Amen, Brother Jay.

Real Brother here.

White Racists like Rand Paul think that Whites are Superior and therefore should NOT be subject to Laws that prevent them from practicing their Racism on Black people. What other Laws could we allow Superior Whites to be excluded from?

I could see it now; Statutory Rape in any Government Funding Facility is a crime but at a Private University Frat House its ON.

This is ridiculous, White Racists no matter how Superior they think they are should be held to the same set of Laws as everyone else.

TKCAL

I saw the original on Wed. night and was exausted afterwards. Every time I try to explain to a relative or friend about how great Rachel is, she goes out and does something even greater.

I'm pretty sure she's gone overtime with a guest before (I'm thinking maybe Tom Ridge when she continued to ask him, because he was trying to not answer, if he compromised the security of the country for the sake of politics. She knows. She just knows when it's important to let an interview continue beyond the time alloted. Unlike watching Chris Matthews who drives me bonkers that he far too often interupts a guest mid-sentence to tell them their time is up.

Much thanks to TRMS and producers and staff who also see when a story is important enough to not cut it off mid-stream.

I thought Rachel was supposed to be better than Fox News. This political season she is willing to act like them in spades.

If I recall Ron Paul indicated he did not like our foreign interventionist policy. A rather democrat like position. Mean while Barack Obama who said he did not like war has continued it. Obama has back tracked on gitmo, military tribunals, etc. I don't agree with every position of the Paul's but it is nice to see a politician who has the intestinal fortitude to not change his mind for political expediency.

Did senator Linsey Graham indicate he would be willing have the US attack Iran for the benefit of Israel? We have already done something similar to that in the form of Iraq. Jewish neocons convinced George it would be adantageous for the US to start war on Iraq. I am not aware any benefit has come from it: A trillion dollars spent and 5000 lifes lost. Rand does not believe in foreign intervention. Is Rachel's position on Rand helping to maintain the Washington insider croud? It would seem so.

I really would like to see Ken Kendall show some examples of Rachel's alleged worse than Fox behavior. It's obvious that he didn't listen to the show, that he has gotten his information, such as it is, from the 'libertarian' blogs. Rachel gave your hero every opportunity to answer the question. The way it usually works is that you answer the question, THEN explain your answer. All your boy did was perform the racist two-step around the question about as well as I've ever seen it done. No, she isn't like Fox News. Fox News spends 3/4 of an hour berating you with its propaganda and then presents a leading question that assumes its answer, then as you try to answer keeps cutting you off with irrelevant interruptions. I defy you to point out a single instance like that.

Worse than Fox? Change the channel

to clarify, not saying to change the channel for trms, but specifically if someone complains about a channel or host, they can change the channel.

I hope we still can find some shows that are showing something other than how to tell if someone is liberal, if they start saying (X), you come back with (X) or just try to be louder than they are, to silence them. Name call, clever mean spirited buzz words to utter and repeat cause they're just so clever and you can get someone to call you a name or appear to victimize yourself, people will flock to defend you.

I turn the channel on those...

If I read Rachel's bio right she is gay? It concerns me that Kagen appears to be gay also. The US has been damaged by special interest groups promoting people who have narrowly defined agendas. Kagen is of a mindset to impose her will in gay marriage on the majority. I don't believe Kagen is legitimately qualified for the supreme court because of her biases. Obama continues to disappoint the people looking for real change in Washington.

onoes teh gayz!

I would think that if being gay bothers you so much Mr. Kendall, why don't you move to Africa where they kill homosexuals, just for being homosexuals. Then you could be comforted that there was no gay agenda in the government.

@Kim Kendall: Can you provide any historic examples of a single justice imposing their will on the majority? Be specific, and prepare to show your work. And it concerns us that your entire argument is based on the fact that you think that Kagan appears gay. Your message makes you appear to be a closet gay. The model we have to work with is Larry Craig-Ted Haggard-George Rekers: Homophobic gay bashers turn out to be closeted gays. Maybe it's an unfair stereotype, but...more unfair than, say, unmarried women?

Is she gay? So what if she is.

If a question of gay marriage is asked, then OK.

I would like to see gay marriage restriction made a matter of equal is equal. To legally state your family is not equal to our family is not equal protection of the laws.

Saying in the military here is my family is a cause for dismissal is not equal, which I thought military was about uniformity. Actions again, what action is the same, equal action codes, not you cannot talk about your sexual orientation.

Oh, these issues of equality are causing a fight, so we better not change the law to keep the peace and just allow people to insist on granting whom is entitled to rights and to whom to say "we were not talking about YOU" when we said equal protection of the laws.

Equal is equal, not traditionally we have had things unequal, so avoid a fight and let it stay unequal.

To Kim Kendall:

I'm just wondering exactly how the country has been "damaged by special interest groups promoting people who have narrowly defined agendas". I think most gay people in this country just want the right to be who they are, something they should already have as US citizens.

By nearly all media accounts, Kagen's positions on almost everything are about as clear as mud. So to project her stance on anything seems like a streach.

As far as TRMS, if you don't like it change the channel. My cable system offers hundreds of stations, yours probably does too.

Agreed. People who don't understand the problems that can occur when one is trying to toe a philosophical line in regards to representing a nation of 300+ million people (as apparently Rand Paul can not) are not fit for government service.

That said, my prior statements regarding Rachel's Glenn-Beckian turn (i.e., her efforts last night in trying to tie libertarianism to insanity and racism of the past) is apt. She was truly channeling Beck and I would hope we'll see her address this.

To suggest Rachel has any similarities with Glenn Beck makes me think you have never actually watched Glenn Beck. lol

Harrison has been posting that drivel all over the blog. The mind boggles.

Don't feed trolls. Bad for the environment.

I consider myself libertarian in many ways and I think you have to be careful not to pigeon hole them. You are taking the philosophical priciple way beyond what I would, for example. I think Rachael does this as well to a fault. No one I have heard in the movement is saying the poor have to rely exclusively on neighbors alone, for example. A social safety net is a perfectly legitimate use of government. In fact, I would think libertarians would be very much in favor of a single payer health care system (I know I would) on fiscal as well as moral grounds. Clearly the Democratic leadership does not go that far. I think Progressives and Libertarians have much more in common than they realize. I would even say they have more in common than Progressives and the typical Democrat has in common.

Dish...the reason that single payer health provider did not happen was because the democrats gave it up in order to appease the conservatives who were neither moral, nor concerned about fiscal responsibility beyond what benefited their health insurance johns, I mean lobbyists.

Thank you Eric, the only interesting response I've read.

"In a libertarian viewpoint, majority rules but there are minority rights"

How does that work, does it mean, can you elaborate? I'm curious with regard to some of the extreme, but potentially valid, questions. For instance: Health inspections of restaurants, meat inspections, eye tests to get a license. And where are the Libertarian positions on minority rights.

Sorry, I'm not holding you responsible for Libertarian ideas, you just seemed informed and sane ;=)

Sorry typo. I forgot to write 'no minority rights' That sort of messes with the whole point that I was getting across. I personally don't agree with the libertarian ideas not because it might be 'wrong' but I think they are impractical. (I better learn to proof-read before I press send)

It is a reasonable discourse on Rand Paul, except that Libertarians don't believe that majority rules, they believe that the individual rules. The individual's rights are sacrosanct.

Furthermore, Rand Paul is a racist. He maintains that it is the individuals right to bar anyone they want from patronizing and Congress went beyond its powers in proscribing discrimination by the OH SO SACRED AND HOLY small businessman. Well, if you are going to talk about a subject, the least you could do is inform yourself on the subject before you make an ass of your self in such a public way.

Libertarians claim that the Constitution is also a sacred document. Well, in the powers specifically delegated to Congress, among many others is the power to regulate commerce between the several states. Also in that sacred Constitution is the structure for a Supreme Court to review and set the limits on the powers specified in the Constitution as the prerogatives of Congress.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the commerce clause as it has come to be known in shorthand as allowing Congress to regulate anything affecting interstate commerce, whether by a positive act of purchasing across state lines or by the negative act of intentionally or unintentionally withholding your trade across state lines. It also includes the pattern of your customers.. Those coming from to your restaurant or motel who are traveling in interstate travel are also engaging in interstate commerce. With me so far?

Our restaurant owner in Alabama or Minnesota, it really doesn't matter, buys his ketchup and mustard in the big #10 can size so that he can fill is individual dispensers on the tables at a lower cost. He buys those from the Heinz distributor in Pennsylvania. He also found the cheapest meat at a packing house in Iowa and buys his meat from there. Sure sounds like he's engaging in interstate commerce to me.

The motel owner next door, buys his replacement towels from the cheapest distributor he could find in Maryland. He also buys his cleaning supplies from a distributor in Arkansas because he gets the best price there. Sure sounds like he, too, is engaging in interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act, were all passed under the Congress' specifically delegated power to regulate anything affecting interstate commerce. The parts of those acts that pertained to a state actor or a state sub-division were passed under the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the constitution. The parts that told motel owners and restaurants that they couldn't discriminate were passed under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. And have been upheld repeatedly from attacks from morons like Rand Paul.

Clearly Congress has the authority to do what it did. to argue that it SHOULD NOT have done what it did and let black people enjoy the same access to public facilities is a racist position. Rand Paul is a racist. Period. Anyone who defends his position without knowing the facts is a moron for not learning the facts before speaking out. Anyone who knows the facts and still speaks out on Rand's behalf is equally as racist as Rand is.

Rand Paul talked like a politician, answering without answering. Wants to please everybody.

by the way, silent form collusion is a really good description.

here's my take on it- Rand Paul is specifically saying government should not have the "right" to intervene in these situations. And it's not because he does or doesn't think these situations are right, but it's more because of the danger of giving a central governing body that kind of extensive power in people's lives.

If a business has bad food, or wont hire or allow black people within its quarters, or does anything else unethical, like say- spill millions of gallons of oil into the gulf of mexico, it is the PEOPLE'S responsibility/power to make those businesses answer for their mistakes. You stop giving them your money, you openly criticize them in journalism and in your everyday life, and eventually they either change their ways or go out of business.

Libertarianism empowers you to take responsibility for you life, and the things that you believe in, without the risk of interference from anyone else who may disagree with you and have a little more political pull than you do. And the reason this is a good thing is that free people have historically proved themselves as more competent and capable than government every single time.

Hyman Minsky said it best: “Unless somebody can

find a way to change human nature, we will have more crisis." Minsky was talking about the economy, but it applies just as well to anything in society.

And that's why Libertarianism won't/can't work. There has to be some order, or rules, or we're left with total anarchy. To illustrate, think about living in a city without a simple thing like a traffic signal to regulate traffic.

I was talking with a friend, and I finally figured out what was bothering me so much about this tact Maddow and others have been taking on this issue. I'm not against anti-discrimination laws and I support them on general principles; the problem is this idea that they can be effectively imposed from the top down and that we can thus force people to stop being discriminatory if we make it illegal for them to do so.

This is very similar to the reasoning behind Prohibition, or the war on drugs, or various similar issues. It sounds good in principle, but in practice, all it does is encourage people who are inclined to do that sort of thing anyway to be more inventive in how they do it. I would rather have this stuff out in the open than skulking along through the shadows in secret.

Libertarianism, like just about every other idea, doesn't really work if you try to apply it in a pure form to a large group of people. But that doesn't mean that it can't be used and applied to situations where it does work. Just like how we regulate companies and thus don't have pure capitalism, or how we have representatives elected democratically, we can use the ideals of libertarianism in a reasonable manner to make things better for everyone.

Jamie, the stance you think Maddow and others are taking isn't the stance they are actually taking. I haven't seen anyone suggest that it's possible to make discrimination illegal.

We are debating laws that make it illegal to discriminate in specific areas. It's not a general idea, the law is pretty specific about where it applies. Libertarians think it should not apply to private businesses that provide a public service--specific examples include hotels, restaurants, theaters, and stores.

The general libertarian view is that government shouldn't regulate privately owned businesses that provide a service to the public. That is the philosophical base a libertarian Representative or Senator would be coming from whenever a piece of legislation that regulates business comes up.

From that we can predict how they will try to affect legislation if elected. And that's what we should base our vote on.

I stand by what I said. I'd rather have this stuff out in the open where it can be seen and understood to be a real problem, than cloaked in the shadows as it is now, so that people believe that it's something that's over and done with. It isn't. Those that favor "-ism's" and discrimination are just better about hiding it now than they were a half-century ago.

Also, while I don't agree with the general statement that privately-owned businesses should not be regulated, I think we need to be really careful where we draw the line. Too much government regulation is not a good thing when we're talking about privately-owned small businesses, and this kind of thing treats the symptoms rather than the disease.

Jamie...uhm okay. You'd rather have this stuff out in the open, and Rachel Maddow brought it out into the open. So, there ya go.

Oh, are you saying we should allow racism to run rampant so we can see it better? I hope not because that's a dumb idea. To allow people to be kicked out of restaurants just so you know who's a racist. That solves nothing and just makes it that much harder for people of color.

While you may not agree with the general statement that privately owned businesses should not be regulated, that is actually the debate at hand. That is what Rand Paul believes and people need to know what Rand Paul believes.

That isn't even close to what I'm talking about, and I'd appreciate it if you took better care to avoid such assumptions in the future.

For one thing, it isn't Rachel Maddow who brought this into the open. It's Rand Paul. I don't think Rachel would have even brought it up were it not for his statements on the matter. What annoys me is not the fact that she's talking about it, but that she's using it as an excuse to grind away at Libertarianism for three days straight, and is further using the fact that Rand Paul said it to put all his other comments under a magnifying glass.

Now, in fairness, I think it is important to make sure that we understand what a politician believes and how he would act. But this is starting to look like an inquisition, not a discussion. It's little wonder the third parties in this country have so little power; when someone from one of them comes into the spotlight, they get grilled and made fun of, and often not out of an honest attempt to actually see if there's anything worthwhile in what they propose. I'm not suggesting that Rachel Maddow is doing that, but it does happen a lot of the time.

Please be so kind as to respond to what I actually said this time, instead of responding to what you would have preferred that I said.

Jamie,

Well said. I agree with you 100% and tried to make similiar points in my posts. In fact, I think you are being generous to Rachael. I must say that I am probably more tollerant of the kinds of tactics she is using with Paul when she uses them on Republicans that I think, frankly, deserve it. Paul does not. These are difficult issues to discuss in a short format. I am afraid that Rachael (and Keith, too) is becoming more interested in rooting for Democrat positions than she is for progressive principles (which often coincide with Libertarian priciples if you ask me). I think this happens all too frequently to third party condidates who, in fact, are voicing ideas that are much more popular than corporate media would care to admit. I am not defending Pauls views, I would just like to understand them in a less combative environment. Now he has to go to Fox for interviews, which is absolutely not what we want.

Well Jamie try this on.

Rand Paul is a racist. He maintains that it is the individuals right to bar anyone they want from patronizing and Congress went beyond its powers in proscribing discrimination by the OH SO SACRED AND HOLY small businessman. Well, if you are going to talk about a subject, the least you could do is inform yourself on the subject before you make an ass of your self in such a public way.

Libertarians claim that the Constitution is also a sacred document. Well, in the powers specifically delegated to Congress, among many others is the power to regulate commerce between the several states. Also in that sacred Constitution is the structure for a Supreme Court to review and set the limits on the powers specified in the Constitution as the prerogatives of Congress.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the commerce clause as it has come to be known in shorthand as allowing Congress to regulate anything affecting interstate commerce, whether by a positive act of purchasing across state lines or by the negative act of intentionally or unintentionally withholding your trade across state lines. It also includes the pattern of your customers.. Those coming from to your restaurant or motel who are traveling in interstate travel are also engaging in interstate commerce. With me so far?

Our restaurant owner in Alabama or Minnesota, it really doesn't matter, buys his ketchup and mustard in the big #10 can size so that he can fill is individual dispensers on the tables at a lower cost. He buys those from the Heinz distributor in Pennsylvania. He also found the cheapest meat at a packing house in Iowa and buys his meat from there. Sure sounds like he's engaging in interstate commerce to me.

The motel owner next door, buys his replacement towels from the cheapest distributor he could find in Maryland. He also buys his cleaning supplies from a distributor in Arkansas because he gets the best price there. Sure sounds like he, too, is engaging in interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act, were all passed under the Congress' specifically delegated power to regulate anything affecting interstate commerce. The parts of those acts that pertained to a state actor or a state sub-division were passed under the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the constitution. The parts that told motel owners and restaurants that they couldn't discriminate were passed under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. And have been upheld repeatedly from attacks from morons like Rand Paul.

Clearly Congress has the authority to do what it did. to argue that it SHOULD NOT have done what it did and let black people enjoy the same access to public facilities is a racist position. Rand Paul is a racist. Period. Anyone who defends his position without knowing the facts is a moron for not learning the facts before speaking out. Anyone who knows the facts and still speaks out on Rand's behalf is equally as racist as Rand is.

Libertarians also claim that the majority rules. Well, the majority passed all three of these rules. So what's the problem? They had the authority and they had the majority. Any whining about Rachel's interview tactics is simply a red herring to distract from the real issue. Rand is a racist, he didn't want to admit he is a racist because it looks bad for him, he danced around the question doing the racist two-step that the Courier Journal found so offensive, and it got him in trouble. So the next dance was the Governor Quitter waltz, blame the journalist. Get over yourself.

Yes, we truly need to cast aside a group of the population that supports:

Freedom of speech
Freedom of expression
Personal privacy
Sexual privacy
Sensible drug laws
Reigning-in our military empire
A peaceful approach to foreign policy

And surely your political philosophy would hold up to scrutiny if your ideals were pushed to their logical extremes. I sure wish I had access to your stone house as I would love to throw stones in the manner that you are doing.

LOL HarrisonP. Stop copying and pasting the same post. It seems like you have nothing else intelligent to say. And yes, liberal ideals hold up perfectly well in real world extreme situations, much better than lawless libertarian views.

I would not say cast Libertarians aside.

I would say, this is SOME things I can agree and some things, I cannot.

I do not think it is racism, exactly. I just think prioritizing property rights and business rights over people is not the correct interpretation of equal protection of the laws.

The right to say and think is free speech, but allowing unequal protection of the laws is different.

There may be some racists, there may be some that do simply side with the conviction of principle that one person can deny service to another and that the law is divisive and forceful.

I get that, but I can also see that the market calls on government to enforce their freedom, but wants the rest of us to have no law to back up our unequal treatment, when we have equal protection of the laws as our foundation.

Oh, no do not toss aside, but get beyond the principle to see what is the result of a principle put into action.

I want no tossing aside of any Americans, just lets examine the candidate, not just look at the shiny surface.

I really have to agree with something Hatenomor told me. Its not about discrimination against blacks (or by extension against gays, what have you)...its discrimination against Americans, by Americans. Really that cinches it quite neatly, dontcha think?

I do agree, it would be very great if we could do that, but I do not have the faith in the market alone to do it.

I have seen the employers become responsive in many cases to assist in anti discrimination in workplace, but it still happens. I rolled my eyes many times while working in one of those companies, that I do credit for policies.

Having a law, it still happens, but you now have some recourse to remedy if it is truly a problem. Also when a company gets a headline, employee wins lawsuit against X Company, that shines the light on it.

I just have to say equal does mean equal, if someone can be fired or not hired because of discrimination, these needs some way of shining the light on it in a grand way. A law that we can point to.

There truly is no defense for Rand Paul in regards to what would be his obvious short-comings as an elected official -- but calling him a racist is simply beyond the pale.

Rachel has performed a disservice to her viewers in this regard.

Rachel didn't call him a racist. Did you notice?

Rachel did not call Rand Paul a racist. She simply asked Rand Paul a question about the Civil Rights Act..which he was unable to answer, over and over and over.

Rachel continued to press for a straight answer, which is a great service to her viewers.

It's not "beyond the pale," HarrisonP. It's wrong. He's not a racist. But his political ideals support anyone else who wants to be a racist. If you feel Rachel does her viewers a disservice, then don't watch her show. The rest of us appreciate her work. Can you explain what you mean by "disservice"? Perhaps Rand Paul did you a disservice by exposing his unrealistic views and then weaseling out of answering a straightforward question.

If you agree with Paul so much, why don't you explain to us why you think it's so important for this country to allow racists to be racist.

Harrison...

Like others have pointed out, Rachel did not call Rand Paul a racist. This is actually a wonderful service - by giving us a chance - a platform to understand what is really going on.

I'm still processing.

These views are widely held amonst us. These views were instilled in us in regards to freedom and being American.

In our search of trying grasp identity in tuff times, or answer to a facing problem that we feel is growing, we pull these ideals out. I know I have done it. Over the last 6 years, these views are coming to a head. As Rachel pointed out, it's there when struck upon - ground it and it's loud and clear.

People are reaching for this view as the answer, because it resonates in our history of America. A building block and corner stone.

What we, everyday people, today have a hard time in seeing is the reason of why we grew up from those building blocks.

I feel that people feel oppressed and are very angry and completely searching for identy and change.

Between Arizona's immigration law, terrorism, 9/11, the Bush years (you might as well say the last 10-12 years), with all that we've endured financially with the stocks crashing before Pres. Obama was nominated, and going through one of the most historical American Elections and having to face and talk about racism...it's a lot. And for the "average Joe" wake up and seek clarity and help reshape our government - it's overwhelming.

I'm still processing. I know Ron Paul seemed appealing. I can relate to an extent with the some of the tea partiers in their cries of wanting to change the face of government.

I think a lot of people are waking up and feel the need to change and this is the exact thing of what they are reaching for because of relating - it hits a "patriotic" cord.

Plus, in my understanding, the libertarian is a counter in any socialistic move.

This is scary and yet I have to say interesting...a chance to really change.

He was trying very hard to use it as an analogy - a very poor analogy, but nonetheless...

Once again, he made the right wing look ridiculous by tossing the 2nd Amendment into the mix - analagous or not.

I too thought this was a stupid analogy and didn't understand why Rachel didn't jump on it. Someone can leave their gun in the car or at home. You can't leave your skin color at home or in the car. The right or ability to carry a gun has to do with choice of the public. No one chooses their skin color or ethnicity. I wish Rachel had hammered him on that one.

I agree, but hammering a guest is unwise, but repeating a question that was not answered is wise, but only for so long until we get the point.

Also, there is only so much time. It seemed the time was stretched for as long as possible, and still not answered.

Given opportunity to explain, he chose to dance around and accuse of gotcha instead, I get it.

I was glad to see Rachel's clarification that the interview didn't show Paul as racist. I suspect he's not. I think he's just an idealog, out of touch with the real world. I hear he changed his name from Randolph to Rand in honor of Ayn Rand, author of "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged," among other works. Atlas, hero, holds the world up in spite of Gollum-like low-lifes and when he shrugs, the world falls into ruin. Ayn Rand was Alan Greenspan's mentor too. People should at least read TF or see the old Gary Cooper movie, "The Fountainhead," to get an idea of her philosophy. To get a little bit of the picture, know that she railed against altruism. Her idea of liberty was "everyone for his or her self." Gordon Gekko of the movie "Wall Street" comes from this idea too. For her there are only heros and villains. The heros are the strong-willed and noble (Atlas) and the others (thieving, simpering weasels). Big Government, through altruism, colludes with the weasels. The stuff of bad cartoons, in my view.

I did the same thing - LOL! Even though she only said Walgreens once, I found myself shouting to the TV as though she could hear me in her earpiece.

Funny how those little goofs really jump out!

> I'm still a fan

I am as well. But it is a hard to get past her obvious attempts to soil a basic political ideology that every American believes in in some form or another (if you don't support property rights, you almost certainly support free speech, personal privacy, peaceful foreign policy, etc).

With the Blumenthal revelations coming to light, it is apparent that the Left is now looking to this KY Senate seat as a way to counter-balance a possible loss in Connecticut -- and Rachel appears to be open to using any tactic to win it (Fox News/Glenn Beck tactics included). I had thought better of her.

Dr. Maddow & Co. didn't start this - the Kentucky newspaper did, and Dr. Maddow was asking "follow-up" questions.

I'm not sure I even agree with the concept of "gotcha" journalism. In this instance, the fact is that Dr. Paul's views and ideals have major implications that he, and others, may not have considered. I think it's more likely that Dr. Paul is well aware of the implications, but he's not being honest about it because they would be unpalatable to many people. I would have respected Dr. Paul more if he said "yes, government has no business interfering in private business, no matter how noble the intent." I wouldn't agree, but I would respect him more.

For what it's worth, I take Dr. Paul at his word: he isn't a racist. But his solution to the Civil Rights movement, were it up to him in the 1960s, would have allowed private organizations to continue to discriminate against Americans on the basis of distinctions that are basically irrelevant in the context of eating lunch. In Dr. Paul's ideal world, people, and the market, would eventually correct the injustices and government would need take no action at all.

Does his view of the Civil Rights Act matter? As others have pointed out, not especially - it's the law and has been so for decades. I assume that it has already endured court challenges. But I think it gives us insight into how he thinks, what he values, and how he would behave as a Senator. If a bill came before the Senate that would add things like sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and political affiliation to the mighty list of things that you can't legally discriminate against people for in either the public or the private sphere, I think it's safe to say that he would vote against it. The people of Kentucky, and of the USA generally, need to know that and consider it before deciding who to support with donations or votes.

Certainly, there is essentially no chance that the CRA will be revisited. But other legislation that makes similar law that will apply to our modern-day society is bound to come up in the next 6 years. Do we want Rand Paul driving that discussion? Or single-handedly holding up legislation, as the Senate rules allow? That's why getting an answer to this question was relevant.

It wasn't an absurd question, and I think it did quite a lot to illuminate who Rand Paul really is; that's why it became such a big story literally overnight. The point is not whether or not Rand Paul would seek to overturn the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the point is his view of the role of government and how he would bring that to bear on current legislation.

That Rand Paul thinks the Civil Rights Act should have gone no further than prohibiting discrimination by governments, and should have allowed private businesses to keep up the practices of separate facilities for the races, of redlining minority neighborhoods, of refusing to rent to minorities, of refusing to lend to minorities (or women!) -- that he would have been OK with allowing private entities to so severely limit the freedoms of vast numbers of people to avoid crimping the freedoms of businesses even the tiniest bit is disturbing. He would choose to set this country back more than half a century. That is not a minor point.

The problem remains that the Supreme Court changes ideology over time. After approx 212 years, Corporations became "people" in 2010. If that concept can be put on it's head.....then lunch room and hotel patrons still need active protection by reinforcement of the CRA 1964, not simple minded questioning of the validity of non-discrimination. The Supreme Court is not infallible. The Bush appointees will harm the mass of people for many years to come.

HarrisonP, how in the world can you compare Glenn Beck's interviewing methods to Maddow's? WTF? Watch that Rand Paul interview she had. Then, listen to his response to a caller who disagree with him on health care (here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn-7URJSjvw )

If you did both those things and still feel the way you do, you cease to be a credible critic.

Ding-ding! You & I got it. Every time Dr. Paul has spoken about the Civil Rights Act and the ADA, he's been trying to express his ideology. However, he is in the midst of a campaign. Does he not realize his ideology is something entirely different than a platform to campaign upon?

His ideology is really a moot point since there is no way in hell the CRA/1964 or the ADA will ever be overturned.

What I find befuddling is how anyone in favor of almost ZIP government wants to be a part of government. These puzzle pieces just don't fit together...

Dog whistle.

Well said.

I agree that his judgement is suspect by associating with the Tea Party given the issues they have had, which you raised. I just wanted to briefly mention that his grasp of issues is in no way comparable to Palin - if he is like his father he is very smart and a true independent thinker. No one is going to be changing the civil rights act, but cutting back on military aggression is a hugh issue and one Paul is on the right side of. I suspect he supports single payer health care if he is true to his fiscal principles. We should hear him out on the substaintial issues of the day and not demonize him on issues that are already settled law, as you say.

I love humorous things that make a point.

The point is he might have been afraid of saying what his "sacred principles" really are about.

The voters want to know, there is a huge dislike for the candidate that does not feel at ease explaining the values he would bring to the office.

Give us the clear vision of how you might vote on equal rights.

We also see he is feeling very much pro B.P. and indicate BP will handle it. We are 5 weeks into it, with no end in sight, so I understand the government pushing them, and I think they should push harder!

Truly, if you think about it, a "Libertarian Senator" is an oxymoron.

The above was in response to BigMaddowFan #12 - Fri May 21, 2010 5:01 PM EDT.