“…’I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964…we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign,’ Paul campaign statement says…””…“A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination,” wrote Paul, “even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin. It is unenlightened and ill-informed to promote discrimination against individuals based on the color of their skin. It is likewise unwise to forget the distinction between public (taxpayer-financed) and private entities.“…” Rand Paul
Like David Frum says, Ron Paul is going to hurt the GOP in November. Then again, that’s the whole point isn’t it?
“…Thus far, Democratic efforts to create a vote-enhancing villain had failed. Now Rand Paul has contrived to volunteer himself. It’s as if his mission had been to walk across an empty room without tripping. Instead, he stepped out of the room, rummaged through a hall closet, found a vacuum cleaner, plugged it in, extended the wire, took a dozen steps backward, and then raced forward to catch his ankle, plunge face forward and break his nose. As unforced errors go, this may be one of the most impressively self-destroying in recent U.S. electoral history….”
The Tea Party “patriots” should pull the plug on him. They have gone out of their way to say they are not racist. Guess they are, maybe?
The little racist doesn’t fall far from the nut tree, does he? On July 3, 2004 Ron Paul wrote an article about integration. Then again, you ought to see what some really nasties say about Ron Paul and his involvement with white supremacists.
The worst of it is the GOP is standing behind him. This is going to hurt us in November. Then again, when you lie down with libertarian dogs, you get up with flees!
“...Let Palin, DeMint and Erick get on a plane and go win Kentucky. Paul was a dumb choice in the primary and he remains a dumb choice now, win or lose. Because even if he gets to DC, he’ll be holding candle-light vigils with that other idiot Adam Kokesh. Once the Left gets done shoring up their base against Paul with the race card, no doubt that and more is coming, too.
But do let me know how all that hopey changey stuff is working out for ya, guys! Because even if Paul wins, conservatives lose when it comes to governing philosophy and on a host of issues Paul hid behind the tenth amendment on, more often than a white collar criminal invokes the Fifth. The dirty little secret is, the myopic eye doctor doesn’t have a workable governing philosophy applicable at the federal level at which he’s running to serve….”
The problem is the GOP has been so whipped and bullied by the Ron Paul Bot tea party “patriots” they they lack the capacity to do anything to upset the little tea partiers.
Sean Hannity is wondering why the Dems are not demanding Richard Blumenthal to step down and not run for the Senate. I would think if Hannity were honest, he would be leading the charge to FORCE Rand Paul to step down.
What fascinates me is the way some within the far right are supporting him and defending him. According to The Corner:
“...A senior DeMint staffer tells NRO that DeMint “heard” from Paul this afternoon. DeMint says it is clear that Paul supports the CRA. “It’s a non-issue,” the aide tells us….”
DeMint is going to talk to Rand Paul about his statement. He is not going to come out against him. We’re talking king-maker ego trips here.
“…“I think what’s important in this debate is not getting into any specific “gotcha” on this, but asking the question ‘What about freedom of speech?'” Paul countered. “Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things that freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it.”
“How about desegregating lunch counters?” Maddow later asked.
“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?'” Paul replied. “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.”…”
OR DID HE?
In 2002 Rand Paul felt differently.
“…In a May 30, 2002, letter to the Bowling Green Daily News, Paul’s hometown newspaper, he criticized the paper for endorsing the Fair Housing Act, and explained that “a free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin.” (Hat tip: Page One Kentucky. I have purchased the letter from the newspaper’s online archives, but will not post it here out of respect for the copyright.)
“The Daily News ignores,” wrote Paul, “as does the Fair Housing Act, the distinction between private and public property. Should it be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individual’s beliefs or attributes? Most certainly. Should it be prohibited for private entities such as a church, bed and breakfast or retirement neighborhood that doesn’t want noisy children? Absolutely not.”
According to Bruce Bartlett the problem is the fact that we are dealing with a libertarian.
“...I don’t believe Rand is a racist; I think he is a fool who is suffering from the foolish consistency syndrome that affects all libertarians. They believe that freedom consists of one thing and one thing only–freedom from governmental constraint. Therefore, it is illogical to them that any increase in government power could ever expand freedom. Yet it is clear that African Americans were far from free in 1964 and that the Civil Rights Act greatly expanded their freedom while diminishing that of racists. To defend the rights of racists to discriminate is reprehensible and especially so when it is done by a major party nominee for the U.S. Senate. I believe that Rand should admit that he was wrong as quickly as possible….”