And so it begins... Rand under attack by the left after Maddow

[Sentient Void]

Not surprised of course... but I was wondering how they would play that interview, so i did a quick google search and LOTS of stuff pulled up.

Here's one:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2010/05/19/rachel_maddow_demolishes_rand_paul

and another:

http://trueslant.com/jamellebouie/2010/05/20/rand-paul-fails-epically-on-the-rachel-maddow-show/

[hugolp]

They are scared, very scared.

[itshappening]

Rand said at the end they would be dishonest if they drew any other conclusions and they are..

[furface]

Rand should be careful with this one. He's showing a bit of naivete. Not racism, but a lack of experience.

There's a temporal side of this. The issue is mute today with fierce competition and the internet.

Does Rand know any minorities that had to look for housing in back before about 1980? I doubt it. I do.

One of the things that I don't see discussed much is that modern technology, mobility, and production gains have made a lot of libertarian ideas work where they probably wouldn't have worked a couple of decades ago.

[QueenB4Liberty]

You can't seriously believe without the civil rights act we would still have separate water fountains. He has the right opinion, he should stick by it. Let the left play their games.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

No one watches MSNBC. Ok, maybe like 6 guys, but they all work there... It doesn't matter

[furface]

You can't seriously believe without the civil rights act we would still have separate water fountains. He has the right opinion, he should stick by it. Let the left play their games.

The issue isn't about separate water fountains. It's about things like housing and medical care. Housing becomes a metaphor for public schools, so if you can have segregated private housing, you're also going to have segregated public schools, etc.

Like I said in a previous post. These ideas may work today, but back in the 1950s things were a lot different. We didn't have the Internet where if we couldn't get a product from one place we'd find another 100 sellers in a few seconds.

What about employment? What does Rand believe about fair employment laws?

[free1]

Under law, he's technically correct, the government should stay out of the race issue. It has no authority there.

And the People shouldn't be racist because that damages / hurts people, it's just not right.

A good maneuver would be "Race is not an issue in this country anymore, we are all proud Americans, why do you keep bringing it up? Are you trying to be racist? Trying to divide and conquer?".

[angelatc]

Rand should be careful with this one. He's showing a bit of naivete. Not racism, but a lack of experience.

There's a temporal side of this. The issue is mute today with fierce competition and the internet.

Does Rand know any minorities that had to look for housing in back before about 1980? I doubt it. I do.

One of the things that I don't see discussed much is that modern technology, mobility, and production gains have made a lot of libertarian ideas work where they probably wouldn't have worked a couple of decades ago.

I don't get it. What does the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have to do with the 1980's housing market?

I grew up in a mixed neighborhood, graduated high school in 1981, so I'm also seeing another problem with your analogy.

[angelatc]

The issue isn't about separate water fountains. It's about things like housing and medical care. Housing becomes a metaphor for public schools, so if you can have segregated private housing, you're also going to have segregated public schools, etc.

Like I said in a previous post. These ideas may work today, but back in the 1950s things were a lot different. We didn't have the Internet where if we couldn't get a product from one place we'd find another 100 sellers in a few seconds.

What about employment? What does Rand believe about fair employment laws?

But segregated housing still exists. I'll venture to say you can find tons of apartment buildings in Manhattan with boards who would never approve a black owner.

And you'll also still find homeowners who will not sell to a minority.

Those ideas were right then, and they're fine now.

[furface]

I don't get it. What does the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have to do with the 1980's housing market?

I grew up in a mixed neighborhood, graduated high school in 1981, so I'm also seeing another problem with your analogy.

You've obviously never been refused housing because of your race.

[BillyDkid]

You've obviously never been refused housing because of your race.
You either believe in private property and the right to do as you wish with your own property or you don't. This idea that government somehow opened to doors for minorities is a complete fallacy. I was refused an apartment when I was 19 because I had long hair. Me and my friends were refused entry into a skating rink because of our hair. Now, I think that is stupid and short sighted, but it was the owners right to refuse me. Even if your premises were correct, that it is because of government mandates that minorities were able to find housing, you are arguing from expediency rather than principle and there is a long, long history of political expediency, even in the name of good intentions, leading only to misery and injustice.

[Theocrat]

I was just upset that Rand wouldn't answer Rachel Maddow's questions directly. He would go off on some historical tidbit or some other statute, but then he would never return to answer the question that she asked.

An example is this: when Rachel asked Rand if he would support Bob Jones University going back to banning interracial relationships, he should have just said, "No, I don't, but I also don't support the federal government telling a private entity how to treat its students, either. Here's why..." Instead, he went off about gun carriers being allowed to bring their guns into private restaurants, and how they view it as a public right. It was irrelevant to what Rachel was asking.

Come on, Rand. You can do better, man.

[Original_Intent]

I'm with Rand. If people would think it through they would see that his approach is the only way to put the final nail in the racism coffin. Let the asshats who WOULD have racist or discriminatory policies implement them in their own business. Then, not only do black people unknowingly support racists with their business, but 95% of the non racist white population will quit giving them their business as well. Let them make the lousy business decisions so that the battle lines can be drawn and we can use the free market to prove that racism is a recipe for failure. People are going to let go of racism a lot easier if they "get there" on their own, they will only dig in their heels if they feel that government is trying to force them how to think.

I really hated how Maddow ran that interview, but the bottom line is I think even people who were already "her fans" are seeing exactly what she was angling for and she probably lost some respect in their eyes. Rand didn;t hurt himself among his base, and probably won over more fence sitters than not with his principled and consistent position.

[Light]

I hope this interview enlightens the people here that the left is not on our side, and are even more vicious than the neocons (unlike the neocons they actually have influence outside of a political party). We have come so far, and we need to finish the fight. The marxists (the leftists, globalists, neocons, etc.) are running scared that someone like Paul has made it this far, their hegemony could very well be tearing apart by the seems. We need to send a message that will rock the foundation of their empire, and begin the slow march toward liberty. That message is that we will no longer be intimidated by baseless slurs such as "racist", "homophobe", "xenophobe". If their magic enchantment breaks, so do their hold on their so-called "intellectual high ground".

[cindy25]

You can't seriously believe without the civil rights act we would still have separate water fountains. He has the right opinion, he should stick by it. Let the left play their games.
water fountains that are government owned are different from private restaurants

[silentshout]

Well i come from the left and the only issue i had was ...why the heck are they even focusing on this? He is not running to repeal this act. I thought he acted very cool and composed and i felt bad for him...made me embarrassed for the media honestly..it was like a witch hunt.

[catdd]

Federal intervention creates more problems than it solves, that much is for sure.

[BlackTerrel]

I understand what Rand is saying but I wish he would've found another way to put this.

People will also associate him with his father (naturally) and my friends who told me "Ron Paul is racist" will now be telling me "I told you so".

I don't think he is. But disappointed in this interview, and the fallout.

[American Idol]

I understand what Rand is saying but I wish he would've found another way to put this.

People will also associate him with his father (naturally) and my friends who told me "Ron Paul is racist" will now be telling me "I told you so".

I don't think he is. But disappointed in this interview, and the fallout.

The "fallout" is so blatantly manufactured it will almost certainly backfire. The establishment media are losing credibility by the day. Desperate, coordinated attacks like this will only accelerate its demise. Sure, a few dummies will still buy into the facade, but the majority of Americans, especially in the Heartland and in Kentucky, have had it. PC be damned...

[dannno]

I was just upset that Rand wouldn't answer Rachel Maddow's questions directly. He would go off on some historical tidbit or some other statute, but then he would never return to answer the question that she asked.

Come on, Rand. You can do better, man.

Actually that's exactly what he needed to do because otherwise they could create a soundbyte that had Rand saying he thought it was OK for business owners to refuse blacks.. when he does NOT thing it is ok, but at the same time, not the government's job to regulate speech.

[AuH20]

Actually that's exactly what he needed to do because otherwise they could create a soundbyte that had Rand saying he thought it was OK for business owners to refuse blacks.. when he does NOT thing it is ok, but at the same time, not the government's job to regulate speech.

Correct. Imagine Rand's words or a quick soundbyte put over a 1960s civil disturbance footage from Selma, Alabama. Yes, they would go there.

[American Idol]

I understand what Rand is saying but I wish he would've found another way to put this.

People will also associate him with his father (naturally) and my friends who told me "Ron Paul is racist" will now be telling me "I told you so".

I don't think he is. But disappointed in this interview, and the fallout.

If your friends think the Pauls are racist based on this, maybe you should educate them a little more.

[furface]

Before everybody jumps to the defense of something that's somewhat indefensible, maybe you should wait a few hours.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37256695/ns/politics/


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.”

Like I said before, people talking out of their asses here have never been denied housing because of their race.

[CUnknown]

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.”

Wasn't this exactly what he was saying on Maddow, though? This is stated a hair more strongly, that's the only difference. His opinion is still the same.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

When Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act on July 3, 2004. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here was his statement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

[AGRP]

YouTube - TNR: RE: Rand Paul Civil Rights. A Message To Rachel Maddow. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQhS2HGThBo)

[furface]

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce.

He's right about the jurisdictional issue. It's yet another stretch of the interstate commerce clause.

The property rights arguments aren't so solid, though. Property has never been construed to mean you have the absolute right to exchange goods and assets you own under any pretense or circumstances.

For instance Ron Paul is a medical doctor with a medical license. Under his view of "property rights," anybody should be able to practice medicine, to claim to be a medical doctor. After all, what right is it of the government to say when owners of medical supplies and knowledge can exchange them with other people. It's an infringement on their property rights after all. The very idea of "Dr. Paul" is an infringement, bias, exclusion on the property rights of people who don't have government issued medical licenses. Dr. Paul belongs to a government mandated monopoly.

[daviddee]

...

[parocks]

What they're trying to do, seemingly, is take laws that the Democrats like, and the Democrats think people like, and try to imply that the Republicans oppose those laws. I rarely watch news on TV these days. On election night I watched Fox Business and Fox News. One of the hosts was questioning a US Rep from Kansas I believe, and tried to get her to say that she'd cut Social Security. The Dems know people want to keep their Social Security, and when the Republicans talk about making cuts, the Dems want people to think that Republicans want to cut Social Security.

Republicans need to figure out how to answer those questions, especially since those questions are predictable. Rand Paul should win in November, I guess if Rand wins it means people are against the Civil Rights Act.

[yokna7]

I'll take "Why we invented the 'C-word'" for $300 Alex!

[BlackTerrel]

If your friends think the Pauls are racist based on this, maybe you should educate them a little more.

Not all my friends, but some of them. And I agree.

[Mini-Me]

Not all my friends, but some of them. And I agree.

Out of curiosity, were they already looking for a reason not to like him, or were they genuinely turned off by this particular issue?

EDIT: Ah, I just read your earlier post...it seems the friends you're referring to are already emotionally invested in "proving him racist" anyway. That's comforting, at least (it'd be more discouraging if someone actually went in with an open mind and went out thinking he was a racist).

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

When Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act on July 3, 2004. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here was his statement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

+1

[BlackTerrel]

Out of curiosity, were they already looking for a reason not to like him, or were they genuinely turned off by this particular issue?

EDIT: Ah, I just read your earlier post...it seems the friends you're referring to are already emotionally invested in "proving him racist" anyway. That's comforting, at least (it'd be more discouraging if someone actually went in with an open mind and went out thinking he was a racist).

Most of my friends don't follow politics and don't care. It's an apathy problem but it is what it is.

My friends that do follow politics are unfortunately primarily in Obama's camp. Both white and black. While I understand where Rand is coming from it is a terrible issue to argue and leads to nothing but bad things. It's like arguing about the confederate flag. It's 2010 let's drop the bullshit and focus on the real issues.

Here's what it does:

1. All the white supremacists at Stormfront who have been saying for years that Ron is closetly one of them jump for joy and have a big party. So you get that relatively small demographic.

2. You lose a much bigger demographic (both white and black) that now thinks you support discrimination.

I honestly cannot wait for this to blow over so we can focus on the real issues. I think Rand handled it poorly and I hope he learns from it. He is a smart guy so I imagine he will. I am a big fan of Ron and Rand obviously.

[Mini-Me]

Most of my friends don't follow politics and don't care. It's an apathy problem but it is what it is.

My friends that do follow politics are unfortunately primarily in Obama's camp. Both white and black. While I understand where Rand is coming from it is a terrible issue to argue and leads to nothing but bad things. It's like arguing about the confederate flag. It's 2010 let's drop the bullshit and focus on the real issues.

Here's what it does:

1. All the white supremacists at Stormfront who have been saying for years that Ron is closetly one of them jump for joy and have a big party. So you get that relatively small demographic.

2. You lose a much bigger demographic (both white and black) that now thinks you support discrimination.

I honestly cannot wait for this to blow over so we can focus on the real issues. I think Rand handled it poorly and I hope he learns from it. He is a smart guy so I imagine he will. I am a big fan of Ron and Rand obviously.

You won't get any argument from me there; it's just frustrating when other people bring the issue up to divert attention from the real issues. You end up choosing between equivocation or trying to explain why you must apply your principles to corner cases too for them to be principles at all (whether private property, following the Constitution, or whatever). Neither option is desirable, because the first option is dishonest pandering, and the second option makes it easy for vipers to misrepresent your views...which is exactly what any talking head bringing up this topic is looking to do in the first place.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

He's right about the jurisdictional issue. It's yet another stretch of the interstate commerce clause.

The constitutional issue of judicial doctrine is extremely relevant.

Do the words in the constitution mean what they were written to mean or can congress redefine what the words mean through democratic process at the ballot box?

How should one view a judicial branch of the federal club that is supposed provide an important role in a system of checks and balances to ensure government follows the rule of law?



The property rights arguments aren't so solid, though. Property has never been construed to mean you have the absolute right to exchange goods and assets you own under any pretense or circumstances.

For instance Ron Paul is a medical doctor with a medical license. Under his view of "property rights," anybody should be able to practice medicine, to claim to be a medical doctor. After all, what right is it of the government to say when owners of medical supplies and knowledge can exchange them with other people. It's an infringement on their property rights after all. The very idea of "Dr. Paul" is an infringement, bias, exclusion on the property rights of people who don't have government issued medical licenses. Dr. Paul belongs to a government mandated monopoly.

Dr. Paul's view is rooted in the individuals natural and unlimited right to contract guaranteed by the constitution:


No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

If I want to contract with you and provide medical services we are free to do so. However since Congress can define what the word contract means the government infringes upon contracts.