Rand Paul - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-20-2010, 10:17 AM   #1
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 26,715
Local Time: 04:50 PM
Rand Paul

Son of Ron, just won the GOP Senate primary in Kentucky. A Tea Party favorite

newsweek.com

Posted Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:08 AM
Rand Paul's Race Comments Roil Kentucky Contest
David A. Graham

Newly minted GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul has already stepped into his first crisis of the campaign, only one day after winning the Kentucky primary. Comments he made about federal civil-rights legislation and segregation during two interviews with national media outlets have earned Paul a barrage of criticism.

During an interview with NPR, Paul, a Tea Party favorite and the son of Rep. Ron Paul, was discussing his belief that many issues shouldn't be handled by the federal government and ought to be handled locally—Paul has in the past criticized the Americans With Disabilities Act as an example of government overreach. Paul was adamant that he supported equal rights and said he hoped he would have had the courage to march with Martin Luther King. But host Robert Siegel pushed him further, and Paul hedged:

SIEGEL: But it's been one of the major developments in American history in the course of your life. I mean, do you think the '64 Civil Rights Act or the ADA, for that matter, were just overreaches and that business shouldn't be bothered by people with the basis in law to sue them for redress?


PAUL: Right. I think a lot of things could be handled locally. For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. You know, we do it in our office with wheelchair ramps and things like that. I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who's handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to the solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions.

Later that evening, on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show, Paul explained further that he didn't like the idea of the government interfering in private business, on the principle that an establishment that espoused racism would be penalized by the market.

MADDOW: How about desegregating lunch counters?

PAUL: Well, what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says, "Well, no, we don't want to have guns in here"; the bar says, "We don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each other." Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion.

Left-leaning pundits are already calling for Paul's head this morning. NBC's Joe Scarborough also bashed him on his morning show and on Twitter. The Washington Post's Dave Weigel, who covers conservative politics, says Paul is at least being honest about his views: "So is Rand Paul a racist? No . . . Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses." Paul, meanwhile, doubled down on his comments in an interview with conservative talk-show host Laura Ingraham this morning.

This isn't the first time that Paul has made comments along these lines, but the spotlight on Paul as Senate nominee and Tea Party standard bearer is now much brighter than it was when he was an upstart underdog challenger for the Republican nomination. As I wrote yesterday, not all conservatives are pleased with Paul, who's got a tight race ahead of him. This furor won't help.
__________________

MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 10:26 AM   #2
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 02:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post

PAUL: Right. I think a lot of things could be handled locally. For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. You know, we do it in our office with wheelchair ramps and things like that. I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who's handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to the solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions.
OK, Rand but what if they hire someone and refuse to give them an office on the first floor? What if the employee is disabled after employment?

I'm pretty sure if you were in a wheelchair for just one week you would see how difficult it is to manage in buildings built before the ADA.
__________________

BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 10:53 AM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 03:50 PM
Robert Scheer: Who’s Afraid of Rand Paul? - Robert Scheer's Columns - Truthdig

Quote:
Rand Paul is bad on a lot of social issues I care about, and no, I don’t embrace his faith in the social compassion of unfettered free markets. But the alternative we have experienced is not one of a progressive government properly restraining free-market greed but rather, as was amply demonstrated in the pretend regulation of the oil industry, of government as a partner in corporate crime. It is the power of the corporate lobbyists that is at issue, and it is refreshing that candidate Paul has labeled Washington lobbyists a “distinctly criminal class” and favors a ban on lobbying and campaign contributions by those who hold more than a million dollars in federal contracts.
That's generally my thoughts, as well. There is much that he can contribute to the level of discourse in Congress.

And I do find his social conservatism to be downright repugnant, but such is my problem with so-called "paleolibertarians" in general. Considering he would be replacing a conservative Republican senator anyway and that his Democratic counterpart is probably as cowardly as the rest of the party is on these issues (but likely just as socially conservative as the rest of the Southern Democrats regardless), it's generally an irrelevant concern.
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 10:58 AM   #4
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 02:50 PM
^ I tend to agree.

I don't like him, but he doesn't scare me as much as most neo-cons or other Tea Party leaders so far...
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 12:33 PM   #5
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 32,510
Local Time: 04:50 PM
i LOL'd when someone called him Ayn Rand Paul.
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 12:43 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
MissVelvetDress_75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: basking in my post-concert glow still mesmerized by the orbit of his hips..Also Holding Bono Close as he requested.
Posts: 25,776
Local Time: 04:50 PM
Rand Paul Says He Has A Tea Party 'Mandate' : NPR

I knew nothing about this guy prior to this week. The more I know the more I am confused about the Tea Party.
MissVelvetDress_75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 12:50 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 26,715
Local Time: 04:50 PM
Is his name Randy or Randall or Randolph? Or is it really Rand, as in "I'm named after half of an atlas and map company"?
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 01:06 PM   #8
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 02:50 PM
It's Randal.

He claims the similarity with Ayn Rand is just a coincidence that his wife started calling him that and neither of them thought about the connection until later.
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 01:33 PM   #9
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 32,510
Local Time: 04:50 PM
...
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 01:34 PM   #10
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 32,510
Local Time: 04:50 PM
he's also against the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

Quote:
INTERVIEWER: Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.

INTERVIEWER: But?

PAUL: You had to ask me the “but.” I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant—but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.

After adding that he is also a fan of Dr. Martin Luther King, Paul dug in deeper, explaining that he he believes that in a “free society,” private lunch counters must be allowed to refuse service to Dr. King because of his race:

INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?

PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part—and this is the hard part about believing in freedom—is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example—you have too, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things. . . . It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior.

Think Progress � Rand Paul: ‘The Hard Part Of Believing In Freedom’ Is Opposing Ban On Whites-Only Lunch Counters


way to go, Tea Party. you've got a lunatic running for the Senate.

because we should have voluntarily decided to repeal Jim Crow laws -- much like, i guess, Cheney thought that people should voluntarily reduce their greenhouse output rather than make laws about it -- and he's clear that he's not for racism or segregation, but he doesn't think we need to actually do anything about it. and, you know, it's not like anyone's going to make him ride in the back of the bus, so why, really, should we *have* to do anything about it?

i find this refreshing, and brave. i'm sure there are many Republicans who would love to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act, they're just too polished and savvy to actually come out and say it.

i mean, what mainstream, electable GOP person would have to actually come out and say the following:

Quote:
I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Paul won't back repeal of 1964 act - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
so, like with Trent Lott, we get an illuminating glimpse into the heart of the GOP and what really makes them tick. that's always a good thing.
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 01:56 PM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
so, like with Trent Lott, we get an illuminating glimpse into the heart of the GOP and what really makes them tick. that's always a good thing.
That's a real stretch. I was under the impression that Rand Paul and his father are fringe figures in the GOP.
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 02:17 PM   #12
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 32,510
Local Time: 04:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
That's a real stretch. I was under the impression that Rand Paul and his father are fringe figures in the GOP.


depends on the issue. they want to abolish the Department of Education, and that's pretty fringe. actually coming out and saying that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was bad because it reduced the freedom of whites to discriminate is pretty fringe. and yet, you get the sense that most of these guys share the same generalized indifference towards others.
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 02:21 PM   #13
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
That's a real stretch. I was under the impression that Rand Paul and his father are fringe figures in the GOP.
you are absolutely correct.

the Democrats wanted this Rand Paul to win
so they can go against him in the General Election in November

The GOP establishment lined up behind the other GOP candidate
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 02:23 PM   #14
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
and yet, you get the sense that most of these guys share the same generalized indifference towards others.
Well, that statement strikes me as a generalisation for a start.

He should just stop answering these sorts of questions as its too easy for the MSM to tie him in knots, given that they have no interest in actually exploring or properly critiquing libertarian ideology for better or worse (and, yes, there's plenty of it that can be critiqued and found wanting), or in anything that can't be explained in 5 second soundbites.

I'll refrain from assuming he's a bigot until he is found pushing a black kid around or painting homophobic slogans on a gay bar.
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 02:41 PM   #15
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 02:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

because we should have voluntarily decided to repeal Jim Crow laws -- much like, i guess, Cheney thought that people should voluntarily reduce their greenhouse output rather than make laws about it -- and he's clear that he's not for racism or segregation, but he doesn't think we need to actually do anything about it.
Yeah, can you imagine a canidate that says:

I'm against gay marriage but I think it should be handled on a local church level.

I'm against illegal immigration but I don't think the government should get involved.

I'm against abortion but I think the individual should voluntarily just not want one.


The Tea Baggers would be outraged!!!
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 02:49 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 12:50 PM
Maddow is clever, she knew how to exploit this Libertarian.

there is no one advocating doing away with the 1964 Civil Rights law,
and this guy would also like to relax pot laws, being a true Libertarian

Quote:
Paul admits political slip in civil rights remarks
Kentucky Republican Senate hopeful faces storm after questioning '64 law

msnbc.com
updated 11:50 a.m. PT, Thurs., May 20, 2010

In the wake of Rand Paul’s comments on MSNBC’s "Rachel Maddow Show" Wednesday night questioning provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Kentucky Republican Senate nominee said Thursday he supported the law and would not favor its repeal.

Paul also said that appearing on Maddow’s show "was a poor political decision.”

In an interview with radio talk show host Laura Ingraham, Paul implicitly acknowledged that he’d given his opponents ammunition to assail him.

It was a turnabout from Wednesday night, when Paul told Maddow, “You’re an intelligent person; I like being on your show."

In a statement released by his campaign Thursday Paul said, “Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

Voices support for 1964 law
He added, “I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.”

In his 15-minute interview with Maddow, Paul repeatedly declined or sidestepped opportunities to endorse the provisions of the 1964 law which require hotels, restaurants, and other businesses to accept all customers without discriminating on the basis of race or ethnicity.

He repeated several times that he opposes racial discrimination. “I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form, I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race,” he said. At the end of the interview, Paul added, “I don’t believe that any private property (owner) should discriminate either.”

But he did not say whether he supported using federal law to enforce non-discrimination in privately owned businesses. He said “had I been around” in 1964 “I would have tried to modify that.”

He also said the debate over the civil right law’s limits on rights of private property owners “is still a valid discussion.”

Parallel with gun owners
He explained, “When you blur the distinction between public and private ownership, there really is a problem.” He used the hypothetical example of a gun owner who takes his firearm into a restaurant whose owner objects to having weapons on the premises.

Referring to his foes, Paul told Maddow, “They’ll try to run on this entire issue and it’s being brought up as a political issue.”

The Kentucky ophthalmologist easily won Tuesday’s GOP primary, defeating Secretary of State Trey Grayson, the candidate supported by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the state's senior senator.

Paul will face Democrat Jack Conway in the November election.

Conway said in a statement Thursday that Paul has 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."

Paul's comments seem likely to spur fund raising for Conway and may increase Democratic turnout in the November election.

In 2008, Republican John McCain won the state with 57 percent of the vote. Exit poll interviews indicated that 11 percent of the 2008 electorate in Kentucky was black and that 90 percent of African-American voters in Kentucky cast their ballots for Democrat Barack Obama.

Complaining about 'an abstract, obscure' issue
By engaging in a prolonged debate with Maddow of the 1964 law, Paul revisited an issue that GOP presidential candidate Barry Goldwater contended with nearly 50 years ago.

Goldwater voted against the law, arguing that its provisions dealing with public accommodations and employment were unconstitutional. He lost the 1964 election in a landslide to Democratic President Lyndon Johnson.

Paul complained Wednesday to Maddow that the question of private property owners' rights under the law was “an abstract, obscure conversation from 1964 that you bring up … You bring up something that really is not an issue,” — but this came after he'd already engaged in an extensive discussion of the topic for 15 minutes on national television.

Although Kentucky is a Republican-leaning state and has not elected a Democratic senator since 1992, it’s not impossible for a Democrat to win there: in 2004, Democratic Senate candidate Daniel Mongiardo came within one percentage point of defeating Sen. Jim Bunning, who is retiring this year.

Democrat Bill Clinton carried the state in the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections.
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 04:29 PM   #17
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 32,510
Local Time: 04:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
you are absolutely correct.

the Democrats wanted this Rand Paul to win
so they can go against him in the General Election in November

The GOP establishment lined up behind the other GOP candidate

this is what happens when you ride the Tea Party tiger. Rand might just be at the beginning of his self-imposed destruction. however, what's also interesting is that he goes very much against many GOP orthodoxies, and he'd be a pain in the ass for them were he in the Senate, not just for being insane, but also for refusing to tow the line as much as they'd like. for the Dems, Paul is a win-win. add this to Meg Whitman's collapse in CA, as well as the clear victory in PA-12 (a McCain district), and you've got the makings of a party that might retain it's majority in both houses of Congress.



Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
He should just stop answering these sorts of questions as its too easy for the MSM to tie him in knots, given that they have no interest in actually exploring or properly critiquing libertarian ideology for better or worse (and, yes, there's plenty of it that can be critiqued and found wanting), or in anything that can't be explained in 5 second soundbites.
that's been his response. that he regretted the conversation, not what he said. and that's what politicians do -- they blame the messenger rather than their message. the fact remains that he believes that freedom is freedom from the 1964 Civil Rights Act. thus, it's a greater evil to require people not to kick blacks out of their restaurants than it is to allow blacks to be able to enter and be served at any restaurant they so choose. to Rand Paul, refusing entrance to blacks might be awful and terrible, but it's really no different than "no shoes, no shirt, no service." which is easy to say when you're a white guy who's never going to have to actually deal with segregation. it also seems to escape libertarians that it takes government to actually discriminate -- be it marriage equality or Jim Crow. it's not like the magical market just willed these things into existence.

i guess my fear is that being pro-segregation is going to help him in KY.



Quote:
I'll refrain from assuming he's a bigot until he is found pushing a black kid around or painting homophobic slogans on a gay bar.
it's not that i think he's a bigot himself. he just seems unconcerned when others are victimized by bigotry, legalized segregation, etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Maddow is clever, she knew how to exploit this Libertarian.
this is certainly true. she's too smart for cable TV.


Quote:
there is no one advocating doing away with the 1964 Civil Rights law, and this guy would also like to relax pot laws, being a true Libertarian

no, but he's expressing sympathy for the rights of whites to oppress blacks.
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 04:33 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
no, but he's expressing sympathy for the rights of whites to oppress blacks.
But you're not being consistent, are you. He is also 'expressing sympathy' for the right of black people to start up, say, blacks-only bars or restaurants. Or for the right of, say, Oprah Winfrey to employ only black staff, if that was her wish (which I'm not suggesting it is).
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 04:38 PM   #19
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 32,510
Local Time: 04:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
But you're not being consistent, are you. He is also 'expressing sympathy' for the right of black people to start up, say, blacks-only bars or restaurants. Or for the right of, say, Oprah Winfrey to employ only black staff, if that was her wish (which I'm not suggesting it is).


i wouldn't feel any sympathy for anyone who wishes to do such things, black, white, or whatever. Ron Paul would agree with you and say how he's just being consistent and that everyone should be able to shit on everyone and that's true freedom.

this, of course, ignores the last 400 years of history and the rights of minorities to be free from the tyranny of the majority.

perhaps there is a small infringement upon the rights of people to oppress others, but i suppose that's the price of civilization, not to mention the freedoms gained by actually not being discriminated against.

is your freedom to deny me the right to marry more important than my freedom to get married?
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 05:10 PM   #20
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 02:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Maddow is clever, she knew how to exploit this Libertarian.

there is no one advocating doing away with the 1964 Civil Rights law,
and this guy would also like to relax pot laws, being a true Libertarian
Yet he's against gay marriage, so if by "true" libertarian, you mean picking and choosing what roles the government plays in our lives then you are correct.
__________________

BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×