it's like crack to liberals. Today, they're quitting. No really this time.

But Ped, Drivl, Loud and Dumb and JRM are like a bad case of some STD, they just keep coming back.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 20, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul is an ignorant racist and demagogue, in other words an average member of the Tea Party.

His nomination is a Godsend for Democrats as is the nomination of Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania. Arlen Specter was a guaranteed loser but now Sestak can win easily in November.

With Republicans protecting Wall Street and impotently slamming the highly qualified Elena Kagan, things are certainly looking up for Democrats as November approaches.

Posted by: dee5 | May 20, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

He's a racist, just like his father. Why is anyone surprised? Actually, being a racist will probably help him in Kentucky.

Posted by: PepperDr | May 20, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

zzzzzzzzzzzz. No story here. He said he does not believe in discrimination of anyone...unlike you chris who I would bet my house supports affirmative action (fyi, is discrimination).

Posted by: j751 | May 20, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

If people think it's OK to discriminate against blacks or other groups, fine, just spit it out. And be prepared for backlash, because you will surely get it. You can say whatever you want, and people can react however they want.

Posted by: Grandblvd03 | May 20, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

The Founding Fathers would agree with Paul. Property rights are much more important than human rights, which is why corporations are people, and some humans (at least as far as the writers of the Constitution were concerned - three-fifths is not a whole person) are not people.

Posted by: daweeni | May 20, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Big shocker. Democrats cry racism and the hyper=partisan liberal media jumps in with two feet.

Maybe someday partisan hacks like Cilizza will make Republican accusations front page news, but doing so would require some desire to be more than a political flack masquerading as a journalist.

Posted by: bobmoses | May 20, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

So once you start a tire fire, how do you put it out? Republicans need to find an answer because this one is growing and throwing up a huge cloud of toxic smoke.

I'll bet the people who are trying to run the party remember the days of rigid party discipline fondly, all talking points came straight from Rove, no deviation, no freelancing, simple messages all carefully vetted by focus groups...those were the days, eh Republicans?

Posted by: shrink2 | May 20, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

I thought I'd come back for awhile but it is still the sewer clogged by the same old characters spamming the blog with insults.

Bye-bye

Posted by: JRM2 | May 20, 2010 12:35 PM


why do liberal promises have such a short shelf life?

Remember:

Transparency
Close gitmo
line by line
public financing
no lobbysits
drain the swamp
bi partisanship
post racial
etc.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 20, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

37thand0street - The "Jim Crow and KKK Democrats are ALL now republicans (except Byrd, who has more than made amends for his foolishness).

That is not history, that is the church of what's happening now.

Do you even care or do you want to keep talking about stuff you don't understand about 50 years ago???

And if you want to talk about 50 years ago you need to use all the facts not just the part of them you think makes you look rosy.

Here is the ACTUAL 1964 VOTE breakdown by party and region"

"Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)" (from Wikipedia)

Those Southern Democrats are now republican, Ace.

When you try to throw "racism" as a blanket accusation you need to know what you are talking about, which you obviously don't.

Whatever positive things the republican party may have been 150 years ago went out the window with Goldwater, Reagan their minions- including the Bush clan.

If you want to believe that the tea party and the republican party are not driven by hate (anti-minority, anti-gay, anti-immigration, anti-poor, anti-progress) you can be my guest, but neither history nor the facts are with you.

Posted by: TOMMYBASEBALL | May 20, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"National Republican Senatorial Committee communications director Brian Walsh issued a statement noting that it was Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights Act"

Any Senator who fillibustered the Civil Rights act in 1964 should be run out of office. Oh wait,...

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | May 20, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

This is the last time Rand Paul will appear in an open and honest interview. From here on out he'll do a Bush / Palin and stick to Fox and pre-approved questions.

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 20, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Exactly what was Sestak offered by the Radical Administration to take him out of the race with Specter?
Posted by: FraudObama
------
Exactly what does your post have to do with this thread?

Posted by: JRM2 | May 20, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul does damage to himself every time he opens his mouth because he is an nasty ideologue who bases his entire political philosophy on the fictional writings of a crazy person. Ayn Rand followers have some sort of cognitive disability that should really just disqualify them for running or holding any office.
See: Greenspan, Alan.

Posted by: marSF | May 20, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Humm... I had to re-read what he said about three times... it sounded like he opposes segregation unlike Southern Democrats at the time.. than starts to wax philosophically about government intervention ending in a gun reference ?

And this is an indication of what ? He's a Jim Crow - Southern Democrat racist ?

Maybe he should have claimed he was actually behind the counter of a segregated restaurant when he nine years old, than call a press conference surrounded by black Republicans maybe even a fake one, and than denounce the New York Times for smearing his fake lunch-counter service !! Its working for Democratic candidate Blumenthal isn't it ?

Posted by: pvilso24 | May 20, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Humm... I had to re-read what he said about three times... it sounded like he opposes segregation unlike Southern Democrats at the time.. than starts to wax philosophically about government intervention ending in a gun reference ?

And this is an indication of what ? He's a Jim Crow - Southern Democrat racist ?

Maybe he should have claimed he was actually behind the counter of a segregated restaurant when he nine years old, than call a press conference surrounded by black Republicans maybe even a fake one, and than denounce the New York Times for smearing his fake lunch-counter service !! Its working for Blumenthal isn't it ?

Posted by: pvilso24 | May 20, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul said he was against discrimination

The democrats say: NOOOO THAT REALLY MEANS THE EXACT OPPOSITE.


No, it means he is against discrimination.

Funny - how the democrats haven't complained that when Obama said Bipartisanship and post-racial - Obama meant "jam something through" and "call everyone we can a racist"


OH WELL - I guess we understand now........

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 20, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Republican politicians seem to be really trying to become the permanent minority party in this country, despite widespread opposition by many independents to some or most Democratic policies. The Civil Rights act of 1964 was one of the most important and necessary reform bills of the 20th century.

Unfortunately most Democratic politicians have, in a classic Orwellian way, undermined the original meaning of civil rights by supporting quotas and other reverse discrimination policies. If anyone said private businesses should be allowed to discriminate against black or Hispanic persons, this would very properly be considered racist. However, if anyone said private businesses should be allowed to discriminate against white or Asian persons, this is considered by many Democratic politicians to be party orthodoxy and consistent with "civil rights."

The Republican party is all but hopeless. But the Democratic party is out of touch with most ordinary people, especially persons with independent judgment. Lose-lose for the people of this country.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | May 20, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul is the poster child for the Tea Party. This movement was established after Barack Obama's victory and inauguration as U.S. President. The main purpose of the Tea Party is to actively oppose President Obama and his policies. The Birthers are part of this movement. The impetus of the Tea Party and the Birthers is racism, pure and simple. These people do not want to see a African American man as U.S. President and do not want to see the economic and social progress of African Americans. These things threaten people who harbor racial hatred towards African Americans.

Posted by: abishop2 | May 20, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

What he's saying is that he's against discrimination but doesn't want to do anything about it. So if you're black, tough luck. Rand Paul says "I like you bro, but it sucks to be you" if everyone else wants to stick you at the back of the bus.

He's also for clean air, clean water, safe air travel, safe drugs, but doesn't want to do anything about those either.

How noble. I guess that's his vision of "taking America back."

Just when you thought that the Palinistas had the monopoly on stupid, here come the Paultards. Well, it should be an enjoyable spectacle if nothing else.

Posted by: jaysit | May 20, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

I thought you idiots were leaving?

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 20, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul is the poster child for the Tea Party. This movement was established after Barack Obama's victory and inauguration as U.S. President. The main purpose of the Tea Party is to actively oppose President Obama and his policies. The Birthers are part of this movement. The impetus of the Tea Party and the Birthers is racism, pure and simple. These people do not want to see a African American man as U.S. President and do not want to see the economic and social progress of African Americans. These things threaten people who harbor racial hatred towards African Americans.

Posted by: abishop2 | May 20, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul is the poster child for the Tea Party. This movement was established after Barack Obama's victory and inauguration as U.S. President. The main purpose of the Tea Party is to actively oppose President Obama and his policies. The Birthers are part of this movement. The impetus of the Tea Party and the Birthers is racism, pure and simple. These people do not want to see a African American man as U.S. President and do not want to see the economic and social progress of African Americans. These things threaten people who harbor racial hatred towards African Americans.

Posted by: abishop2 | May 20, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

"Democrats are blasting Kentucky Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul for refusing to say categorically whether he would have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. "Paul Stumbles Trying to Defend Views on Civil Rights" says a typical press release from the Democratic National Committee, citing comments from Paul interviews with the editorial board of the Louisville Courier-Journal, NPR and a particularly tense exchange Wednesday night with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC.

On MSNBC's Morning Joe Thursday host Joe Scarborough said of Paul: “He needs to come up with an answer today, or Kentucky will be Arizona: a battleground for ugly, racial politics. He has 24 hours."

And remember -- Scarborough is a republican. And all Paul is doing is digging himself a deeper hole.

"Today at a press conference on Capitol Hill, ThinkProgress approached DeMint about Paul’s views, particularly his opposition to the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. DeMint first tried to avoid the question, but eventually said he, unlike Paul, supports the Civil Rights Act, but needs to “talk to Rand about his positions”

ROFLOL -- Good luck with that one, Jim!

Posted by: drindl | May 20, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

"We have an anti-American president who looks the other way while illegals pour across our borders and he commands the feds to cease and desist in their arrest and deportation.

Where are MY civil rights not to be victimized and exploited by illegals - and MY OWN PRESIDENT?

Eat dirt, libTard Progressives.

Posted by: joesmithdefend"
----------
Obama Is Deporting More Immigrants Than Ever
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/little-girl-who-challenge_n_583432.html

Try some research ignoramus.

Posted by: JRM2 | May 20, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

For supposed lovers of the Constitution, tea tards seem to want it to mean as little as possible.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 20, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

"I don't believe in any private property should discriminate either", Dr. Paul stated. Is this man actually an medical doctor? Or did he just hire Pres. Bush's speech writer?
On a more serious note, Paul's performance on the Maddow show was an abysmal, evasive, and embarassing. No straight talker here!

Posted by: BBear1 | May 20, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

The problem for Rand Paul is that he is an ideologue. That's all well and good when you're an ophthalmologist, but it gets kinda tricky when you're a United States senator.

The government has no business regulating private companies?

Really?

Child labor is okay? Defective products are okay? Contaminated food is okay? Discrimination against Jews is okay?

Boy, this race could really get interesting....

Posted by: Bondosan | May 20, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I think the story is that he sounds like a bumbling moron. I read that statement and wonder how long he's been speaking English.

Posted by: kevin_rigsby19 | May 20, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul is a teabagger, and teabaggers don't hate black people, teabaggers think everbody should own one.

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 20, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

And now we see the left wing media start the hit jobs... Keep it up! You lose more credibility (any money) everyday!

Posted by: 2010Rout | May 20, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Chris, RP is not out of mainstream in conservative Republican thinking on this issue. Note that his clarification is that he would not support "repeal" of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not that he would have supported it at the time. And most self-identifying conservatives at the time, regardless of party, did not support it at the time, even if they know they have to live with it now. Answering honestly, he would tell you he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act, Social Security, Medicare, and most of the other landmark legislation since the 1930s. Most conservatives agree, but won't admit it because it would be catastrophic politically to do so. See B. Goldwater, 1964 for what happens when a candidate with similar views tries to run on them nationally. This issue should rightly dog him, and he shouldn't be let off the hook by saying he doesn't support repeal. If he really is a different, insurgent, anti-politics as usual, then he should run on the ideas he actually holds, and not try to disguise them to appear more "moderate" than he actually is.

Posted by: danmcc29 | May 20, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Theorhetical debates stone cold losers? So I take it you like your messages in :30 second sound bites Chris. Thanks for explaining how your mind works.

Anyone watching Rand or reading his words is not going to believe that Rand is some knuckle-dragging racist. No one said this about Barry Goldwater when he raised the same kind of problems when he voted against the CRA. And I do believe the current President Pro Temp of the Senate was filibuster against the CRA.

The more the Left and yourself wants to make this a phony issue to smear Rand, the more he benefits in Kentucky where the race is being held if I do recall. It doesn't matter what the NRSC thinks because they never supported Rand to begin with. Many on the real Right are already falling into line to defend Rand against these smear tactics.

We can have a debate about these issue or we can have a mudslinging contest. But if it's the latter Rand proved he can give as good as he gets. 59 percent, remember that.

Posted by: sean4 | May 20, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Very weak efforts by resident tea tards 37th and Zouk today. Even by their low, low standards.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 20, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Paul knew better than to answer the key question: "Do you believe that business owners have the right to practice racial and other forms of litmus-test discrimination in their businesses?" If he had answered, the answer would have been "Yes."

Instead, he tried to twist the question into a platform to argue about property rights, under the tacit presumption that anything less than absolute discretion in the operation of a business amounts to confiscation. It was a ridiculous argument.

Even worse, Paul bases his position on a restrictive interpretation of interstate commerce powers. If that interpretation of the Constitution were followed, there could be no federal funding for anything, including stuff like basic research, transportation systems, (no FAA, FCC, Transportation department) and a de facto dissolution of the United States. He wouldn't just abolish Medicare and Social Security if he had his way, he'd dismantle the whole of the federal government, except DoD.

Strict libertarianism works about as well as an economy with no credit system. Passing Paul's agenda would cause more suffering than ten financial meltdowns.

Posted by: lonquest | May 20, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Chairman Zero's progressive leftist fanboys are giggling with glee because their smartest and most masculine thought leader, Rachel Maddow, asked Republican Senate Candidate Rand Paul a question he didn't answer with requisite political slickness... about the 1964 Civil Rights Act!

For the record, he could have answered it better, e.g. by simply stating that as a libertarian, he was wary of Federal Intrusion into private business decisions and that there should be limits to such intrusion. But, for Pete's sake, the Civil Rights Act was 46 frakkin' years ago! Put down the bong and look at a calendar, you stupid hippies! You may not like it, but the country has made a whole lotta racial progress since then, and to most people, a hypothetical about the Civil Rights Era isn't really salient to the Massive Government Debt Era.

The country has moved on, but the idiot left is stuck in 1964. Rand Paul is not going to travel back in time, Quantum Leap style, to vote against the Civil Rights Act. (He has actually said he would have voted for it.) But if it makes you feel better, if he does manage to travel back in time, Timecop-style, to 1964, he would probably vote against the Vietnam War, too.

Feel better, hippies?

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 20, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

RE: "Paul is a genuine candidate of a movement formed in opposition to the party establishment that they believe did a disservice to conservative principles."


Maybe, but more importantly we need to be clear on whether is he a flaming libertarian totally out of the mainstream of our nation's values.

Is Rand Paul a candidate of a national movement that wants to role back national progress in redressing the original sins built into the unamended constitution related to the rights of women and African Americans ("Originalists" are you out there? - The original intent was sadly codified in the founding father's words on these topics).

Posted by: BobSanderson | May 20, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

What makes it even worse is that Paul has gleefully taken the mantle of Tea Party Poster Boy. The perception of Tea Party supporters, whether rightly or wrongly, is that they are racists. This will only throw another log onto that fire. Well that and the "Allah is a Monkey-God" by one of the Tea Party's prominent leaders.

To all the MSM who have been so ga-ga over the Tea Party, get ready to watch them self-implode!

Posted by: dre7861 | May 20, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Exactly what was Sestak offered by the Radical Administration to take him out of the race with Specter? Something was, no doubt, and the Administration broke the law in the process. What was it?!

Posted by: FraudObama | May 20, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

This is Kentucky, you know one of the places hit by floods that go NO national attention. Rand Paul could spit on crying babies and kick dogs, and still get elected just because he's not DEMOCRAT!

Posted by: phines1 | May 20, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Excellent, substantive post. Thanks for yet another one.

Just a note: "among a far wider conversation" is grammatically incorrect.

Otherwise, keep up the good work.

Posted by: paul65 | May 20, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

What demolishes the notion of anti-incumbency as a scourge on both parties are the calculations of credible political analysts—Democrats and Republicans from Charles Cook to Jay Cost to Nathan Silver to James Carville—about the outcome of November's general election. They believe dozens of congressional Democrats either trail Republican challengers or face toss-up races, while fewer than a handful of Republicans are in serious re-election trouble.

Even Gallup, hardly known for its bold analysis of polling data, doesn't appear to regard anti-incumbency as a problem for Republicans. Its current surveys indicate Republicans are likely to trounce Democrats in November.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 20, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Glorious. Two days after the primary he's already screwing up. As I said before, this guy has six months to spew unhinged racist and libertarian junk and alienate voters. His appeal is to a very narrow outlook embraced by a very narrow demographic, even in Kentucky.

Atop that, he's funny-lookin' and he has the charm and presence of a squashed toad.

Doug Hoffman rides again. Keep it up, teabaggers, there go all those Republican gains in November, straight up the ol' dirt road.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 20, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

People in both parties often like to label their opponents as "out of the mainstream", which is a political cliche that is an exaggeration in many cases. However, as we will find out in the coming months, such a label is no exaggeration when it comes to Rand Paul. We're just gettin' started baby...

Posted by: vvf2 | May 20, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

just how many other Democrats will be running this year as pro-life, pro-gun, anti-ObamaCare, and against cap and trade?

The Democratic theory that voter anger would fade or burn out once health care was passed was wrong-headed and was undermined Tuesday. That anger remains and likely will persist through the November elections.

And the only bright moment for Democrats Tuesday came from a candidate who explicitly disavowed Mr. Obama's most significant policy victory and expressed views on social issues that are detested by most national Democrats.

The wave that started last year is continuing to gain velocity, size and force. This week's elections confirmed what the evidence has shown since last summer: Mr. Obama's agenda is a political killer and his endorsement is of little help. If there is a big takeaway from what happened on Tuesday, that is it.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 20, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

grandma01 at 1:38


You are trying to RE-WRITE history


It is the FACT that the democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act.


The democrats also aligned themselves with the KKK in the South -

AND the democrats PASSED ALL THE JIM CROW LAWS


AND THE DEMOCRATS ENFORCED THE JIM CROW LAWS FOR DECADES.


You are trying to say, "we aren't racist anymore - they are the real racists"

Well - the EVIL WAS DONE BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY - NONE OTHER.

GROW UP - POINT THE FINGER AT YOURSELF - NO ONE ELSE.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 20, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Obama's endorsement similarly failed to carry Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln to a decisive victory. She now faces the state's liberal lieutenant governor, Bill Halter, in a June 8 runoff. Her predicament shows Democrats, especially in border and Southern states, are badly split over the Obama agenda. If Mr. Obama's vaunted political operations couldn't deliver for Mr. Specter and Mrs. Lincoln, what does it say about the fall?

Democrats are increasingly likely to distance themselves from Mr. Obama, either ignoring him or running against him. Which brings us to Pennsylvania's 12th District. Democrats are right to crow about keeping that seat, left vacant by the death of Jack Murtha. Murtha's longtime aide, Mark Critz, won with a message that he was pro-life, pro-gun and anti-ObamaCare, while benefiting from a sympathy vote for Murtha's legacy.

In a district where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by 137,000 voters, 62% to 29%, Mr. Critz also benefited from Gov. Ed Rendell's clever decision to schedule the special election on the same day as party primaries

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 20, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

So, Mr. Paul believes that private businesses have a right to discriminate, as long as they do not receive "government support". Well, Mr. Paul, those roads, railways, airports, streetlights, bridges and sidewalks that help the "right kind" of customers and employees to reach those private businesses (not to mention all those suppliers deliverying product, and transporters deliverying to customers) have been paid for by citizens of all races and creeds, as well as by both genders.
.
Those same citizens that pay for all of that infrastructure also pay for the public schools educating your employees and the police, fire, military, etc., that put their lives on the line every single day to protect those private businesses. In fact, many of the people protecting those same private businesses are the ones that you say we should allow to be discriminated against.
.
It took a civil war and almost 2 centuries, but in 1964 the majority in this country finally figured out that the right to equality in terms of race, gender, ethnicity and creed trump the "right" to discriminate and/or use one's ignorance and hatred to the detriment of other members of this country.

Posted by: LK12 | May 20, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Rep. Clyburn is jumping up and down - practically giddy that he has SOMETHING HE CAN TWIST - into playing the RACE CARD.


This is getting ridiculous.

Rand Paul MADE CLEAR THAT HE HATES ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION - period - he said it in a taped interview in April.


And yet Clyburn - is smiling from ear to ear - to complain that FINALLY HE HAS SOME STATEMENT THAT APPEARS TO BE ABLE TO TWIST INTO SOMETHING VAGUELY RACIST.

What a joke - it is NOT the Clyburn is ACTUALLY OFFENDED BY ANYTHING - OR THAT CLYBURN IS ACTUALLY CLAIMING ANY ACTUAL ACT OF DISCRIMINATION.

This IS WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS ALL ABOUT NOW.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS A DISGRACE - CLYBURN IS A DISGRACE.

Rachel Maddow said "lunch counters" about 20 times last night - ARE THERE ANY LUNCH COUNTERS LEFT - ANYWHERE ?

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 20, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

My in-laws are from Kentucky. . .trust me, they LOVE this guy and those Kentuckians don't want any yankee civil rights intruding on their state! Its all guns, God, and white folks. Everyone else needs to LEAVE or they will "rise up and take this country back"!!! Ugh, I need some Zantac.

Posted by: GenuineRisk | May 20, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Two seemingly unrelated news stories unfolded in Washington last week -- developments that could further stoke the flames of voter discontent across America. Taken together, these reports could also label the Democrats with an ugly and hard to erase moniker heading into the November elections: They are now the Party of Debt.

The first piece of news concerned Congressional Democrats' plan to forgo passing a budget blueprint this year – an unprecedented display of fiscal policy malpractice.

A January 2010 Congressional Research Service report demonstrates that only four times in the past 35 years have lawmakers not adopted a concurrent budget resolution (a document projecting long term spending and revenue goals). And even when the two legislative bodies have failed to reach an agreement, in every year since the enactment of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, at least the House has produced its own blueprint and given members a chance to vote on it. How do we get our fiscal house in order if lawmakers can’t even develop a plan?

Democrats might still reverse course and produce a budget this year. But as recently as yesterday, Senate Budget Committee chair Kent Conrad told the Washington Post the chances of doing so were “fading.”

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provided a second piece of troubling money news last week, demonstrating the health care reform bill won’t reduce the federal deficit after all. According to the CBO, the health care law will cost $115 billion more than original projections. This new estimate means the overall price tag of the Democrats’ bill will top $1 trillion.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 20, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

This is great. The smart set rewiting their Wedneday musings for Thursday. As far as I can tell, and before Rachel Maddow, bless her, Rand Paul had demonstrated the awesome power of the Tea Party movement - among Kentucky Republicans...

sdaley

Posted by: bikobiko | May 20, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

The equivalency of an African American being excluded from a business for being black and someone being asked not carry a weapon inside a business for safety reasons really escapes me.

Only a real private business rights extremist would think that and would want to make the case that the Civil Rights Act was mistaken when it applied beyond government to private businesses. What an imposition on the rights of private business owners like himself!

Posted by: BobSanderson | May 20, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

"What I think would happen -- what I'm saying is, is that I don't believe in any discrimination. I don't believe in any private property should discriminate either. And I wouldn't attend, wouldn't support, wouldn't go to. But what you have to answer when you answer this point of view, which is an abstract, obscure conversation from 1964 that you want to bring up. But if you want to answer, you have to say then that you decide the rules for all restaurants and then you decide that you want to allow them to carry weapons into restaurants."

sounds like Palin-Speak to me!

Posted by: vigor | May 20, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Chris -

Please explain why you allow the NRSC Communication Director's statement that "it was Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights Act" to go without comment or challenge? For instance, is it not also true that many of those Democrats were "Dixiecrats" who have since migrated to the Republican Party.

It's like saying that Democrats are opposed to civil rights because most slaveholders in 1860 were Democrats, and that Republicans are champions of civil rights because Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Who honestly believes that Abraham Lincoln would be a Republican today, or that the Republicans would even want him in their party?

Posted by: grandma01 | May 20, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Note to ALL politicians, no matter what you may think if anyone asks you "Do you think lunch counters should have remained segregated" you say "No, of course not."

Posted by: AndyR3 | May 20, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Is the civil rights act up for renewal?

Do any of you brain addled Liberals realize that the 60s is over yet?

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 20, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Who the hell cares about civil rights?

We have an anti-American president who looks the other way while illegals pour across our borders and he commands the feds to cease and desist in their arrest and deportation.

Where are MY civil rights not to be victimized and exploited by illegals - and MY OWN PRESIDENT?

Eat dirt, libTard Progressives.

Posted by: joesmithdefend | May 20, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Not that I'm suggesting he run on it, but I'm not convinced a majority of Kentuckians approve of the Civil Rights Act. In public they may approve it, but not in private.

If this is the first shot in a long campaign of painting Paul as a lunatic then fine. But in and of itself, it's nothing. And try and remember that he is replacing a known lunatic. Just sayin the bar is kinda high.

Posted by: caribis | May 20, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

"Democrats immediately pounced -- gleefully sending around the clip."

Chris,
There is nothing gleeful about having to do the work of the press at this late date.

He was interviewed and soundly chastised by the Louisville paper for just this kind of racism and not one national publication cared enough to research and cover it. Many to this day, including the Post, have not done so.

What about you?

Posted by: BobSanderson | May 20, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

The theoretical thing is a double whammy. Not only because of the fact that they don't translate well, but also because this particular theoretical argument is completely moronic and extremist. Even if people understood him on the theoretical level he is reaching for, most would still disagree.

Chris C will link to Weigel's interpretation of Paul, but not Klein's, so I will.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/05/rand_paul_may_not_be_a_racist.html

Basically saying that even if Paul isn't harboring racial animosity, his views on the role of government are still extremist. He won't have a chance to repeal the CRA, but there's a hell of a lot of important legislation he will have a chance to screw up.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 20, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company