The Rand Paul Circus Begins
Mind you, this is only the opening act. The issue isn't racism for Paul. Yes, that's unfair. So?? This is politics and that hardly matters, because the media, the Democrat spin machine and Lefty blogs are going to be all about branding the guy as that, and more. It was obvious they could hardly wait to get started.
And spare me the whining over principles. The vast majority of voters don't take the time to consider these issues that deeply. And nothing Paul supporters say or do is going to change that. The Constitutional battle was fifty years ago. It was lost. But Paul doesn't have the good political sense to stop fighting it. And if he develops it, surprise, he'll then be labeled a liar and a hypocrite.
Here is the Catch 22. If Paul says he fully supports how the feds forced the private sector to end segregation he loses libertarian street cred, but by only supporting the results of the Civil Rights Act and not the actual legislation, Paul gives the left room to paint him as a racist.
Rand Paul should have been better prepared to answer this question. This isn’t the first time he has encountered it. Here is an interview he did with the Courier Journal editorial board last month.
In today’s world of dire military and terrorist threats developing while Obama dozes, the Pauls’ platform on national defense don’t represent the views of most Americans- and to me disqualifies both as dangerous kooks.
GOP needs to keep consider Paul an independent for the most part and don’t expect much from him, as while the libertarians have something to offer us, the Pollyanna isolationism is bunk… some countries and organizations are best kept back on their heels.
Quite frankly we have bigger problems to worry about in this country then Paul’s views on how private companies respond to the ADA or the Civil Rights Act.
But don’t tell the Democrats, they have month’s worth of RAAAAAAAAAAAACIST to play on Republicans of all stripes while continuing to take minorities for granted.
The media is hysterically attacking Rand (they way they would never attack McConnell) because he represents a force that actually threatens them and their power. And they know it.
I refuse to believe that all of these battles are lost. If we care about the 10th amendment to the constitution and personal freedoms, we have to fight them. As for the Act itself, I am glad to have the argument about whether “disparate impact”, racial quotas, and other extensions of the Civil Rights Act promulgated by activist judges are good for America. I wish Rand had mentioned them in the interview. If we can’t fight back on that sort of stuff, we might as well just pick up our ball and go home. Many of the consequences of these acts are not politically popular today. Rand should concentrate on those.
And we need to steel ourselves for the fight– Their hysteria is a sign of their fear.
Yeah, well Rand needs to be smart enough to bring up those contexts, like “quotas” for example, and activist judges.
Otherwise, you know our “friends” in the News Media, it will be all Klan, all the time.
Section9– I agree. I’ll blame it on lack of sleep (Rand got 2 hours total in the last two days). I am confident that with a bit more rest and preparation he will be able to counterattack. But we conservatives need to have his back.
He could say the sky is blue, and that will spun as racist by the MSM and a dipshit blogger and his merry band of asskissers at Green Turds.
Dan: “Don’t whine about principles. Since I believe principles should be tossed aside for expediency, that must mean most everyone does as well.”
This is going to be a fast crash and burn. His views are far outside the mainstream.
“— The Constitutional battle was fifty years ago. It was lost. —”
Could you please elaborate further on what you mean by this Dan?
Thanks!
The Constitutional battle was fifty years ago. It was lost.
It’s clear you pine for the days when blacks could be legally discriminated against (and owned as property, perhaps?), but decent Americans consider the result of that battle to be a win. For humanity.
Scumbag.
Not sure if you were addressing my comment, mantis – but I was only asking for clarity on Dan’s original post.
And, no I have no desire for discrimination based upon race.
I do question though, if having an “end is greater than the means” mentality toward legislation is truly beneficial in the long run though.
Giving the federal government ever-increasing amounts of power to regulate and create “protected classes” of citizens for the sake of partisan favouritism.
Principles my cracked ass — why should we be voting for a guy who’s sixty years behind the mainstream of American politics? Who are you going to push next, Barry Goldwater?
The fashion is thick on our own side. Rand Paul was nominated by the overt notoriety of his rather delusional Father. It is an aspect of the growing ‘isolationist’ fever of many on the conservative side who grew reactionary after 2004 in the face of the overwhelming Democrat slander in regards to the essential battle in Iraq.
There are many Conservative Pundits who blew by the winds. Even the other day, Hannity was clearly blowing yet again. The former ‘Proud Republican’ after 9-11, who then became the ‘Reagan Conservative’, now sounds like a libertarian ‘Tea Party’ advocate – telling listeners how it is an Anti-Washington mindset – failing to accurately reference the true source of the madness, which is the Democratic Party.
So now we have many who push the Paul fashion, and I hope it is a winner. This 2010 is essential, and we cannot suffer another enabling of the disastrous Democratic Party.
But the fashion reminds me of the Buchanan Era, which lost a reasonable grasp of reality – pushing a purism that will never be realized, and proved to encourage the opposite. I hope I am wrong.
But I wasn’t wrong about the fashion about Fred Thompson, or the disastrous concept of Nominating McCain – which was a product of failing to defend the admirable offerings of the GOP in a post 9-11 effort, in the midterms of 2006. The anti-GOP obsession continues to be a focus, and one wonders if it is actually helpful.
I am all for empowering better Representatives, and more sound policy. But if we grow in denial on the good side, lacking objectivity, reason, honesty, etc., and push a narrative within a blind partisan tunnel – only to find “UNEXPECTED” loses, we are going to continue to lose.
I have watched Beck and others champion the Founding Fathers and even some of the most delusional aspects of ‘isolationism’, revealing a sincere lack of contemplation for what they are offering. Levin rightfully rebuked some of it at times, asking if it was wrong for the original 13 Colonies to expand beyond the original USA’s borders. Was the expansion to the WEST wrong? Was the fight of the Civil War, Lincoln’s dedication to maintain the Union wrong? Was the USA’s involvement in Korea wrong? Was the USA’s Airlift of West Berlin wrong? Were the the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, mostly inspired by the revealing horrific conditions provided by Sinclair in the book “The Jungle” wrong?
The libertarian fashion is easy, so is the purist conservative movement. It is easy to say, we shouldn’t have any Government, or any foreign engagement. It is easy to simply fail to study the nuts and bolts of the Republican efforts after 2000, saying they were not conservative enough, but it is hardly objective, fair, or reasoned.
And the end product may indeed empower the opposite – further enabling Pelosi – Reid – Obama – Clinton, etc., as it plays to simple stereotypes, which are easy for Democrats to debase.
Today, NJ has a great new Governor, who is becoming a hero in Conservative terms, and he was not the ideal of the overwhelming fashion.
Even today, we had two callers to the mighty EIB, who blasted Republicans, failing to recognize the source of the madness, the Democratic Party.
I read endless comments from many who are embracing the fashion, and they all cry how Sarah Palin is the only acceptable Conservative – even saying she is the ONLY ONE leading the way. I grow uneasy with such overt emotive offerings of fashionable efforts amongst the good side. We used to be based with reason, objectivity, honesty, with our feet firmly planted on the ground. Never would we engage in ‘cult of personality’ building, ICON worship, such fashionable popular embraces. WE need a strong team.
Ryan is just another example, the fashionable vision of the GOP is wrong. Identity politics often ends up causing great problems in the long run. I hope we are not making even more mistakes.
One hopes, Rand Paul will be a welcome offering within the GOP. At least the Paul Family knows it needs to work within a Party system to make a positive effort. I hope they are not easy prey for the Democratic Partisan debasing.
2010 is essential, and we cannot allow FASHION to weaken our effort.
“And spare me the whining over principles. The vast majority of voters don’t take the time to consider these issues that deeply. And nothing Paul supporters say or do is going to change that.”
Dan, speaking as someone who whines over principles from the *other* side of the Paul supporters, it ROYALLY ticks me off to have to admit you are right about this……but I’m hoping that if I scream enough someone will listen.
“Not sure if you were addressing my comment, mantis”
Nope. I quoted Dan.
“I do question though, if having an “end is greater than the means” mentality toward legislation is truly beneficial in the long run though.”
I think you mean “ends justify the means,” and I would strongly encourage you to ask a black person old enough to remember the civil rights movement if he/she questions whether the means were justified in getting rid of Jim Crow laws and outlawing discrimination based on race.
“Giving the federal government ever-increasing amounts of power to regulate and create “protected classes” of citizens for the sake of partisan favouritism.”
Nice clause. Try a sentence next time. By the way, how was Civil Rights legislation, supported by a majority of Republicans and northern Democrats, passed for the sake of “partisan favoritism,” exactly?
He was a total Pollyanna to go on Maddow’s show. And I think his idea about some 1st Amend freedom to refuse service to someone at a private restaurant is just plain stupid. Have you seen who is fighting these wars? If some young black or brown soldier sits down in a diner, they damn well better serve him, right along with his white, red-neck buddy. Unless the Tea Party figures out some way for their followers to vote twice, they don’t have a chance on the national level. The Republican Party needs to cultivate an attractive candidate who speaks well and can capture more of the center. If not, Obama gets another term. Hell, the country had enough sense to limit Carter to one term. Let’s get smart and dump Obama before we turn into France.
“And with Sheridan bellowing in his ear, “Pivot, Arthur, pivot! Roll with the punch! He must not turn you!”
That, by my intent, suggests a different response to Rand’s performance than yours, Dan, if I may:
Go over the top of it (say, a vertical pivot). What is true in what Rand said — besides that he was a damned fool for being on the program, and with 2 hours’ sleep in 48(?)? Walked into an ambush. Who is managing his media shop?
On the other hand, so what, go over it. Whatever it is, pivot, go over it, under it, around it, just never through it, unless one really has to.
It is true that the Civil Rights Act Balkanized the US, disunited it, manufacturing designations to set American against one another.
It is true that the same super-rich, licentious-to-me/puritan-to-you Democrat and Republican families who forced it in and down to extend control generally have continued in that line of action right down to today. They were at it before 1964.
It is true that the Civil Rights Act destroyed the families of most Americans born of some combination of American and African descent and many, many others as well. And by intent, as a means of population control, and it has worked with the necessary assist of abortion, part of the same family destruction intent for the purpose of population control.
Originally it was called eugenics. Abortion, both voluntary and compelled, was part of the program from the start.
It is true that the Civil Rights Act, in succession to others, and with more of same to follow, created entitlement programs as carrots hiding very large sticks to be used when needed to, again, control population. E.G., withdraw Social Security and Medicare to lower the elderly population numbers, easy to do.
It is true that the Civil Rights Act is the first large work of legislated racism since, say, the Missouri Compromise. And the propaganda machine still spits it out as against racism without being challenged directly to prove the truth of that patent lie?
Whatever the propaganda machine — Rush’s “state-run media” — says is true, the opposite is. Same for the hireling turning Monarch in the Oval Office.
Something along those lines ….
Yes the Constitutional battle was lost in 1964, but not the war. That is ongoing because man’s nature resists successfully and perpetually all forms of hegemony, such as the Civil Rights Act and its successors.
Now Hizbollah is setting up shop openly in the USA — they have been here for decades — and drug and other Afro-Mohammedan gangs of the world with them — claiming protection of the Civil Rights Act.
This is a larger problem than the divide-and-conquer legislation and policies in place can handle (i.e., population control), and recent additions enlarge it.
The super-rich licentious/puritan families who did this don’t like this unforeseen consequence and are trying to talk and buy their way out of it by hiring jerks to represent them so they can stay hidden. But in truth they’re scared. So they have their jerks send in shooters (e.g., Maddow) to keep facts hidden.
But meanwhile, the jerks, one in particular, are taking themselves seriously, getting big ideas, which they had all along actually, in effect “turning their backs on the base degrees by which they did ascend.”
This also worries the licentious/puritans, who did all this to control populations but have made a problem larger than their means of controlling it. Their one-world-family is bigger and more bumptious than they thought it could be and they now doubt their capacities to control it.
So cut around or over it and simply say who they are who did this, using personal names, what their policies intend, what they have accomplished, how their policies are blowing up in their faces because they abridge human nature as well as values, and finally, advocate policies that support human nature and values, affording them room to expand naturally while also restricting their tendency to orthogenesis.
And above all, fear nothing, reality cannot be undone, much less traduced, and let the back and forth rip. Rand made a fool of himself, handed the hitters his guns and ammo, fine, name who they’re working for and say, what is true, that they don’t give a damn about anyone’s soul.
Then give compassion for everyone’s soul — and for predators’ souls by removing them from proximity to striving ones.
Riehl, That’s a neat trick, supporting what the Act achieved, but not the “actual legislation” used to achieve it. That’s like saying you like milk, but disapprove the manipulation of cow teats. (ABC is finally reduced to suggesting “boycotts and the free market” as an alternative. Yeah, those lunch counters would have desegregated in a jiffy if, instead of sit-ins, those guys had gone to those lunch counters and said, “We refuse to patronize your establishment and are going back to Columbia University.”)
So you dish out the “tough mope,” telling your followers yes, it was “unfair” forcing Paul to dance around the question of whether the force of law should be used to prevent racial discrimination, but “this is politics,” dirty as it is, and Paul has to learn to lie about it.
The Constitutional battle was fifty years ago. It was lost.
So which side of the battle do you suppose you’re on? I think I already know.
If you say that the government can’t enforce these things, then you automatically disconnect that from the right to call the police to arrest them for trespassing when you refuse to serve them. You lose that right by default, and any others associated with the state enforcing any property rights you feel you may have in trying to perpetuate institutionalized racism.
The Republicans are never, repeat, never going to be able to capture the center, no matter how well spoken the candidate is, because their beliefs don’t reside in the center anymore, they reside on the extreme right end of the political spectrum, this is why centrist & moderate Republicans are deserting the party in droves.
Sorry, but if you become a politician, anything you say is fair game, on both sides of the political spectrum, and all the infinite shades in-between. And blaming the media or news commentators for asking fair or tough questions merely comes off as whining, or believing that your thoughts and beliefs aren’t within the purview of normal debate when you’re sitting in that seat of power making decisions that affect your constituents, or other politicians constituents lives.
Dr. Paul is politically crippled by his loyalty to the political principles of his namesake, just as a Latter Day Saint is shackled by the Book of Mormon.