printMitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, endorsed his slick opponent, Trey Grayson, but he won “the Republican nomination for Senate from Kentucky.” He is Rand Paul, son of Ron.
The win “followed the defeat of an incumbent Republican senator, Robert Bennett of Utah, by conservative forces in that state. And it came after the recent decision by Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida to drop out of the Republican primary for Senate in the face of a surge by a Tea Party favorite, Marco Rubio.”
Not wishing to delve into the issues, and say unseemly, hick words such as “Constitution,” the New York Times has chalked the defeat of the establishment candidate to “A strong anti-Washington sentiment.” Of course they would.
Update I (May 19): “March with Martin Luther King, vote with Barry Goldwater.” Rand Paul vacillates about his opposition to the federal regulation of private property wrought by the Civil Wrong’s Act. This is the strict propertarian/libertarain position, apparently “repulsive” to mainstream America, claim NPR and RM. It cannot be denied that Rand Paul comes across as sour.
Part I
Part II
Update II (May 20): SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT, somewhat weakly, I think. Backing away from First Principles…
In response to liberal media attacks, Dr. Rand Paul today released the following statement:
“I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. 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.
“Let me be clear: 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.
“As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years
“My opponent’s statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false. I hope he will correct the record and retract his claims.”
“The issue of civil rights is one with a tortured history in this country. We have made great strides, but there is still work to be done to ensure the great promise of Liberty is granted to all Americans.
“This much is clear: The federal government has far overreached in its power grabs. Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which my opponent supports. The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state’s rights must stand up to it.
“These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign.”
Update III: Civil Wrongs: When I allude to the Civil Rights Act, as I have every so often, it never occurs to me that for the reasoning advanced in these posts, I could be construed as a racist. Respectable scholars advance the same arguments: Richard A. Epstein, Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws (Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, England, 1995), and Richard Pipes, Property and Freedom: The Story of How Through The Centuries Private Ownership has Promoted Liberty and the Rule of Law (New York, 2000).
I guess what I’m struck by is the incredulity and the indignation the cable cretins are expressing at Paul’s pretty standard, if hard-core, libertarian position. Dare I say that the founders held similar, if not identical, views about the sanctity of private property?
Update IV: Howard Fineman is one of the most detestable journos. Here’s how he turns Rand Paul’s principled defense of private property into something dark and dreadful. This does not take skill, but a wicked sleight of hand:
“…Some of that old-time, race-based attitude—a Kentucky mix of romantic benevolence and cruel disdain (immortalized in D. W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation)—has seeped into the groundwater of the Tea Party. I attended one of its first rallies, in Louisville more than a year ago, and I saw on the ground some of the anti-busing elements of old there.
If Dr. Rand Paul doesn’t immediately apologize for holding his victory rally at a private club—and doesn’t abandon his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act—then he will not only pollute the Tea Party, he will severely damage the GOP’s chances of winning control of either the House or Senate this fall.”
Update V (May 21): Writes Richard Spencer at AltRight (but what, for heaven’s sake, is HBD?):
As revealed by the above video, Rand is a proponent of a sunny-side up, left-libertarian version of American history.
Racial discrimination within public institutions should be stamped out; discrimination in the private sector, however, probably should not be, as this would entail a prying federal government and likely violations of multiple Constitutional amendments. But never fear! Racial discrimination isn’t just immoral, it’s bad business, and if the government just gets out of the way, all non-economic discrimination will come to an end on its own.
Through Rand certainly goes further than any other politician in criticizing Civil Rights, there’s a lot wrong with his view.
The argument that private businesses are more profitable when they serve everyone is often correct, particularly in a mass consumer society — though one shouldn’t forget that value is ultimately subjective. An entrepreneur might be able to charge higher prices, and receive more personal satisfaction, by operating a restaurant that caters only to whites (or Jews or Chinese or Indians), and he should have the right to do so.
Of course, instances of businesses refusing service are exceedingly rare….
I am so happy that Rand Paul won the Republican nomination. Mitch McConnell probably isn’t too excited about this. If Paul wins the general election he will not be an establishment puppet.
I did not send any money in for the primary fight because the main battle lies ahead in the general election but I shall cut him a check. The 435 person house has one advocate of liberty and maybe the Senate can too. Most likely, the main danger to Paul would come from the neocons and Mitch McConnell who may try to smear Paul the way the Rockefeller Republicans bloodied up Goldwater (in 1964) but the Conservative “Establishment” may just decide to tolerate a libertarian gadfly who will at least give them a vote in the Senate caucus.
Notice, however, that the headline of that NYT article is not about Rand Paul, but about Arlen Specter who has lost in the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania.
I’m not sure what’s up; perhaps an attempt to marginalize (the younger) Dr. Paul’s victory, or, more likely, the NYT paying homage to a member of the “establishment” (Specter) whom they’ve known for so long.
Either way, Rand’s victory is a great thing for liberty.
It also appears that that great man of principle (the principle of political self-preservation), Arlen Specter, lost his fight for RE-RE-RE-RE-RE-election.
Specter looks more and more like a vampyre every day. The original, walking corpse-type creature, not the debonair invention of Hollywood. He makes my skin crawl.
The NYT will always marginalize a victory by a candidate who stands for liberty. Remember the way Rand’s father was treated during the 2008 campaign and you will see what Rand is in for from the media and the Republican establishment. Bye bye to the disgusting Republicrat Specter.
I remember when Ronald Raegan won the Presidency. I remember the Republican victories of 1994. And others. All the talking heads on network news and the print media railed on about voters “tantrums” and “anger” against the government among the neanderthals in the voting public. In all of their genius, they can’t figure out why the people occaisionaly have these angry tantrums.
In a just world, these losers would be forced to now live under the absurd laws they’ve pushed on the rest of us. The reality is they’ll coast through life on the cushy pensions they’ve voted for themselves, and will probably pick up lucrative gigs as lobbyists to boot.
With this good a start in the primaries, dare we dream again.
It is one thing for people to get rid of some McConnell clone or Arlen Specter. It is another thing to get people to give up on Medicare and the Welfare State …. – this is a long long battle (for freedom) but remember that the Socialists patiently worked for 100 years to get us where we are today (think of Teddy Kennedy) and it will be a very very long path to get us out of the swamp (of Big Government). A truth-teller in the Senate would be a good start.
I’ve lost faith in change happening through the political process; but I still wish Rand Paul the best. It would be nice of having one man of integrity in the Senate.
Yikes. Maddow is very skillful, I’ll give her that.
re: Rachel Madcow interview
I don’t know about coming across as sour, but I can say I don’t disagree with Rand Paul’s position. He’s honest enough to discuss a nuance. I don’t find his position repulsive. If he’s provided an opportunity to fully explain his reasoning, there’s nothing racial or discriminatory or provocative about it. He’s simply a stickler to the Constitution. I’m into that.
I agree with John McNeill. As we seee in the video clips, one can’t take a libertarian position on any issue without being accused of racism, and all political candidates, Rand Paul included, are terrified of that accusation. Obviously, the owner of a business has a right to refuse service to whomever he pleases for whatever reason, but Paul is afraid to come out and say that. This mealy-mouthed wimpiness, not to mention the drivel about marching with MLK, would have cost him my vote if I lived in KY. Even if Paul succeeds in avoiding the racist label at all costs, the press has already labelled him extreme. He won’t be elected.
Here’s something to think about: libertarianism is racist. Restoring the Constitution requires the abolition of myriad income transfer programs not authorized by Article I, Section 8. It also requires getting the fedgov’s nose out of lunch counters. Needless to say, all this would have disparate impact on certain “protected classes.” If the fedgov still operated under the Constitution, America would still be 90% white. If you’re opposed to giving away an ever increasing share of your income to the fedgov’s increasingly non-white dependents, then you’re a racist.
By saying everyone has a right to be served, no one has the right to say who won’t have to serve. Public civil rights vs private civil rights, no freedom remains. Like the song ‘Resign to surrender’ by Epica states, “none are so enslaved as those who think they are free” the growler is right.
Dr. Paul is in a no win situation. It would require thinking to actually understand what he is talking about. The American people are too mentally lazy and uneducated on the issue.
Libertarians never seem to learn-continually applying reason where a bullhorn is more apt.
Libertarian shall either find a sexy, elk-shooting mom of their own, find a Two Minutes Hate of their own, or be marginalized to the three or four percent of the mob that can comprehend their arguments.
I’m not sure what Dr. Paul had to gain by going on Rachel Maddow. No one watches MSNBC to begin with, and only bad things could have come of it. I’m disappointed his people did not anticipate the trap she was going to try and set. It’s a shame he fell into it. I still think he will be elected, though. He doesn’t need to convince the American people of anything. He needs to convince the people of KY, and I think he will. The MSM does not control public opinion anymore.
At least this is happening in May, six months before the election. It would be a problem if it happened a couple of weeks prior. But I think there is enough time that he should be able to weather the storm.
This (trashing of Paul) is only the beginning. Next thing, Paul will be tied to inventing sickle-cell anemia when he wasn’t laughing alongside Bin Laden during 9/11 – etc. ad nauseum. This is all predictable. The establishment (Republicrat and Demoplican) are apoplectic of the thought of a libertarian crashing their exclusive club. Besides, Paul is philosophically an opponent of Social Security and all the other SACRED COWS of the Welfare-Warfare state. He is an EXTREMIST (like Goldwater 1964) – true since belief in limited government is not “Mainstream”.
Fineman at his most despicable: “Tea Party philosophy runs smack into the wall of rights the Constitution creates, and if Paul doesn’t want to recognize that, he will turn the entire election into a referendum on racial discrimination.” It is not Paul who is turning this into a referendum on discrimination but the media. There are black strip clubs in DC with 99% black clientele and no one cares – there’s a greasy spoon Kosher “Chinese Restaurant” with 99% Orthodox Jewish clientele – since no one else would want to eat there! But to Fineman, it is all Bull Connor and Klan if one claims that private property is, in fact, PRIVATE.
A couple more items. First, this reminds me of when the folks on MSNBC questioned Ron Paul about Lincoln during the last campaign, and got all bent out of joint when Ron told them Lincoln could have freed the slaves without the war.
Second, I wish someone would ask Rand or anyone running for office how they would have voted on the 1965 Immigration Act. I would love to have a debate on that monstrosity.
Silly me, I thought race was a social construct?
And where does Howard Fineman reside? Does he live in the ‘hood or barrio? If not then why not? Is he a bigot or racist for electing not to live in such a neighborhood?
He reminds me of Dubya’s bigoted behavior.
Remember the brouhaha from years ago involving Governor Bush and conservative Lino Graglia? Seems Graglia suffered from a bad case of CTS (Conservative Tourette Syndrome). That is, he spoke the truth about differences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lino_Graglia In response Jorge sobered up long enough to mau mau Professor Lino Graglia.
And Jorge most assuredly is a bigot. He opted to “retire” from politics (Not true. No politician ever retires from politics.) and move to Dallas. Except he did not move to the ‘hood or barrio; he moved to the obscenely affluent, lily white enclave of Preston Hollow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Hollow,_Dallas,_Texas The only “Hispanics” Jorge will encounter there are the guys with leaf blowers and the “artists” who wish to “tag” private property.
Fineman and Duby are two of a kind: Self-righteous, self-anointed Masters of the Universe who reside in their own little ghettos full of like minded, narrow minded folks.
re: HBD…
I went out of my way to find out what this meant (just to impress Ms. Mercer) and I feel dumber by 10 IQ points (the things I do for you)…
HBD = human biodiversity
Definition: “Human biodiversity is an acknowledgment that humans differ from each other in various ways because of our different genotypes. Differences include, but are not limited to, physical appearance, athletic ability, personality, and cognitive abilities. ”
Lefty crap…If you’re that curious for more info… http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/06/hbd-human-biodiversity.html
Upon further meditation, I guess what bothers me most about this debacle is that when Maddow set the terms of the discussion, Paul immediately agreed to them. (In military parlance this is called losing the initiative.) She then deftly corralled him into the Racist camp and dared him to squirm his way out. What followed is by now very familiar to everyone: a conservative (or somewhat conservative) politician or public figure kneeling before one of the left’s favorite idols, unable to stand again without its blessing.
The issue of civil rights is one with a tortured history in this country. We have made great strides, but there is still work to be done to ensure the great promise of Liberty is granted to all Americans.
This strikes me as something Al Sharpton or some other accomplished hustler might say. I take it as an admission of defeat.