Posted on 05/23/2010 5:25:34 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
When Rand Paul, the victor in the Republican Senate primary last week in Kentucky, criticized the Civil Rights Act of 1964, singling out the injustice of non-discriminatory practices it imposed on private businesses, the resulting furor delighted Democrats and unsettled Republicans.
Mr. Paul hastened to state his abhorrence of racism and assert that had he served in the Senate in 1964, he would have voted for the measure.
On the surface Mr. Paul’s contradictory statements might seem another instance of the trouble candidates get into when ideological consistency meets the demands of practical politics. This was the point Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, made when he said, in mild rebuke of Mr. Paul, “I hope he can separate the theoretical and the interesting and the hypothetical questions that college students debate until 2 a.m. from the actual votes we have to cast based on real legislation here.”
But Mr. Paul’s position is complicated. He has emerged as the politician most closely identified with the Tea Party movement. Its adherents are drawn to him because he has come forward as a kind of libertarian originalist, unbending in his anti-government stance. The farther he retreats from ideological purity, the more he resembles other, less attractive politicians.
In this sense, Mr. Paul’s quandary reflects the position of the Tea Partiers, whose antipathy to government, rooted in populist impatience with the major parties, implies a repudiation of politics and its capacity to effect meaningful change.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
If you violate civil rights in the name of protecting them, have you protected civil rights at all, or only violated them?
I question his sanity by going on the “MADCOW” Show to begin with.
I trade one libertarian for one RINO all day long.
So that the “smoke filled rooms” of old now reek of cannabis?
(Just kidding!)
Not at all.
The Constitution is the cornerstone of his position and those who oppose the speak of Rand Paul oppose the dictate of the Constitution.
The perpetual political graying of the Constitution is what complicates a constitutional position.
I’d settle for government ‘leaders’ that could get off the couch. Matter of fact, I pay taxes to buy Jamaica and move the Capital there.
One wonders if this is the only message that Rand has muddled. Sometimes it’s better to be clear and wrong than to be mushy mouthed on a subject of much debate.
The Left and the neo-con Right do not want to address the points that Rand makes. This is all about marginalizing someone who represents a serious threat to their status-quo.
>> Senator Jon Kyl ... said, in mild rebuke of Mr. Paul, “I hope he can separate the theoretical ... from the actual votes we have to cast based on real legislation here.”
I prefer the neglected option #3; that which concerns the constituents.
That is true. But I believe nothing in the NY Slimes.
I am no fan of Rand or Ron Paul.
But this article is a steaming pantload.
He “muddled “ nothing. Do you think the damned government should tell you who to hire in YOUR BUSINESS? Tell us?
To be perfectly honest, I’d say that most white people in the South (and other sections of the country, too) would have opposed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. I know that democrats such as Robert Bird, Al Gore Sr, and many others did. But, that’s irrelevant...this is not 1964. Were Rand Paul alive in 1964 and of age, especially in Kentucky, the odds are that he would NOT have “marched” with MLK, who was largely seen by the public and local media as a rabble-rouser, communist and person who was upsetting a social system that the country had come to accept. You can’t logically judge the mores of 1964 by those of 2010. Its a trap, and a loser.
Sorry, but truth and honest discussion do NOT belong in today’s media. That is a fact and he should have known better.
Why should he hasten to follow up by saying he would vote for that very legislation he pretends to condemn? Muddle, muddle, muddle.
I don’t think he’s a libertarian at all. He’s a constitutionalist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.