WaPo: Implications for the CRA issue on other policy issues

[BenIsForRon]

Paul is going to have to have answers for all of these issues. I hope he's ready.


Rand Paul is predictably walking his statements on the Civil Rights Act back as fast as he can. "Let me be clear," he says in a statement released today. "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." And that is, to be fair, a lot clearer than he was when he couldn't answer the question "should [the] Woolworth lunch counter have been allowed to stay segregated? Sir, just yes or no."

But unfortunately for Paul, this isn't over. Not by a long shot. There is a category of scandal that I call "area politician believes kooky but harmless thing." A candidate who thinks he was abducted by UFOs would fit here. It's weird, but it doesn't have many implications for public policy. What's gotten Paul in trouble, however, is that he's so skeptical of government power that he's not even comfortable with the public sector telling private businesses that they can't discriminate based on race. That, I fear, does have public policy implications.

For instance: Can the federal government set the private sector's minimum wage? Can it tell private businesses not to hire illegal immigrants? Can it tell oil companies what safety systems to build into an offshore drilling platform? Can it tell toy companies to test for lead? Can it tell liquor stores not to sell to minors? These are the sort of questions that Paul needs to be asked now, because the issue is not "area politician believes kooky but harmless thing." It's "area politician espouses extremist philosophy on issue he will be voting on constantly."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/05/area_politicians_has_some_spla.html

[Epic]

Paul is going to have to have answers for all of these issues. I hope he's ready.



http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/05/area_politicians_has_some_spla.html

All of those things violate the constitution, but whatever.

[itshappening]

if he's asked any of those questions he should respond be saying: let me ask you a question, do you support Obama's drone attacks and assassination policy? why won't you give him such tough questioning on what are relevant issues ?

[gls]

I highly doubt the majority of the Kentucky electorate cares what the liberal PC blowhards at the Washington Post think.

[JohnEngland]

"But unfortunately for Paul, this isn't over. Not by a long shot."

Yawn. The people don't care. When the media say "it's not over by a long shot" that means, "well we're going to drag this through the mud, even if people don't care anymore."

Once this has passed through the usual circus news rounds, the media will move on to their next attack. It's what they do - Glenn Beck is a perfect example of someone who gets the media treatment. One week it's "Christians rise up against Glenn Beck!" the next it's "Glenn Beck and Goldline are manipulating the global markets!"

Same with Rand. This'll pass. We need to focus on getting Rand's message about healthcare, the debt, spending, term limits, balanced budget amendment etc. out to the people.

Rand's message is a winner - Konway needs the campaign to focus on trivialities, like this current "debate".

[Dreamofunity]

I wish American politics had a place for intellectual and philosophical discussion about these types of things, but unfortunately... this is a political race, not a classroom.

Should the federal government set minimum wage? Are price controls beneficial on any good (labour being one)?

No.

Should Rand flat out say this on television... probably not.