Subscribe via RSS Feed

Never Wavered!

[ 128 ] April 11, 2013 |

Rand Paul is a totally unwavering supporter of the Civil Rights Act.   Speaking of the Paul family, I have never wavered from my conviction that any progressive could plausibly prefer restoring the Articles of Confederation to a moderate Democrat.

Serwer:

So Paul made it quite clear in 2010 that he didn’t believe in federal law banning discrimination in privately owned businesses that are open to the public. At Howard, Paul seemed to be saying he never opposed the Civil Rights Act in its entirety, but he certainly opposed a key part of it that completely reshaped American society. Supporting the right of white business owners not to serve blacks may be the “hard part of freedom” for someone, but not for anyone who looks like Rand Paul.

Paul got a warm reception from the Howard audience for some of his positions on foreign policy and the war on drugs. But in what seems like a tacit acknowledgement that his past position on a piece of historic civil rights legislation is embarrassing, Paul fibbed about what that position actually was.

UPDATE: Edroso, of course, hits it out of the park like he was world-historic power-hitting catcher John Buck:

In other words: The Democrats bribed you to forget all your old friends. No mention of Republican racial politics from the Compromise of 1877 to Nixon’s Southern Strategy, nor of the traditional conservative attitude toward integration and equal rights, nor Jesse Helms, nor Strom Thurmond, et alia and ad nauseam. The Civil Rights Act Paul only mentioned defensively, as something from which he’d “never wavered” except for that part about using the power of the state to enforce it.

Layer in a generous helping of self-pity (“and when I think of how political enemies often twist and distort my positions… My hope is that you will hear me out, that you will see me for who I am, not the caricature sometimes presented by political opponents… Republicans are often miscast as uncaring or condemning…”) and you’ve got a perfect speech — not for the folks at Howard University, but for the commenters at Reason who seem to understand Paul perfectly (“Maybe Paul should have offered up more free shit since that seems to work so well”).

 

Share with Sociable

Comments (128)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Reilly says:

    Maddow did a segment on this last night as well. Good stuff.

  2. c u n d gulag says:

    Does he Rand think these kids don’t know the history of Civil Rights in this country, and how and where his party fits into it – and doesn’t?

    Doesn’t he know that these kids have access to the intertubes, and seeking motors like Goggles, or Yippy, or Bong?
    Also too, and soshable medians?

    He should, because his father sure seems to – or at least people on his staff do.
    I don’t even think his father would claim what Young Paul did – at least one would hope not, what with his less than stellar record.
    Rand, didn’t you get any of your dad’s newsletter?

    Rand, what you did was the equivalent of getting up at ‘Veganism In Internet Age’ conference, and claiming neither you nor anyone in your family ever ate meat, when all anyone had to do, was search for a second to find evidence of you wolfing down a medium-rare hamburger, while your dad ate a rare porterhouse, at the ‘Meateaters Convention’ last year.

    • Barry says:

      c u n d gulag says:
      April 11, 2013 at 5:01 am

      “Does he Rand think these kids don’t know the history of Civil Rights in this country, and how and where his party fits into it – and doesn’t?

      Doesn’t he know that these kids have access to the intertubes, and seeking motors like Goggles, or Yippy, or Bong? ”

      Remember, journalists will not look his stuff up on the internet, and compare & contrast. They’ll report what he said *now*.

    • Shakezula says:

      Does he Rand think these kids don’t know the history of Civil Rights in this country, and how and where his party fits into it – and doesn’t?

      Yes, but it isn’t fair to say this is a Rand-specific problem. The entire GOP believes that every African-American is astoundingly ignorant. OK, to put it in the plainest terms, the GOP wants us to believe that they’re the bestest friends of black people, even though the black guy in the White House ain’t on their side.

      But they keep fucking the Party of Lincoln chicken, even as they ramp up efforts to disenfranchise minorities.

      They don’t think we’ll notice.

      • Dilan Esper says:

        I think the problem is that the conservative (and especially right-libertarian) IDEOLOGY says that you should never interfere with the free market, there are no such things (or very few such things) as market failure, and that, very specifically, the free market shouldn’t have allowed discrimination to fester (because it would create a business opportunity for people who were willing to do business with blacks).

        And the problem is, the Civil Rights Act violates that ideology, and it did so for very compelling reasons– discrimination wasn’t just a government problem, there was a huge market failure, and so long as a business’ white customers didn’t want to patronize an integrated business, discrimination couldn’t create a business opportunity for integrated businesses– the businesses who wished to serve blacks might make money, but they would lose all their white customers and segregation would continue.

        Now, there are a couple of honest responses to this, which I have heard from some conservatives and right-libertarians. The usual move of more honest conservatives is to just concede the point. For instance, Jonah Goldberg, for all his problems, has flat out written several times that the left was correct about civil rights and the right wasn’t. Now, these people will concede the point in the narrowest way possible– Goldberg, for instance, doesn’t concede that there are any other market failures out there that need correcting.

        The other semi-honest move that some make is to admit they oppose the Civil Rights Act’s application to private businesses on the grounds that they should be free to discriminate, but argue that once the laws were changed and blacks were given more protection by the government, it would have been more difficult to maintain Jim Crow. And it probably would have been, as extrajudicial violence was part of what enforced it. But given the amount of private discrimination that still exists even now, I suspect that even if the government had effectively cracked down on extrajudicial violence and threats against integrated businesses, there would have still been a ton more private discrimination.

        But I’d say less than 10 percent of right-libertarians and conservatives make either one of those two moves. What does the rest of the right do? What Rand Paul did. Claim they supported it all along and talk about it as little as possible.

        • Manju says:

          Jonah Goldberg, for all his problems, has flat out written several times that the left was correct about civil rights and the right wasn’t.

          Hi Dilan…would you mind sourcing this for me?

          You know my views on the issue…I want to be able to say that Jonah Goldberg disagrees with me.

          But I really can’t waste my time reading Jonah Goldberg. In return I’ll provide you with some inner procedural votes of Senator JFK, demonstrating that he was in collusion….since I know your views on that matter.

          • Carbon Man Bot says:

            Here’s the video where Goldberg says the following at 12m02s

            the racists in the 1960′s were overwhelmingly right-wingers – and that is something I think Conservatives should be ashamed of“.

            In return I’ll provide you with some inner procedural votes of Senator JFK, demonstrating that he was in collusion….since I know your views on that matter.

            But the right-wingers were unfairly tarred with the brush of racism.

            What color is the sky in your world, Manju?

            • Eli Rabett says:

              White. They had to inject sulfates.

            • Manju says:

              But the right-wingers were unfairly tarred with the brush of racism.

              What color is the sky in your world, Manju?

              The same as yours. Under the handle “Dark Avenger”, you spent an entire thread claiming this of Segregationists:

              The Southern Dems were literally left, center, and right on a lot of issues except civil rights

              .http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/03/fear-southern-democrats-and-the-new-deal/comment-page-1#comment-466410

              • Carbon Man Bot says:

                The Southern Dems were literally left, center, and right on a lot of issues except civil rights

                Nice moving the goal posts Manju.

                No, Manju, I said that Southern Dems were a broad spectrum of left, middle and right.

                You claim that they leaned left, and I claim they leaned all over the place.

                And of course, Dr Dick having had experience of OK by having been born and raised there isn’t academic and formalized for you to pay attention to what he says about the South.

                Being a Southern Democrat, from a long line of Southern Democrats, I would have to disagree with your characterization of Southern Democrats from the New Deal to Civil Rights. To the contrary, the majority of them were religious, conservative, bigots, and are now religious, conservative, republican, bigots

                http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/03/fear-southern-democrats-and-the-new-deal/comment-page-1#comment-466884

                Q. E. to the fucking D.

                • Manju says:

                  You said they were all over the place, effectively demolishing Jonah Goldberg’s and Dr.Dicks assertion that they were conservatives.

                  This idea does not contradict the notion that they were moderates who leaned left, because the latter refers to the mean.

                  But it does contradict the idea that they were conservatives, because the mean dixiecrat did not occupy that space on the ideological spectrum.

                  You are hoisted with your own petard.

                • Carbon Man Bot says:

                  You said they were all over the place, effectively demolishing Jonah Goldberg’s and Dr.Dicks assertion that they were conservatives.

                  Manju, I know this may seem odd to you, but the majority of the Southern Dems were conservatives, but racism did include some people who were moderate and a few confused lefties, even some who changed over time like Robert Penn Warren, who I wrote about in that thread.

                  But, a majority of Southern Dems were racists, and the vast majority of racist Southerners were conservative Dems.

                  I’m sorry that the concept of nuance seems to escape you when you’re confronted by reality of experience and history over your abstract theories and use of DW-Nominate.

                  But it does contradict the idea that they were conservatives, because the mean dixiecrat did not occupy that space on the ideological spectrum.

                  Really?:

                  Figure 1 shows the two-dimensional spatial map for the 2,763 unique members of the House and Senate for Congresses 80 to 107. The first dimension is liberal-conservative and the second dimension captures conflict over race and civil rights. The “S” tokens are Southern Democrats, the “D” tokens are Northern (non-South) Democrats, and the “R” tokens are Republicans. [5] Although there is much over striking, the S tokens are concentrated at the top of the configuration. Before the 1980s, the second dimension clearly divided the Democratic Party into Northern and Southern factions and there was, in effect, a three-party system in Congress. The Northern and Southern Democrats formed a coalition to organize the chambers and divide the spoils, the Northern Democrats and Republicans formed a coalition to pass civil rights legislation, and the Southern Democrats and the Republicans formed the “conservative coalition”.

                  You are hoisted with your own petard.

                  Except the data suggests otherwise, as I pointed out in that thread.

                  http://voteview.com/chminds/figure4.jpg

                  Manju, you’re a true conservative, because like the Bourbons of France, you have forgotten nothing, and learned nothing.

                • Manju says:

                  the majority of the Southern Dems were conservatives,

                  the vast majority of racist Southerners were conservative Dems.

                  You just contradicted yourself. A conservative Dem is a moderate who usually leans left, just like a liberal Republican is one that usually leans right.

                  Unsophisticated political observers, like Jonah Goldberg, get confused by the label and can’t grasp the idea that the party affiliation acts as a qualifier.

                  Yes, Dixiecrats were conservative dems…like Carter, Clinton, and Obama…ie, moderates. You posted and embraced the very data that demonstrates this:

                  http://voteview.com/chminds/figure4.jpg

                • Carbon Man Bot says:

                  Yes, Dixiecrats were conservative dems…like Carter, Clinton, and Obama…ie, moderates. You posted and embraced the very data that demonstrates this

                  Manju, if the Southern Dems were moderates(leaning left, to use Manju-Speak), how can the following be true?:

                  Figures 4 and 5 show the corresponding first and second dimension means for the party contingents in the House. (The Senate patterns are almost identical to the House on both dimensions and the rank medians for party contingents in both chambers are almost the same as the corresponding first dimension means.) As the South realigned during the 1980s and 1990s the number of Southern Democrats declined and became much more liberal. The means of the two parties on the second dimension are drawing closer together reflecting the declining importance of the second dimension in accounting for roll call voting in Congresses since the 1980s. The regional differences within the Democratic Party have almost completely disappeared and Democrats as a whole have become more liberal(no doubt due to the loss of influence of the moderate Democrats since the fall of the Dixiecrats in general-ed) In contrast, Republicans have become more conservative since the 1980s. The combination of the Democrats becoming more liberal and the Republicans more conservative has resulted in a trend towards ideological polarization within both chambers. These patterns match those discussed in Poole and Rosenthal (1984; 1997; 2001) and King (1998). [7]

                  So Southern Democrats became more liberal, more left than the moderates that were the Dixiecrats?

                  And Carter was a moderate, right?;

                  Civil rights politics

                  Carter declared in his inaugural speech that the time of racial segregation was over, and that racial discrimination had no place in the future of the state; he was the first statewide officeholder in the Deep South to say this in public.[31] Carter appointed many African Americans to statewide boards and offices. He was often called one of the “New Southern Governors” – much more moderate than their predecessors, and supportive of racial desegregation and expanding African-Americans’ rights

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_carter

                • Malaclypse says:

                  You’re feeding Manju, who has, rather successfully, derailed the thread into his favorite, indeed only, topic.

                • Manju says:

                  the Southern Democrats and the Republicans formed the “conservative coalition”.

                  Except the data suggests otherwise, as I pointed out in that thread.

                  OK, you appear to be wondering, without explicitly saying, how we reconcile Poole’s first statement with his own data:

                  http://voteview.com/chminds/figure4.jpg

                  First of all, for the conservative coalition, you want to look at the Senate, not House:

                  http://voteview.com/images/polar_senate_means.jpg

                  Here you can see a brief period of time when Segregationists were right-leaning moderates. Thats the era of the Conservative Coalition.

                  Poole is writing on the assumption that his readers know that southern dems supported the early New Deal. That is common knowledge. Huey Long, William Fullbright, george Wallace, orville Faubus…they hated conservative republicans.

                  he’s saying that on top of the new deal coalition, dixiecrats also a conservative one. not all, not even most, and the ones that did were not necessarily conservatives (some where, strom). Its a coalition, after all.

                  But there were enough of them in the senate to kill much of the new deal (tho not the war on poverty, oddly).

                  In other words, your first comments on the other thread were more accurate. Dixiecrats were all over the place ideologically. Though I would add that they congregated around the middle.

                  As i said before, you kinda got it right. Good for you!

                • Manju says:

                  Manju, if the Southern Dems were moderates(leaning left, to use Manju-Speak), how can the following be true?:

                  So Southern Democrats became more liberal, more left than the moderates that were the Dixiecrats

                  ?

                  I’m not sure what your asking. The first group and the second one are different people.

                  Long/short: after the fall of Jim Crow, the most vulnerable politicians were Southern Dems representing wealthy districts, ie districts that would normally be republican had it not been for the dems artificially inflated one-party system.

                  So the first districts to flip were the rich ones. moderates (conservative dems/segregationists) were replaced by conservatives (republicans)…because the former could no longer offer the maintenance of Jim Crow to rich folks in exchange for them voting against their economic interests.

                  Ergo, the remaining Dems represented poorer districts…making the mean southern dem more liberal.

                  Thats whites. Also, blacks could vote….creating more lib-dems in the south.

                • Carbon Man Bot says:

                  Some fell on the right side. So they aligned with Repubs in the Senate to push back on the New Deal…particulary after FDR went after some of them for their lukewarm support of his New Deal.

                  Which would account for the alliance lasting almost 20 years after FDR passed away.

                • Carbon Man Bot says:

                  the Southern Democrats and the Republicans formed the “conservative coalition”.

                  Then they go in two seperate directions, and for a brief period of time, the southne dems cross over into RWing territory.

                  The graph I see shows the Southern Dems much more conservative than the Northern Dems, and still more conservative than the Dems taken as a whole.

                  Again, as the writer wrote:

                  Before the 1980s, the second dimension clearly divided the Democratic Party into Northern and Southern factions and there was, in effect, a three-party system in Congress. The Northern and Southern Democrats formed a coalition to organize the chambers and divide the spoils, the Northern Democrats and Republicans formed a coalition to pass civil rights legislation, and the Southern Democrats and the Republicans formed the “conservative coalition”.

                  Demonstrate where he was wrong about the state of the Southern Democrats before 1980.

              • Carbon Man Bot says:

                In other words, your first comments on the other thread were more accurate. Dixiecrats were all over the place ideologically. Though I would add that they congregated around the middle.

                Yes, and they were also moderates, which meant that they leaned left, according to you.

                You’ll get it right in 20 years or so.

                Why did Southern Democrats ally with Republicans before the 1960s, Manju, you still haven’t accounted for that?

                • Manju says:

                  Yes, and they were also moderates, which meant that they leaned left, according to you.

                  Well, its awfully hard to be perfectly moderate. You’re probably going to fall slightly on one side or the other. Most fell on the left side.

                  Why did Southern Democrats ally with Republicans before the 1960s, Manju, you still haven’t accounted for that?

                  Some fell on the right side. So they aligned with Repubs in the Senate to push back on the New Deal…particulary after FDR went after some of them for their lukewarm support of his New Deal.

                  The War on Poverty was about 50-50, leaning left in the Senate at least (don’t follow the House as closely).

                  I’m not sure what you’re asking me now. You seemed to have grasped this on your own…but perhaps now realize that the implications of what u previously said is that they were not conservatives.

                  Either way, we’re making progress. Keep up the good work.

                • Manju says:

                  Which lasted for more than 20 years after FDR’s attempted purge.(1937 being when the Conservative Coalition was formed).

                  I’m not sure what you’re arguing over. The mostly republican conservative coalition included some southern dems, and some non-southern ones. It existed before FDR’s attempted purge. But after it, because the purge failed in the south, those southern dems who had to face a primary challenge backed by FDR, where naturally more inclined to oppose him.

                  http://voteview.com/images/polar_senate_means.jpg

                  As you can see from this graph, Southern Dems were about as liberal as Northern ones before the attempted purge. Then they go in two seperate directions, and for a brief period of time, the southne dems cross over into RWing territory. That was the apex of the Conservative Coalition.

                  Thats followed by a treadline down. The coalition still existed, but it was weaker.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  Dead Horse #2.

              • Manju says:

                Some fell on the right side. So they aligned with Repubs in the Senate to push back on the New Deal…particulary after FDR went after some of them for their lukewarm support of his New Deal.

                Which would account for the alliance lasting almost 20 years after FDR passed away.

                I said “particularly after” FDR’s attempted purge, not “exclusively because of”.

                • Carbon Man Bot says:

                  Which lasted for more than 20 years after FDR’s attempted purge.(1937 being when the Conservative Coalition was formed).

                  Got it.

                • Manju says:

                  Manju: Southern Dems were about as liberal as Northern ones before the attempted purge. Then they go in two seperate directions,

                  Dark Avenger / Carbon Man Bot: The graph I see shows the Southern Dems much more conservative than the Northern Dems

                  Thats probably because you are looking at a graph that begins in 1947.

                  http://voteview.com/chminds/figure4.jpg

                  FDR’s purge was aimed at the 1938 election. so you need to look at this one:

                  http://voteview.com/images/polar_senate_means.jpg

                  So, as you can see, my narrative is correct.

                • Manju says:

                  The graph I see shows the Southern Dems much more conservative than the Northern Dems, and still more conservative than the Dems taken as a whole.

                  Again, as the writer wrote:

                  Before the 1980s, the second dimension clearly divided the Democratic Party into Northern and Southern factions

                  I think I see why you’re confused. the graphs we are looking at concern ideology: the first dimension to American Politics.

                  Poole said, “the second dimension clearly divided the Democratic Party into Northern and Southern factions.”

                  The 2nd dimension, no longer relevant, is that which does not align to the Left-right axis. For the period that we are talking about, it basically measures civil rights (before that bimetallism and some other quirky issues).

                  Here’s the 2nd dimension. Civil Rights for Af-Ams. It’s complex. I even had to ask Prof Poole about it.

                  You only want to look at the civil rights era, after that its meaningless and before that it tracks other stuff. But try not to have a heart attack:

                  http://voteview.com/images/Senate_Party_Means_46-111_2nd.jpg

          • Dilan Esper says:

            Here’s an example, from a column about Rand Paul, actually:

            “Indeed, it’s worth noting that the only people who are really jazzed to reopen the argument about the Civil Rights Act are liberals.

            And they have good reason: They won that argument, politically and morally.”

            http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2010/05/26/rand_pauls_civil_rights_act_comments_revisited

            Now, of course, he goes on to attack liberals for constantly reminding us of it and all the other straw men he throws up. That’s what I mean by the narrowness of the concession. But Goldberg does make it.

            And Carbon Man Bot found another example.

            For the record, it’s hard to search for, but I’ve actually heard Goldberg make the concession several times. I have no doubt that he actually believes it and is uncomfortable with conservative revisionism on this issue.

          • Dilan Esper says:

            And by the way, I don’t think JFK was Bull Connor. I just think he was sort of like what Kanye said about W. He didn’t care. He continued what Truman and Eisenhower did, but didn’t want to risk one cent of additional political capital on the rights of black people.

            And Martin Luther King hated the guy– the 1963 March on Washington was a specific protest against the Kennedy Administration which ended with King and his cohorts delivering a list of demands to the White House.

            Really, it probably moved progress up 10 years when LBJ took over the presidency.

            • Serious Person says:

              JFK is hilariously overrated. I wish he hadn’t been assassinated because: I don’t wish death on anyone, and it gave him mythic status. Although if Caro is to be believed, the presidency was LBJ’s for the taking in the late 50s going into 1960, he just wussed out and didn’t start soliciting big machine support early enough to put the brakes on JFK’s rising star.

            • Manju says:

              And Martin Luther King hated the guy– the 1963 March on Washington was a specific protest against the Kennedy Administration which ended with King and his cohorts delivering a list of demands to the White House.

              You know I’m sympathetic. If you recall, when you were being attacked for this position over at Jonathan Bernstein’s blog, I provided the smoking gun.

              But I could also provide quotes from John Lewis saying he loved the guy. Civil Rights demands the proverbial ability to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time. Its not unreasonable to believe that King loved JFK. But, as someone who has been called Jonah Goldberg for saying otherwise, it is unreasonable to believe that the opposite conclusion constitutes Liberal Fascism.

              Also, precision…don’t give the other side a low hanging fruit. The ’63 march was for King a protest against JFK’s collusion with his segregationist wing. For the NAACP and others, it was in support of the Administration.

              Interestingly, King appears to be moving toward Malcolm X’s long-held and incendiary opinion on the matter.

              • Dilan Esper says:

                There’s one other big problem with the “King loved JFK” thesis. Kennedy tapped King’s phones and investigated him as a Communist.

                I do realize that JFK’s defenders try to throw all this on J. Edgar Hoover, but RFK gave the order and the last time I checked RFK wasn’t exactly someone who was going to get out of step with his brother’s marching orders.

                The Kennedy Administration viewed King as a subversive, not a friend. After Kennedy’s death it became strategically useful for King and the surviving Kennedys, as well as LBJ, to tamp this down and suggest a better relationship, but that wasn’t the case at the time.

            • Manju says:

              Thanks for the Goldberg quotes. Now, check this out. i originally got this from the NAACP “Crises” mag, and I think we had a back and forth on this many years ago on Volokh.

              This is the 1957cra. The bill that enters the Senate is defacto the 1964 one. One way to kill it is to make sure the Senate Judiciary Committee gets its…becaue they’ll keep it bottled up in committee. Why? its run by vicious racist James Eastland of Mississippi. Here is the procedural vote in question, Ayes only b/c (obviously, if you look at how the southern senators vote) Aye = Evil

              AL Aye [D] John Sparkman
              AL Aye [D] Joseph Hill
              AR Aye [D] James Fulbright
              AR Aye [D] John McClellan
              AZ Aye [R] Barry Goldwater
              AZ Aye [D] Carl Hayden
              DE Aye [R] John Williams
              DE Aye [D] Joseph Frear
              FL Aye [D] George Smathers
              FL Aye [D] Spessard Holland
              GA Aye [D] Herman Talmadge
              GA Aye [D] Richard Russell
              LA Aye [D] Allen Ellender
              LA Aye [D] Russell Long
              MA Aye [D] John Kennedy
              MS Aye [D] James Eastland
              MS Aye [D] John Stennis
              MT Aye [D] James Murray
              MT Aye [D] Michael Mansfield
              NC Aye [D] Samuel Ervin
              NC Aye [D] William Scott
              ND Aye [R] Milton Young
              NM Aye [D] Clinton Anderson
              NV Aye [D] Alan Bible
              NV Aye [R] George Malone
              OH Aye [D] Frank Lausche
              OK Aye [D] Robert Kerr
              OR Aye [D] Wayne Morse
              SC Aye [D] Olin Johnston
              SC Aye [D] Strom Thurmond
              SD Aye [R] Karl Mundt
              TN Aye [D] Albert Gore
              TN Aye [D] Carey Kefauver
              TX Aye [D] Lyndon Johnson
              TX Aye [D] Ralph Yarborough
              VA Aye [D] Absalom Robertson
              VA Aye [D] Harry Byrd
              WA Aye [D] Warren Magnuson
              WY Aye [D] Joseph O’Mahoney

              http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/85-1957/s67

              Pro-civil rights forces were able to defeat this one. But look who is in collusion.

        • Shakezula says:

          I think the problem is that the conservative (and especially right-libertarian) IDEOLOGY says that you should never interfere with the free market

          Stop. Then they should be flat on their backs howling about the thousands of restrictions on on the free market. Start with … OSHA and work your way in any direction from there. Yes, they grumble from time to time, but the CRA is a grain of sand against all of the other constraints that are placed on private businesses at local, state and federal level.

          It don’t warsh, as my M-i-L would say.

          • Karate Bearfighter says:

            Not disagreeing with your overall point, but conservatives hate OSHA.

            • Shakezula says:

              Yes, they hate everything that decreases suffering of the working classes. Rand is famous for his remarks on mining accidents. But (and I’m speaking of legislators, not bobbleheads) you don’t hear pols saying we need to scrap OSHA or OSHA is a bad idea. They soft pedal it because they know that not enough constituents will go for that.

        • DrS says:

          Anyone who thinks that market failures are rare, or only caused by government interference in the market is someone who hasn’t spent very much time in the freakin marketplace.

          • Shakezula says:

            It is a hypothetical market where business owners decide on their own that they’ll take the money of the damn nggers, even though violent assholes might torch their business.

            Also The Jungle is a pack of lies!

    • JohnR says:

      So, what did you expect? Self-styled “libertarians” are just as free from the shackles of accuracy and history as they are from the shackles of responsibility and ethics. Young Paul is merely the modern version of the classical ‘Republican-Lite’ Libertarian (Now with fewer Principles!). “These are my Principles”, he says – “if you don’t like them, I have others”. Too bad it’s not funny when he says it.

      • Shakezula says:

        I expected this. But it is wrong to say this has jack to do with gibbertarians alone. I’ve been hearing this crap since before I knew a libertarian from a Unitarian.

        And really, are there enough libertarians in KY to have gotten this felch bucket in office?

        Young Paul is merely the modern version of the classical ‘Republican-Lite’ Libertarian (Now with fewer Principles!). “These are my Principles”, he says – “if you don’t like them, I have others”. Too bad it’s not funny when he says it.

        Awesome. Rombot v 2.0 with Ayn plug-in.

  3. cpinva says:

    fortunately for sen. paul, the young men & women at howard showed a lot more restraint than i probably would have. if it had been me, i’d have wanted his head on stick. i still think it would make a great stocking stuffer for the kids.

  4. Carbon Man says:

    See how all the Marixsts hate Rand Paul, and are terrified of him. 

  5. Carbon Man Bot says:

    SQUARK

    MARXIST

    MARXIST

    MARXIST

    MARXIST

  6. Cody says:

    He completely supports the CRA. This is fact.

    He just doesn’t support the things it does… and would prefer if we rewrote the bill to get rid of them.

  7. TribalistMeathead says:

    Meanwhile, thanks to Edroso, we learn that libertarians still haven’t strayed from their racist roots:

    http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2013/04/conservative-minority-outreach.html

    Layer in a generous helping of self-pity (“and when I think of how political enemies often twist and distort my positions… My hope is that you will hear me out, that you will see me for who I am, not the caricature sometimes presented by political opponents… Republicans are often miscast as uncaring or condemning…”) and you’ve got a perfect speech — not for the folks at Howard University, but for the commenters at Reason who seem to understand Paul perfectly (“Maybe Paul should have offered up more free shit since that seems to work so well”).

    • witless chum says:

      The Republican outreach of “90 some percent of you stupid negros don’t understand you should be voting Republican!” should start bearing fruit any day now.

      They actually have more respect for gays than for black people, given that at least a minority of Republicans seem to be considering that gays might support them (or at least stop giving money to Democrats) if they changed their positions on gay marriage. Their offer to black people is “We’ll keep doing exactly what we’re doing now and you vote for us. Good deal, brother? Okay, fine, we’ll throw in a speech by the worse Paul at Howard where he’ll insult your intelligence. But that’s our final offer.”

      • TribalistMeathead says:

        Doesn’t hurt that, as a percentage, there are probably more wealthy gay voters voting Republican for purely fiduciary reasons than wealthy black voters. And a hell of a lot of them aren’t happy with HRC and probably don’t enjoy holding their noses when voting Democratic.

  8. joe from Lowell says:

    The claim that black voters in the 1930s were uninterested in equality of opportunity is insulting on so many levels.

    The one that jumps out at me, though, is the implication that the major barrier to equality of opportunity facing black people is “big government,” as opposed to racism, segregated professional networks, and poverty itself.

  9. [...] our benevolent state and local overlords from the tyrannical constraints of the Bill of Rights and the Civil Rights Act. Hopefully the path forward will then be explained by another racist kook principled defender of the [...]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.