How should Ron answer when the media asks him if he agrees with Rand on the CRA?

[AggieforPaul]

Remember that he already has the newsletter baggage, and his answer will get spun as having racist undertones.

[hillertexas]

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals.

Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups.

By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity."

[kylejack]

Ron has already answered this question on MTP with Tim Russert. He agrees with Rand's original position and disagrees with Rand's new position.

[teamrican1]

Since Ron Paul's position on this issue is readily available and well known, any question about it would clearly be in bad faith. Therefore he should ignore the question and use it as an opportunity to attack the liberal media elite for trying to label anyone who is a Conservative or believes in limited government a "racist".

[specsaregood]

./

[kylejack]

Rand didn't flipflop. You mean the "original position" that the media said was his position, but was not in fact his position?

If Jesse Benton, his official campaign spokesperson, speaks for Rand, yes, Rand flip-flopped. He said that Rand supports all of CRA, including Title II.

[specsaregood]

If Jesse Benton, his official campaign spokesperson, speaks for Rand, yes, Rand flip-flopped. He said that Rand supports all of CRA, including Title II.

He never said that he wouldn't vote for the bill. He questioned the constitutionality of it and whether we should give the power to the federal government. Please show me where Rand's actual statements are opposed to what Benton said. From what i heard him actually say, he didn't flipflop.

[teamrican1]

If Jesse Benton, his official campaign spokesperson, speaks for Rand, yes, Rand flip-flopped. He said that Rand supports all of CRA, including Title II.

Well, Rand's statement didn't say that, and suggested (but wisely didn't come straight out and say) the opposite. And I don't think anyone here trusts Jesse Benton to competently distill Rand's views even if he were authorized to speak about them. Until Rand issues a statement retracting his original response to the whole fiasco, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt that he hasn't flip flopped or sold us out.

[brandon]

He never said that he wouldn't vote for the bill. He questioned the constitutionality of it and whether we should give the power to the federal government. Please show me where Rand's actual statements are opposed to what Benton said. From what i heard him actually say, he didn't flipflop.



Rand in 2002:


A recent Daily News editorial supported the Federal Fair Housing Act. At first glance, who could object to preventing discrimination in housing? Most citizens would agree that it is wrong to deny taxpayer-financed, “public” housing to anyone based on the color of their skin or the number of children in the household.

But the Daily News ignores, as does the Fair Housing Act, the distinction between private and public property. Should it be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individual’s beliefs or attributes? Most certainly. Should it be prohibited for private entities such as a church, bed and breakfast or retirement neighborhood that doesn’t want noisy children? Absolutely not.

Decisions concerning private property and associations should in a free society be unhindered. As a consequence, some associations will discriminate.

-SNIP-

A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination – even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin.

Rand now:



"Civil Rights legislation that has been affirmed by our courts gives the Federal government the right to ensure that private businesses don't discriminate based on race. Dr. Paul supports those powers."

[specsaregood]

Rand in 2002:

Rand now:

Do we live in a "free society"? Would we have a federal government in one?

[Todd]

Ron has already answered this question on MTP with Tim Russert. He agrees with Rand's original position and disagrees with Rand's new position.

4:42 mark
YouTube - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 12-23-07 part 3 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-iJP4BAAQ4&feature=related)


The funny thing is this episode didn't blow up like the current one.

[brandon]

Do we live in a "free society"?

Are you implying Rand Paul does not think a free society is a good idea?

[specsaregood]

Are you implying Rand Paul does not think a free society is a good idea?

No. I'm implying that one statement is about a philosophical utopian society. The other is a statement about our current society and legal framework.

Edit: it was government that caused the problems in the first place with the jim crowe laws and institutionalized racism and before that slavery. So one could argue that government needed to "fix" the problem it created. But ideally, government wouldn't have created the problem in the first place.