How the CRA story could continue to hurt Rand

[AuH2O]

Sure, this will likely become a piece in a larger narrative about Rand being backwards, opposed to progress and possibly racist. The campaign has done damage control, and it will be their ongoing job to present an alternative narrative.

I'm more concerned about ideologically passionate supporters and volunteers taking the wrong tack in addressing the concerns of would-be voters. For many undecideds, the first question they'll have will now be about racial issues, repealing the CRA, and private discrimination. Far too many of our people will try to justify the position, rather than addressing concerns by simply stating "He doesn't support repeal and opposes racism in any form." Dodging the central issue (to them) of racism in favor of an academic discussion of private property rights will be big trouble. Libertarians far too often get caught up in talking to their own issues, rather than talking the issues of voters.

[Lucille]

He needs to play hardball and turn it around on them.


Why do you think say (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/58386.html), a Jewish restaurant owner, should be forced by the government to serve a neo-Nazi wearing a swastika armband, who just finished marching in a “Hitler Was Right” parade down mainstreat (legally protected by your buds at the ACLU, of course)? Shouldn’t he be free to just say “Get the hell off of my property, you scumbag”? Do you really think that forcing him to serve the Nazi, as the Civil Rights Act would do if enforced, is conducive to freedom? What would give the Nazi a “civil right” to agitate and hector the Jewish restaurant owner in this way?

He also needs to take the neocons to the mattress and remind them that Reagan, Goldwater and Buckley opposed the same title for the same reasons.

It's best when racists are out and proud. Then we know who and who not to give our business to, you know, like Obama's (http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/05/rapper-jay-z-in-the-situation-room/) best bud Jay-Z (http://bossip.com/217778/no-white-people-allowed-in-jay-zs-vip-area/)!

[Cowlesy]

I think it is a good point.

Or at least line them up in the right order.

Completely smack down the question with the fact that 1.) Rand has stated he would have voted FOR the Civil Rights Act, therefore of COURSE he wouldn't support repealing it.

If the person is somewhat cerebral and wants to probe further, then perhaps you can talk about property rights.

But stay away from the topic and just refute the assertion upfront.

Fortunately, the hardcore libertarians, at least from what I have witnessed on an internet forum, are the least likely to engage in-person with actual KY voters. But I think it is sound advice for those refuting the topic on the 'tubes.

[AuH2O]

He needs to play hardball and turn it around on them.



He also needs to take the neocons to the mattress and remind them that Reagan, Goldwater and Buckley opposed the same title for the same reasons.

It's best when racists are out and proud. Then we know who and who not to give our business to, you know, like Obama's (http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/05/rapper-jay-z-in-the-situation-room/) best bud Jay-Z (http://bossip.com/217778/no-white-people-allowed-in-jay-zs-vip-area/)!

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. No matter how good your argument, you are going to lose at least half the people with it (if not more), but worse, you exacerbate the repercussions of what should on its own become a minimized story.

Don't try to win an argument on the issue, just make it a non-issue.

[silverhandorder]

When we were canvassing for Ron they told us to either direct them to Ron's videos, site or state his position. If the person welcomes an argument on it you can do it but make it clear it is your views.

[itshappening]

it wont hurt him whatsoever

[AuH2O]

it wont hurt him whatsoever

In an election, a lot of undecideds who often know very little about the two candidates, take the little they do know (usually the most overarching and hotbutton issues), dig a tiny bit deeper just before voting, then make up their minds. In the days before an election, if those people who ask "What was all that about civil rights?" and are met with issue-dodging answers apologizing for segregation, kiss their votes goodbye.

Do I think it will lose the election for him? No. Do I think this type of damage will hurt worse than the original media hit? Absolutely.

[Lucille]

I get what you're saying but it is a story, and the press, the regressives and the neocons (but I repeat myself) will not allow it to be a non-issue.

I also like the way Rand turned it into the civil rights issues of today. School choice, the racist war on (some) drugs, etc.

That Commerce Clause has rained all sorts of big government, tyrannical hell down on us. Sebelius is using it (http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/LED-251475/HHS-Asks-Court-to-Drop-Virginia-Mandate-Suit) to get the courts to drop VA's Barry's Big Medical System Mandate suit. Considering a majority want Obamacare repealed, it can't hurt to remind people that it is the Clause from Hell that's used to justify both.

[AuH2O]

I get what you're saying but it is a story, and the press, the regressives and the neocons (but I repeat myself) will not allow it to be a non-issue.

I also like the way Rand turned it into the civil rights issues of today. School choice, the racist war on (some) drugs, etc.

That Commerce Clause has rained all sorts of big government, tyrannical hell down on us. Sebelius is using it (http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/LED-251475/HHS-Asks-Court-to-Drop-Virginia-Mandate-Suit) to get the courts to drop VA's Barry's Big Medical System Mandate suit. Considering a majority want Obamacare repealed, it can't hurt to remind people that it is the Clause from Hell that's used to justify both.

Jesus, there's a reason nobody in Congress talks much about repealing the Civil Rights Act or even paring down the wide interpretation of the Commerce Clause -- they aren't winning electoral issues. Rand will win by staying on message on two or three central, mainstream issues. Getting into absurd policy debates is a boneheaded move likely only to satisfy libertarian ideologues on message boards.

[itshappening]

In an election, a lot of undecideds who often know very little about the two candidates, take the little they do know (usually the most overarching and hotbutton issues), dig a tiny bit deeper just before voting, then make up their minds. In the days before an election, if those people who ask "What was all that about civil rights?" and are met with issue-dodging answers apologizing for segregation, kiss their votes goodbye.

Do I think it will lose the election for him? No. Do I think this type of damage will hurt worse than the original media hit? Absolutely.

the Civil rights act is NOT an issue in the general election for US Senate in Kentucky, the issue will be the debt, taxes, immigration, obamacare and cap and trade... all of which Conway loses big to Rand Paul

Let's not forget that Conway had a divisive primary with Mongiardo and many of his supporters refusing to endorse him, that means Conway is in big trouble.

You need to learn and understand the state rather what the media think

it will not hurt him or "continue" to hurt him. Rand has not called for reppeal of the act. If anything the attention will help him

[AuH2O]

the Civil rights act is NOT an issue in the general election for US Senate in Kentucky, the issue will be the debt, taxes, immigration, obamacare and cap and trade... all of which Conway loses big to Rand Paul

Let's not forget that Conway had a divisive primary with Mongiardo and many of his supporters refusing to endorse him, that means Conway is in big trouble.

You need to learn and understand the state rather what the media think

it will not hurt him or "continue" to hurt him. Rand has not called for reppeal of the act. If anything the attention will help him

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying.

[Lucille]

Jesus, there's a reason nobody in Congress talks much about repealing the Civil Rights Act or even paring down the wide interpretation of the Commerce Clause -- they aren't winning electoral issues. Rand will win by staying on message on two or three central, mainstream issues. Getting into absurd policy debates is a boneheaded move likely only to satisfy libertarian ideologues on message boards.

I never said anyone was talking about repealing the CRA, or even that title, nor am I advocating it.

I agree with you that he needs to stay on message, but when it's brought up, which it will be, he needs to turn it around to the civil rights issues of today and point out how the Commerce Clause is used to justify all sorts of unconstitutional federal actions and controls.

You can't un-ring the bell AuH2O! The best he can do is use this issue to his advantage.

[specsaregood]

He needs to play hardball and turn it around on them.

Why do you think say, a Jewish restaurant owner, should be forced by the government to serve a neo-Nazi wearing a swastika armband, who just finished marching in a “Hitler Was Right” parade down mainstreat (legally protected by your buds at the ACLU, of course)? Shouldn’t he be free to just say “Get the hell off of my property, you scumbag”? Do you really think that forcing him to serve the Nazi, as the Civil Rights Act would do if enforced, is conducive to freedom? What would give the Nazi a “civil right” to agitate and hector the Jewish restaurant owner in this way?



That argument won't work though. They'll just say that the neo-nazi can take the armband off and dresscodes are ok. but you can't take off a skincolor.

[AuH2O]

While I disagree with continuing the argument on Civil Rights because it is a losing one, I'm not in any way talking about what Rand should do. This refers to activists.

[Aratus]

heck, if Rand Paul makes ten more media gaffes and runs 3 degrees to the left of the way Barry Goldwater did in 1964 as
Jack Conway keeps his cool and runs 3 degrees to the right of the way Sen. George McGovern did in 1972 under the basic
assumption that Barack Obama plans to run once again as the PEACE candidate in 2012, it still would be quite an effort
for Jack Conway to rise in the polls... and it still would take a herculean effort to pull up near to even/steven with Rand!
Conway is no shoe-in! the voters may be giving Rand Paul the benefit of the doubt, or may be ignoring the mass media...

[Flash]

Thankfully the CRA story is finally out of the news cycle. But I'm really nervous about the damage it did in the more urban areas of KY.

[rprprs]

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying.

But I do...and you are 100% correct.
I've seen it happening on message boards, in the comments to articles, and in the articles themselves. In their zeal to come to Rand's defense, supporters often end up confounding the issue and adding to the misunderstanding. Worse, they often end up putting words in Rand's mouth and, then, argue positions that he neither expressed nor holds. Unless among friends, leave the philosophy to Rand.

[BenIsForRon]

Agree with AuH2O. If you're canvassing or phone-banking, it is totally not worth it to delve anywhere near philosophy. Just say he supports the entire CRA, and is opposed to all discrimination.

What Rand needs to worry about though, is that Conway is going to continue to press Rand on this and many other issues, like minimum wage and health and safety regulations. Rand needs to be ready to move towards the general consensus on those issues. It is not worth it to remain principled on that stuff.

I'll keep libertarian literature alive and deal with it myself 20 years down the road. There are more pressing issues for Rand to take on.

[Lucille]

Too much principle (http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/05/too-much-principle.html)


Douthat is correct to say that Rand Paul could have and should have avoided a discussion of the merits of a 46 year-old law. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 isn't on any libertarian's top 10 list of Federal actions that require overturning. In fact, it probably isn't even on anyone's top 25 list. But Douthat's criticism of Paul's principles naturally leads to the question of how much principle is too much? How much good is too good? And precisely how much principle should be, ideally, be cast aside in order to reach an optimum balance between principle and pragmatism? The illogic stems from ignorance; Douthat has clearly never stopped to think that the civil rights act, however justifiable, was in fact an expansion of central state power with all of the long-term danger that presents. He obviously has never thought about World War II in a critical manner, viewing it instead as a mystic and hallowed event that is beyond question. And he adroitly skips over the fact that the only reason Francis and Roberts ended up on what he calls a "fringe", despite the fact that their views are far more popular in the mainstream public than those of their neo-conservative foes, is because they were exiled by the neocons after their successful conquest of the conservative media's high ground.

Rand Paul is hardly "undone", no matter how much Douthat and the other faux conservatives in the Republican Party would like to believe he is a political dead letter. The America of 2010 simply doesn't view the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the same manner that the America of 1980 did. The liberal white guilt that fueled the civil rights of the 1960s and diversity of the 1990s is all but dead, having been slain by the Vibrant Society, and besides, what does a Mexican or Somali immigrant care about 18th, 19th, or even 20th century American history anyhow.

It is, of course, entirely possible that Americans have ideologically devolved to the point that they are simply too unprincipled to elect principled politicians, in which case it doesn't matter whether men like Rand Paul are elected or not. Because an unprincipled electorate will fully merit the fate that appears to be in store for them.

[Mini-Me]

I just had a thought about going on the offensive: If Rand is willing to come out strongly against the War on Young Black Males Drugs, he can tear through this issue the next time someone even hints at the word "racist."

[jmdrake]

Sure, this will likely become a piece in a larger narrative about Rand being backwards, opposed to progress and possibly racist. The campaign has done damage control, and it will be their ongoing job to present an alternative narrative.

I'm more concerned about ideologically passionate supporters and volunteers taking the wrong tack in addressing the concerns of would-be voters. For many undecideds, the first question they'll have will now be about racial issues, repealing the CRA, and private discrimination. Far too many of our people will try to justify the position, rather than addressing concerns by simply stating "He doesn't support repeal and opposes racism in any form." Dodging the central issue (to them) of racism in favor of an academic discussion of private property rights will be big trouble. Libertarians far too often get caught up in talking to their own issues, rather than talking the issues of voters.

I've been saying this from day one! People were rushing to "defend" Rand's position even before the press release. And now (some) people are still defending the position that they wish he had given. This is such a non issue.