The Candidate Doth Protest Too Much
by Distributorcap
On Tuesday Rand Paul, the darling of the right and of the teabaggers won the Kentucky Republican Senate Primary in a landslide. On Wednesday, Rand Paul decided to show America he was smart and savvy enough to articulate his libertarian positions on Civil Rights. On Thursday Rand Paul was in dire need of Karl Rove talking points and a good spin doctor.
Rand Paul is one of those purist libertarians - someone who feels the government should stay out of everything, especially anything that has to do with private industry. Paul stated on the The Rachel Maddow Show (and on NPR, and to the Louisville Courier-Journal) that he felt the US government was wrong to ban discrimination in private business. Paul reiterated numerous times that he abhored racism, but felt that the First Amendment allowed a shop owner or restaurant manager to not serve anyone based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, hair color or any other characteristic they choose.
He justified his position using the 2nd Amendment (which was awfully odd, uncomfortable and irrelevant) and that the "market" would take care of anyone who discriminated.
The only thing Raul ended up justifying was just how insane he is.
Rand completely misses the point of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ban on discrimination was not about speech, it was about abhorrent behavior that was being practiced in many areas of the country - especially the South. Businesses (exemplified by the buses in Alabama and lunch counters at Woolworth's) were regularly refusing to serve Blacks. Some would accommodate minorities - but relegated them to separate areas away from rights. It was racism in its purist and most disgusting form.
Lyndon Johnson helped push through this landmark legislation - which made discrimination illegal. The law had nothing to do with the First Amendment - the owners and employees of Woolworth's were still free to hate anyone they wished. And they could verbally pronounce that hate all they wanted. But Woolworth's could not stop people buying their stale tuna sandwiches and lousy coffee just because the employees were racists.
There is huge distinction here. Using the free speech argument to defend the purity of libertarianism is just another way for Paul to deflect his true feelings on the Civil Rights Act - and his disdain for the government. I think the candidate doth protest too much last night. Rand Paul's purity ended up looking more like Aryan purity as opposed to political purity. And just because Paul claimed he was against racism, it doesn't mean that there is not a trace of it flowing through his philosophy.
Today Paul was forced to go on the defensive. He blamed the "loony left," he back peddled, he clarified, he spun a web so thick it could stop the oil slick in the Gulf. By the end of the day he said he would have "voted yea on the Civil Rights Act back in 1964" despite the fact he said the night before that he wouldn't commit to voting for it and wanted it modified. In other words he was for racism before he was against it. Funny how opportunism always trumps purity.
Rand Paul is a coward. He resorted to blaming Maddow and the liberal media for playing "gotcha." If there is on Karl Rove talking point that every Republican knows - when you are caught with your mouth on the whites only water fountain, your best play is to call it a "lefty political ploy" (Sarah Palin has that perfected!) Watch the Maddow interview, it was no gotcha. All she was asking was for Paul to clarify his political views, extremist as they are.
If it was up to Paul, we should probably take his hate of government directives to areas beyond lunch counter seating. Health inspections and fire safety are two that come to mind. After all, both of those are burdens to the business owner. Why shouldn't a business owner pack in the patrons to make more money even if it means a flash fire would wreak havoc. And while that packed in lunch counter won't serve Blacks, it will serve you mouse droppings and roach parts with your stale sandwich. Yummy.
Rand's version of less government not only means separate lunch counters, but also more tragedies like Katrina and oil destroying the Gulf - and companies like BP walking away from their responsibility from cleaning up the mess.
The teabaggers worship the free market as the answer to everything. But recent free market activity isn't what one would call beneficial to the consumer. For a party that worships personal responsibility, it is so nice to how adept they are at passing the buck. None of this should come as no surprise. Rove and Newt Gingrich have taught their lemmings well.
Finally it was quite obvious Paul was doing everything to avoid answering Maddow's direct questions about the Civil Rights Act. However his refusal to answer was as good as answer - Paul knew his true position would open a can of stinky Woolworth's sardines. Rand Paul, despite his protests to the contrary, does believe it is OK for a private business to discriminate. It is part of their inalienable rights.
And no amount ofMonday Thursday morning quarterbacking will change that.
On Tuesday Rand Paul, the darling of the right and of the teabaggers won the Kentucky Republican Senate Primary in a landslide. On Wednesday, Rand Paul decided to show America he was smart and savvy enough to articulate his libertarian positions on Civil Rights. On Thursday Rand Paul was in dire need of Karl Rove talking points and a good spin doctor.
Rand Paul is one of those purist libertarians - someone who feels the government should stay out of everything, especially anything that has to do with private industry. Paul stated on the The Rachel Maddow Show (and on NPR, and to the Louisville Courier-Journal) that he felt the US government was wrong to ban discrimination in private business. Paul reiterated numerous times that he abhored racism, but felt that the First Amendment allowed a shop owner or restaurant manager to not serve anyone based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, hair color or any other characteristic they choose.
He justified his position using the 2nd Amendment (which was awfully odd, uncomfortable and irrelevant) and that the "market" would take care of anyone who discriminated.
The only thing Raul ended up justifying was just how insane he is.
Rand completely misses the point of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ban on discrimination was not about speech, it was about abhorrent behavior that was being practiced in many areas of the country - especially the South. Businesses (exemplified by the buses in Alabama and lunch counters at Woolworth's) were regularly refusing to serve Blacks. Some would accommodate minorities - but relegated them to separate areas away from rights. It was racism in its purist and most disgusting form.
Lyndon Johnson helped push through this landmark legislation - which made discrimination illegal. The law had nothing to do with the First Amendment - the owners and employees of Woolworth's were still free to hate anyone they wished. And they could verbally pronounce that hate all they wanted. But Woolworth's could not stop people buying their stale tuna sandwiches and lousy coffee just because the employees were racists.
There is huge distinction here. Using the free speech argument to defend the purity of libertarianism is just another way for Paul to deflect his true feelings on the Civil Rights Act - and his disdain for the government. I think the candidate doth protest too much last night. Rand Paul's purity ended up looking more like Aryan purity as opposed to political purity. And just because Paul claimed he was against racism, it doesn't mean that there is not a trace of it flowing through his philosophy.
Today Paul was forced to go on the defensive. He blamed the "loony left," he back peddled, he clarified, he spun a web so thick it could stop the oil slick in the Gulf. By the end of the day he said he would have "voted yea on the Civil Rights Act back in 1964" despite the fact he said the night before that he wouldn't commit to voting for it and wanted it modified. In other words he was for racism before he was against it. Funny how opportunism always trumps purity.
Rand Paul is a coward. He resorted to blaming Maddow and the liberal media for playing "gotcha." If there is on Karl Rove talking point that every Republican knows - when you are caught with your mouth on the whites only water fountain, your best play is to call it a "lefty political ploy" (Sarah Palin has that perfected!) Watch the Maddow interview, it was no gotcha. All she was asking was for Paul to clarify his political views, extremist as they are.
If it was up to Paul, we should probably take his hate of government directives to areas beyond lunch counter seating. Health inspections and fire safety are two that come to mind. After all, both of those are burdens to the business owner. Why shouldn't a business owner pack in the patrons to make more money even if it means a flash fire would wreak havoc. And while that packed in lunch counter won't serve Blacks, it will serve you mouse droppings and roach parts with your stale sandwich. Yummy.
Rand's version of less government not only means separate lunch counters, but also more tragedies like Katrina and oil destroying the Gulf - and companies like BP walking away from their responsibility from cleaning up the mess.
The teabaggers worship the free market as the answer to everything. But recent free market activity isn't what one would call beneficial to the consumer. For a party that worships personal responsibility, it is so nice to how adept they are at passing the buck. None of this should come as no surprise. Rove and Newt Gingrich have taught their lemmings well.
Finally it was quite obvious Paul was doing everything to avoid answering Maddow's direct questions about the Civil Rights Act. However his refusal to answer was as good as answer - Paul knew his true position would open a can of stinky Woolworth's sardines. Rand Paul, despite his protests to the contrary, does believe it is OK for a private business to discriminate. It is part of their inalienable rights.
And no amount of
posted by Distributorcap at
10:26 PM
3 Comments:
As typical of would-be career politicians, Rand's web site emphasizes, that he is not a politician, but a doctor (who none the less thinks that life and not only civil rights begins at conception)
Being a doctor, his "life's work" is about diagnosing problems and finding practical solutions, or so he says while proving the comical impracticality of his farcical Randian libertarianism.
By
Capt. Fogg, at 10:20 AM
and of course his libertarianism doesnt preclude him from accepting Medicare as payment
what an ass...... he already is down the media is after me road
By
Distributorcap, at 3:08 PM
Yes, the media is after him by giving him all this free exposure when Mad Magazine wouldn't touch that lunatic with a ten foot tea bag
And of course he's also begun his passion play about Obama trying to destroy innocent businesses like BP by holding them responsible. Why, he's as bad as that Communist Eisenhower!
By
Capt. Fogg, at 5:50 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home