Is this guy for real?

[Hoss]

I wonder what daddy-Ron thinks of his son...

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2010/05/paul.html

I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this.  Even many Republicans are distancing themselves from this guy.

[Conan71]

Probably because it's disjointed op-ed on a typical disjointed Rachel Maddog interview.  She's a bigger crank than Rand's old man.

[Hoss]

Probably because it's disjointed op-ed on a typical disjointed Rachel Maddog interview.  She's a bigger crank than Rand's old man.

That may be the case, but have you also seen where he calls the pressure that the WH is putting on BP for the clean-up "Un-American"?

Seriously?

[Rico]

Palin and Paul!

that's the Ticket...

[guido911]

George vs. Rand:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=XdqGSUnzpr

[we vs us]

I feel bad for Rand Paul, actually.  There's a little trial-by-fire action going on here, and from what I can glean his stance on civil rights -- morally they are desirable but not of high enough desirability to warrant a law restricting interstate commerce to achieve them -- his stance is pretty consistent with libertarianism at large. 

So he's keeping true to his ideals, which is laudable if you're a politician, but maybe not so laudable if those views are, well, let's say out of the mainstream of American political thought.   

[Cats Cats Cats]

He is saying that the US Government doesn't have the right to determine who you sell what to.  Which they don't (constitutionally anyway).  And that market forces should/weed out businesses that were discriminatory.  However, obviously when the law was passed it wouldn't have happened as quickly otherwise.

[waterboy]

THat's naive. It wouldn't have happened at all in many states.

[we vs us]

He is saying that the US Government doesn't have the right to determine who you sell what to.  Which they don't.  And that market forces should/weed out businesses that were discriminatory.  However, obviously when the law was passed it wouldn't have happened as quickly otherwise.

Yes, which is kind of interesting.  I didn't know modern American libertarianism was primarily economic in nature -- "don't tell me what I can sell or what I can buy."  I thought it was more about Thoreau and his fellow Transcendentalists getting back to nature and writing poetry all day.

I have the feeling that at some point in the last couple of decades, free-market fundamentalism and libertarianism intersected to produce the Ron Paul/Tea Party continuum of Don't Tread On Me.

[Conan71]

I thought it was more about Thoreau and his fellow Transcendentalists getting back to nature and writing poetry all day.

That's what I do.

[Ed W]

I listened to the interview with Rand Paul and Rachel Maddow earlier today.  It's available via iTunes.  The whole 20 minutes revolved around the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Paul believes that the sections pertaining to federal hiring require that it be done without regard to race or ethnicity, but private companies and private property owners should not be held to the same standard.  He tried hard to evade a straightforward answer on this, but it became clear that he believes on private property, the owner should have the right to refuse service to whoever he chooses.  In effect, he thinks that a segregated lunch counter is OK. 

The Maddow show wasn't his only appearance.  He gave a similar interview to NPR, though I didn't hear that one.  And he sent two letters to the editor of a local newspaper speaking out against the fair housing laws.  That was in 2001, if I recall right, so he's held these views for some time.  He's consistent if nothing else.

Yesterday he started to pull back from this position, apparently realizing it's not a good one for a candidate to take prior to election day. 

Also, there's a fair bit of irony in learning that this erstwhile Tea Party candidate and eye surgeon receives Medicare payments for about 50% of his practice.

[Conan71]

I'm far more concerned about why Rand Paul's Constitutional views are more note-worthy than those of Elena Kagan who is up for an appointment for life. Rand Paul can be turned out by voters. Ms. Kagan cannot.

[we vs us]

I'm far more concerned about why Rand Paul's Constitutional views are more note-worthy than those of Elena Kagan who is up for an appointment for life. Rand Paul can be turned out by voters. Ms. Kagan cannot.

I don't think anyone said his opinions were more important than hers.  They really have nothing to do with one another.   And I wouldn't worry about her getting her time in the spotlight; her hearings aren't scheduled for another couple of months, still.  

Rand Paul is important because he's the son of a lionized libertarian and is also probably the highest profile Tea Party candidate up to this point (Marco Rubio in FL might be the other, but he's had enough common sense to stick with sympathetic media up till now).  And it's not every day that you get to hear someone try to shoot down the Civil Rights Act.  Honestly, there're lots of good reasons to watch what he's up to.

[Ed W]

I'll give him points for actually speaking his mind rather than merely spouting what may get him elected.