in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| WSJ | World: Europe Girds for Greek Exit |
0 |
| Shark Tank | Developing: Wasserman Schultz On Verge of Being Cancelled at Temple Israel |
0 |
| T’graph | 0 | |
| NYT | Policy: Romney Calls Education ‘Civil Rights Issue of Our Era’ and Urges Shift |
0 |
| RCP | Campaign 2012: Why Tuesday’s Democratic Primaries Matter |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
The Rand Paul/Civil Rights Act controversy
Liberals and conseratives alike are all over the story of Rand Paul’s position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which he reaffirmed last night on MSDNC’s Rachel Maddow program.
In a nutshell, Paul pretty much takes the position Barry Goldwater did on it, a position which helped him lose the presidential election. Which, of course, has the liberals jumping on the “raaaccist” accusation bandwagon all over again in true predictable fashion (just like they did in 1964), and which also has absolutist libertarians arguing back and forth with pragmatic conservative Republicans on federal/states/individual rights. Yeehaa.
There are a couple of really good posts out there about this story from Dr. James Joyner and Another Black Conservative, which I won’t add anything to except to say that I figured it wouldn’t take long for the MSM to suck the ‘purist’ Rand Paul into a philosophical debate, but I didn’t know they’d go reach back 50 years for the subject matter.
Even though I’m not a Rand Paul supporter, for reasons I mentioned here, I’ll defend him against this type of “gotcha” journalism that permeates the airwaves, especially on liberal news outlets. All too often in politics, perception in reality and right now – as I figured would happen prior to Rand Paul’s winning the KY primary – the media is setting the “raaacist, nutcase” narrative about him because he’s an easy target being the son of a fruit loop Republican Congressman from TX whose ideas on domestic policy have merit but whose foolish, idealistic, unrealistic beliefs on foreign policy ignore the complex realities of today’s world.
Until Rand Paul, an unseasoned politico (which was part of his appeal), can get a handle on this narrative and turn it around and move beyond it – focusing on issues of importance in 2010, the MSM will continue to have their way in painting a vastly distorted picture of him until the KY Tea Partiers will be able to do little else but hold a bonfire with those tea leaves after Paul loses in November.
It’s gonna be a long summer.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Surprise, surprise!
What did they think, he was gonna be another Ronnie Reagan?
Come on. His daddy is a space case, and no matter how solid one’s grasp of basic domestic issues is, the MSM is gonna tear sonny apart.
And, once again, the Repubs have taken a howitzer to their own leg and midsection…
OK, let’s use the left’s logic (and I use that term verrrry loosely) on this item.
Remember how the libs argued that since Obama was only nine years old when Bill Ayers was planting bombs and plotting to murder American citizens, it was perfectly OK for Obama to cozy up to Ayers the first time he ran for office, and ever since?
Rand Paul was born in January of 1963. So he was less than two years old when the 1964 CRA was passed.
Using Obamalogic, I can argue that Rand Paul could have disagreed with all the provisions of the CRA (not just one title out of ten) and it wouldn’t matter. After all, he was a toddler when it passed. Right, libs?
This is one case where Obama is right, albeit inadvertantly: this is information that’s a “distraction” from the real issues facing America – and intentionally so.
Until Rand Paul proposes repealing the 1964 CRA – and he hasn’t – this has nothing to do with the issues facing Kentucky voters today. In 2010.
BTW, I agree with ST on the merits of Dr. Paul’s father. His economic ideas are good for the most part, but his foreign policy positions are straight out of Cloud-Cuckoo Land.
Wow, I’m reeeeeeally disappointed in you for defending this. He doesn’t support the Americans with Disabilities Act. As a disabled person, I take serious issue with this. He terms it in the context of employment, that it should be a “local” decision, that a business owner should, for example, put someone working on the first floor instead of the third floor….but what about the customers who need to get to the third floor? Fact is, when he says “local” he means the business owner…..and this is a threat to people like me who rely on ADA regulations in building construction to ensure that we have access to public facilities. Rand Paul is extreme. Your defense of this extremism is disappointing to me, to say the least. Rand Paul is not a “purist” on this. The Fourteenth Amendment is a Republican idea, not a Democratic one, and our party was built on such principles.
I don’t for a moment think Paul is a racist (neither does Allahpundit), but I do agree with Ann Althouse that he’s got the politics, law, and constitutional issues wrong. His viewpoint is one reason I prefer “conservatism with a libertarian bent” to ideological, “Big L” libertarianism.
Right now, he’s enjoying a huge lead in Kentucky (+25, according to Rasmussen), a state with a majority Democratic registration, so he needs to get this behind him before it starts driving voters away.
Edit: Forgot to mention, while I Rand Paul is within bounds for American politics, I think his father is a fruitcake with extra nuts.
Lisa, I’m reeeeeeally disappointed that apparently you didn’t read in full what I wrote. I didn’t defend Paul’s position, nor did I stand behind it 100%. I defended him against the “raaacist” accusations that are freely flowing from the left. There’s a difference between defending a position and defending someone from the false accusations coming from their opponents because of those positions. I also think it’s not entirely unhealthy to have the “state’s rights” disucussion, which is currently underway at several libertarian leaning and conservative blogs, but I despise the fact that every time the topic comes up conservatives are automatically branded as “raacists.”
I don’t even support Rand Paul! Which is something else I noted in my post.
Carlos,
Which ones? The ‘establishment’ (Cheney, Rudy, etc) backed Grayson.
LOL, GWR – re: your age argument, I posted something similar at Twitter earlier. Great minds think alike
It’s all abunch of macaca. The Left’s key argument in almost any discussion is to gin up emotions to scare everyone. Let’s see a discussion on this law, perhaps it is time to “reform” it. If immigration laws need to be reformed every generation then this law is far overdue. – Lorica
Doesn’t matter to me if he were to come out and declare that he was going to devote eveyr second of his time and resources into appealing CRA. I made a vow to myself sometime after the 2006 mid-terms that I would never-NEVER-under any circumstances vote for another Democrat, not even a so-called “blue dog”. I intend to stand by that vow, and I intend to vote against anybody that runs against them. I used to be a Democrat. Actually I still am, just haven’t got around to changing my registration. That’s because I’m embarrassed to go to the courthouse and say, hello I’m a Democrat. No, I will never again vote for another sub-human leftist, or even a slightly left-of-center one. If you caucus with a Democrat, you come away permanently stained in my view. To hell with the Democrats and their race-card playing games.
Barry Goldwater didn’t lose the election because of the civil rights law. He lost it because of Kennedy’s assassination. As the Republican who had been criticizing Kennedy, his popularity automatically fell like a rock, and he didn’t have time to expose the dufus running against him. That ad with the girl, the flower and A-Bomb didn’t help him either.
I didn’t say he lost the election “because of the civil rights law.” I said it helped him lose the election. Of course there were numerous reasons why he lost. There always are.
Baby Paul went on Maddow’s show. On purpose. How smart can he really be? That is like hiring Howard Dean to do a fundraiser for a GOP candidate. Republicans who appear on MSNBC, NPR, CNN, etc. simply and purely deserve what happens to them.
BTW: I object to calling Paul (either of them) a libertarian. Papa Paul hated the Iraq War and was willing to put the Constitution through the shredder to stop it. Baby Paul has apparently inherited Papa’s flair for obsessing about kooky conspiracy theories. When it comes to pork-barrel spending, Papa oinked with the best of them, and I’ll bet the nut (Rand) does not fall far from the other nut (Ron).
The Republican Party was divided in 1964. That might have been the main reason Goldwater lost. It’s hard for a divided party to win an election, especially when they’re running against the memory of a “martyr”.
The Paul Campaign issued this statement today. In effect Baby Paul just hung a gigantic “Kick Me” sign on his own back.
If Paul wanted to put the issue behind him, he needed to make Democrats fear to bring it up. Here is what he should have said:
Americans are fed up with the race-baiting of Democrats, and will rally to the support of any candidate that denounces it. That’s what Baby Paul should have said – instead of the mealy-mouthed BS that only hurt his campaign even more.
Sister,
Lisa Graas has a hidden agenda for coming after Rand. She is a is a closet pepetual war neocon who has been after Ron and Rand Paul’s non-intervention limited government ideas for a long time. But she’s too much of a hypocrite to come out and say so. As with your post, notice how she ignores the arguements you make.
Unfortunately, other than Kucinich, your liberal side doesn’t have any sincere antiwar folks either. They don’t have to with warmonger Lisa type GOP candidates lining up to be picked of by liberal democrats this fall.
Rand Paul is not racist he is just coming to grip with his beliefs of limited government and free markets. I love they fact that his free market attitude not stop at the economy but also government spending. Spending on wars and huge military budgets and social entitlement programs that have kept the people on government for their ultimate survival
Before Rand walked into the “lyins” den he should have realized that he’d come away smelling of skunk…..
Again, no issues were debated, no policy was discussed and only race cards were thrown…..enough of these propagandists in the left wing media! Don’t give them a single rating share, please!!!!
Rand Paul: the most racist and dangerous man in all of American history since
LincolnEisenhowerGoldwaterNixonFordReaganBush IGingrichRush LimbaughDoleBush IIMcCainSarah Palin.Remember when in 2008 the state-run media could not say enough good things about Ron Paul? That was because of Papa Paul’s nuclear hot opposition to the Iraq War. Read the above article and see how the worms have turned on their one-time savior of the GOP.
Unfortunatly for Baby Paul (who seems to be a chip off the old blockhead) this is 2010, and Baby Paul stand in the way of a Democrat. Thus, under the bus for both Papa and Baby.
I have no sympathy for Ron Paul, who is a sleazebag traitor. Papa Paul was after the votes of the al Qaeda Democrats, and it never occurred to the Texas bozo that they would support the Messiah and His disciples. Papa empowered the media bastards that are now going after his son, and it is a pity they are not tearing him to pieces as well.
In answer to your question, ST, this time it was the Republican voters who powered the howitzer.
Blowing off one’s leg is not the sole ownership of the Republican establishment, although one must admit they have a penchant for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
I look at the Kentucky voters as just as gullible as the Obama voters in ’08.
Rand Paul now says he would have voted for 1964 Civil Rights Act.
I am actually starting to feel sorry for Rand Paul. From a 20-point lead to (likely) a blowout loss in November. Not only has he hit bottom, he is blasting and digging. Like the GOP Establishment he claims to oppose Paul can’t seem to stop groveling for forgiveness from the state-run media. Nor does he have the sense to stay away from his own crucifixion (MSNBC…NPR…and now CNN? What’s next: an appearance on al Jazeera?).
Stick a fork in him – he’s cooked. The only question is how many reform candidates will he drag down with him.
MD, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry over all this. Neither GOP candidate was appealing in KY, IMO, and Paul has just gone from the top of the mountain to the bottom in record time.
I agree with Mwalimu Daudi. I wish someone would share this with his people.
Don’t forget, people, Rand Paul is running for Senate from Kentucky, he’s not running for President of the US. Newsflash, most Kentuckians couldn’t care less about CRA, or whether Paul is or is not a racist.
I’m not saying he’s not in trouble, or that he’s a shoe-in to win this thing, but most Kentuckians aren’t influenced by race-card politics, and they sure aren’t impressed by the likes of Rachel Maddow and others of that ilk.
Conway supports the Health Care Bill, and publicly stated that he would not join in a states lawsuit to declare it unconstitutional. He said it was a waste of time, and called it political grandstanding, all of which meant of course that he supports the bill.
Conway will be a reliable vote for Obama and the Democratic Senate. That’s all Kentuckians care about, regardless of who they are for or against.
Had Mongiardo won, I would say there would be more to worry about, but Conway? He could have run in Massachusetts to replace Ted Kennedy, and if he won, no one would notice the difference.
That’s the real story here, not how Paul feels about ancient history.
Look, they had it so that drinking from separate fountains would keep us from catching cooties.
Well guess what, 45 years later and sure enough. We all have cooties now.
How you like your cooties?
If this guy wins, his views are going to have a voice
The best way to make sure that Rand Paul’s extremist views don’t become mainstream is to support the guy who is running to defeat him
I just donated 10 buck onllne at
http://jackconway.org/
Not likely, champ. Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the dem criminals have guaranteed that I will NEVER vote for, or contribute to, a democrat.
Yeah, what he said.
(Which is a real change for me, since I’d been willing to support a reasonable Democrat in the past, but these last couple of years have taught me that even the “moderates” can’t be trusted not to vote for bad bills.)
Even if it was possible for there to be a good Democrat who would support reasonable laws and oppose bad ones, regardless of their party’s leadership, the fact remains, its all about the caucus. A vote for a Democrat is just another vote to maintain the Democratic majority, which means more Pelosi, more Reid, and more of Obama’s leftist agenda.
All of that is what a vote for Jeff Conway amounts to. And take my word for it, he is not one of these legendary, mythical, reasonable Democrats that will buck the party line, he will stand four square behind Obama and Reid when they need him to, and oppose them only for political reasons, and then only in those circumstances when they don’t need his vote anyway.
I used to be the same way, Anthony. I almost voted for Clinton in 1992 and have always voted on the issue, not the party. That all changed during the Iraq war when I saw the dems turn from cheerleaders into cowards just to save their own jobs.
Never again.
On the 1964 Civil Rights Act Rand Paul’s views are actually quite mainstream (the same cannot be said for Maddow and others in the state-run media). It’s Paul’s 19th century isolationism and his taste for crackpot conspiracy theories that scares the crap out of me. Still, having Democrats smear Paul as a racist is like the Nazi Party calling a Jew anti-Semitic. Talk about some serious chutzpah!
Was Rand Paul in hibernation since January 20, 2009? Did he really think he would be immune from the Tea Party=racist smear that is now a staple of MSNBC and the rest of the state-run media? Obviously he did.
You have to wonder about a candidate that turns out to be dumber than the one the Establishment GOP served up (and that is quite an accomplishment). Ron Paul was an unhinged 9/11 Truther kook who did little beyond agitate for an al Qaeda victory in Iraq. If nothing else, that fact should have been a warning to Kentucky GOP voters that maybe his son was a chip off the old blockhead.
NC Cop:
Or, as I like to say, they reverted to their Copperhead heritage.
Both Rand and Ron seem to look foolish when asked to explain their beliefs. It’s simple. No I’m not a racist, No I wouldn’t have voted for racist lunch counters or discriminatory practices.
Yes I would have voted to protect business owners rights to run there businesses as they see fit.
As history has shown, the C.R.A, has worked and gotten the desired results. But at a cost of opening the door on stepping on owners rights.
It could have been handled better with boycotts, protests,and public pressure from patrons and suppliers. Hit them in the wallet.
I don’t understand the link between Ron Paul and isolationism many of you seem to think exists. Also, what’s the link between 9/11 truthers and Ron Paul?
-JT