Can any of these people talk common sense? Does the narrative have to live in crazy land 24-7, or can we just talk about getting a few things done together? This year is going to be another unplug-the-TV year.
Paul refuses to take Grayson's concession call Rand Paul, really being a grown-up here. I can imagine how he'd treat somebody from outside his party - am sure this will go over well in the Senate.
Sure he was probably driving through a tunnel and his cell phone was out of batteries and there was a solar flare.
I don't really care much and find it a generally useless bit of political theater, but it does seem like a deliberate snub to skip the call and not even bother to call him back, given the immaterial cost and inconvenience to Paul here, combined withthe obvious knowledge that the concession call was coming, as it pretty much always does.
Interesting results. I haven't felt the Repub Wave coming and last night's results suggest that if it does come, it will not be a traditional wave. I don't think the Tea Party folks can convince a lot of non-believers that they are anything more than a different, more intense vintage of recent Republican orthodoxy. Sure, they may be mad at their leaders, but the issues and the rhetoric are the same... and in most places that combo makes them less attractive in the general. And really, the big overwhelming trend that is playing out since 2006 is that a majority of Americans hate the current Republican Party. Republicans have been very successful in elections over the last 30 years by making emotional appeals and skirting or avoiding mention of their true beliefs. This was a good strategy because if they let folks know their true beliefs before the election they knew it would greatly harm their chances at getting elected. Compassionate Conservatism being the most obvious example. Now, however, the Repub/TP base demands that their candidates unapologetically state their beliefs during the election and I think it will crush them in the general. I said after Obama's election that the Repubs had two choices... reestablish a national party that relates to all of America or throw a hissy fit and think they weren't severe enough in their approach. The latter will result in further defeats until the message is clear even to the dead-enders. Then, they will reform and create a party that is more representative of America. Well, it's obvious where we are now. I just don't see Repubs surfing a wave election on a surfboard made of paranoia and hate.
Mr Paul, being the tea party party boy of the moment, is going to be a better gaff machine than his dad. Rand Paul: ‘The Hard Part Of Believing In Freedom’ Is Opposing Ban On Whites-Only Lunch Counters The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is one of the greatest accomplishments of the 20th century, banning whites-only lunch counters and similar discrimination in hiring, promotions, hotels and restaurants. Yet, in a recent editorial board interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal, GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul explained why he believes that this landmark law should not apply to private business owners:
I have to give him credit, though. I heard him on NPR where the host totally hammered him about it and asked him the same question three times (each progressively more aggressive), at the end of which, I thought someone should have taken him out back and shot him. At that point I think most politicians would have called it a day, but I understand that he went on Rachel Maddow's show where I understand he got hammered even worse. A true masochist would blanch at being on the receiving end of that one-two punch. Maybe it's just that he's naive, and maybe that won't last forever, but right now, he's been talking to the liberal-ish end of the media more than probably all the Republicans in the House have in the last year combined. The idea that someone would believe in the rightness of something so much that they would endure that and not get snippy is kind of novel and quaint.
Props to the guy for talking to people that disagree with him and taking it like a man. But Rand Paul has now been nominated by a major party and has a legit shot at winning a seat in the U.S. Senate. He is going to be vetted from now until November by Dems and the press. That is a very long time for a newcomer to the national political scene. When that happened to Sarah Palin a couple of years ago, it got ugly. But at least Paul seems to have a measure of intellect, though that alone won't save him if too many of his views are off the deep end. It's easy to lob grenades when you don't have much to lose. Now, his most controversial views and words will be flushed out and parsed. If he's a gaffe machine on top of this, oh well. Paul's nomination may put in play a seat the Dems never had a real shot at winning. Kentucky isn't Utah.
Well he's going to have to explain some very fringey stances on issues. Being against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act and supporting abolishing the Department of Education are probably some things even moderate republicans are going to question.
I disagree with Rand Paul on that, and if he had a vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it would bother me. Seeing as it was passed when he was a year old, not so much. He probably would have voted against the Alien and Seditions Act, though.
So you only are upset by an actual vote, and not endorsing a philosophy that would lead him to vote against the civil rights act?
The philosophy that would lead him to vote against the civil rights act is that he's generally against the government interfering in face-to-face business dealings among private individuals. Among almost every situation that we face today, I agree with his philosophy. He takes it further than I would, and that leads to a disagreement in policy that we would have had in the 1960s. Here's the entire interview, I'd think that it's much less offensive if taken in context: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/rand_paul_telling_the_truth.html
I'm looking at the context, and I have a hard time finding any justification for this statement: I just think it's stone cold crazy for somebody to suggest that Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US, that established this principle is wrong. I know that he wants to explain this away by some bullsh-t paean to the magical invisible handjob that always perfectly allocates capital and utility, that "well the free market will eventually make segregation go away". This is countermanded by 100 years of evidence to the contrary, not to mention the not-insignifcant transaction costs incurred in waiting for it to do so. It's amazing to me that something so basic and abhorrent that the Supreme Court (one that included Harlan no less) decided it 9-0 in 1964 can be questioned by an ostensibly intelligent candidate for national office in 2010.
I don't have a problem with what he said either. What is so controversial about it? He believes the government should not interfere in private affairs, including telling a private company who they should serve. He believes that businesses that engage in "abhorrent" behaviors should still be punished for them, but that punishment should not come from government. It should come from the people themselves. Personally, I don't mind a little government intervention in cases like these where the people aren't doing enough to curtail the behavior, but what is wrong with someone who doesn't believe that government should have that influence?
Right - because as we know, people will always naturally gravitate towards the least abhorrent behavior when it comes to the treatment of minorities right? Jesus christ, what year is this? This is just plain dumb.
