Was anyone as disapointed with Rand Paul as I was?

He came off as worse than even the typical politician in refusing to give a straight answer. His position on the Civil Rights act is perfectly defensible, though controversial (the government should not discriminate, but should not impose non-discrimination rules on private businesses offering public accommodations under the Commerce Clause, if they wish to discriminate). If the sumbitch is not willing to own up to his beliefs, his posturing as a principled libertarian is just that - posturing. The worst kind of politician. Squirm squirm, avoid avoid, dance a little sidestep.
The Link
The Link

 

whitman
I am not a libertarian so i don't know; What position would you expect a libertarian to take on this?
His correlation to the First Amendment makes sense to me. That is one of the hardest positions to understand. How one can hate depise and abhor what someone is saying but according to our Constitution understand they have the right to say it.

How is what R Paul said different , didn't he say you must follow the constitution?
Are you trying to say he is a racist?

are you a libertarian/

 

his posturing as a principled libertarian is just that - posturing.
__________________________________________________

hopefully he is not a true libertarian, a true libertarian does not believe in any government. im for government, just against wasteful spending, corrupt spending, and entitlements of any kind.

 

Rand won't satisfy everyone. On Morning Joe this morning, they were saying his "purest" views would get him into trouble. ie: When you take a philoposhy or poiltical view and apply it even handedly and unemotionally to certain social issues, you are going to get yourself in trouble.

Some people love/like that, some people are going to find it troubling.

 

Did you watch the whole piece? He never owned up to his position, expressed on other occasions.
Please spare me the condescension on the First Amendment analogy. I think everyone here understands the "we abhor it but defend it" point. He danced around the First Amendment analogy, without ever saying that he supported the right to private discrimination in public accommodations. If he had actually said that he defends people's right to discriminate, though he abhors it, just as he defends their First Amendment rights to say hateful things, that would have been fine, and courageous; he didn't. He never, never, never came clean on what his position is on regulating discrimination in public accommodations, despite Maddow's eventual badgering. If Maddow's clips didn't demonstrate his views through his past comments, I would still not know what his position is. Hell, she asked the same question a dozen times, and all he would do was accuse her of playing gotcha politics, and say that the question didn't matter,and then launch into discourses on how he thought discrimination was a bad thing.

You are playing the game he tried to play by asking me: "are you saying he is a racist?" I have no idea, and I am not calling him a racist. I am calling him a slimeball politician who will not answer a simple question.

On your question of whether I am a libertarian: no. Though I have such leanings on many issues. I am very sympathetic to the government "hands off" philosophy on this issue though. It's a tough one for me. After a struggle, I would say that I do not adopt the libertarian view; that is, I think outlawing racial discrimination at lunch counters, motels, and other public accommodations, is appropriate. I can differ with Rand on the question of whether such laws are good policy, and still respect his view. What I cannot respect is his intentional obfuscation.

We would still be a segregated society in many areas of the country,I believe, but for the Civil Rights legislation. That doesn't mean that I think the libertarian approach to this question is illogical, or even immoral (though practitioners of segregation ARE immoral, in my view). But Paul is not man enough to defend his views, and avoids doing so in the tradition of the slimiest politicians. So much for calling him a breath of fresh air.

 

if i was a libertarian, i would never go on msnbc period. the whole point of their network is to discredit anyone that has a complaint about government.

 

General: I completely disagree. I think the White House quasi-boycott of Fox News was deplorable and counter-productive,for instance. Obama's going into the lions den of the Republican House Policy Retreat, on the other hand, was courageous, and effective. He got to go toe to toe with the opposition, and while he probably didn't influence your views, he demonstrated to the majority of the American people who followed the event that he was more than just a teleprompter, and that agree or not, his positions were at least rational.
Another good if extreme example of this is Anthony Weiner of New York, who goes on FOX, and doesn't equivocate. I can respect him even when I disagree. There are countless others of both parties who do the same and defend their controversial views. Rand Paul however, is a political coward.

Wouldn't it have been appropriate for him to defend his viewpoint? Maddow would have disagreed, but she treated him pretty respectfully, and he would have educated a lot of folks on what those principles are. Instead,he comes across looking like a slimy politician, dancing the sidestep, and many will conclude that he is a closet racist. IF he had come clean, some would conclude that his policies have racist affects, and therefore he meets their definition of a racist. He'd never get their vote anyway.

Many more would would think about the libertarian philosophy of governance,and many would probably say "yeah, the segregationist businessmen are asses, but they have the right to be asses. I guess I'm a libertarian. At least they say what they think." Instead, he demonstrated that he is no different than most whose personality type makes them crave public office at most any cost.
Rand Paull, is a political coward.

 

Ladies remember what state he is going to represent.........

He is not a representative or Senator for the US he is OF the US representing Kentucky.........he fits in nicely with the state of Kentucky.

 

well he is still just a candidate. He hasn't been elected to any office yet. It's a long time until November.

Jim Bunning won by 6,000 votes in 1998 (49.7% to 49.2%) & 23,000 votes in 2004 (51% to 49%). I know the political climate was a bit different back then and Bunning was a certifiable loon, but It's not a slam dunk for Paul.

I know nothing about the Dem candidate.

 

Sometimes a politician has to be a politician. Voters, contrary to what we say, demand that it be so.

 

Barring any major controversy, Yo, name your dollar amount it will be Paul in November!!!

 

i am not betting money, Major. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Paul won. He is after all, not his father. He is at his heart a conservative, not a libertarian. He's pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration, not exactly libertarian themes there. He supports government intrusion in some aspects of our lives.

But, Oddly/Surprisingly, Kentucky has more registered Dems than registered Republicans. Democrats outnumber Republicans in the state by more than 570,000 voters.

Barring any major controversy, i think it will be closer than most people think.

 

Here is John Stossel making the argument Rand did not have the balls to make. A lot of merit to it, though I disagree in the end.
The Link

 

You can call them registered Democrats all you want........They are old school Dixiecrats and will vote Paul in November.

By the way, it is Pro-Life, small government, states rights, and for immigration reform. I thought you were better than that Yo.

 

A lot of people will be disillusioned if teapartiers get elected and they actually have to vote on real issues, decide how to raise money for programs, decide which programs to support, etc. That's where the platitudes end and actual governing begins. And nobody will like whichever way they vote, or at least half won't like it. And they will have to compromise on most issues because that is how our government is set up to function. And no one will like that.

 

Rand Paul REALLY showed his *** on this deal. Even if he somehow manages to backpedal his way out of the swamp with independents, he will disillusion the hard core teabaggers in the process. This is indicative of his inexperience and of the out of the mainstream fundamentals of libertarian politics. This story has legs. Read me now and believe me later.

 

Wait until his comments regarding our support of Israel having caused 9/11 goes viral. This will be difficult for the GOP/

 

One of the major problems with our society today is that they have too short a span of attention to actually pay attention to longer, well thought out rationales for anything.
They want a soundbite, or 2 sentences, and then they are on the next thing. I find myself falling pray to that. 'I'm not reading that thread, it is way too long now.' Goodness, 'X' wrote like an entire essay on the matter, and I don't have time to read that." These thoughts cross my mind on hornfans on a regular basis.
Rand reminds me of Keyes a bit, in that if you listen to their argumentation, agree or disagree, they are cogent arguments. The problem is that most Americans don't have the capacity to pay attention or read something more than a tweet long.

 

mslsd is like having to view the Hannity show after show...unwatchable

 

Yeah I heard him tap dance around the same question on the PBS news hour and I was disappointed. At the same time I knew it was a trap - the press just wants the gotcha sound byte.

Still he sounded defensive and evasive and it was unfortunate.

 

Ron Paul's a ******* dork, and to quote Phil Leotardo, "the turd doesn't fall too far from the ******'s ***".

Politics is the art of compromise. Paul should have said "well Rachael, it certainly wasn't a perfect law, but it was, as history has clearly demonstrated, good for the country overall and I would have voted for it had I been there".

Look asswipe, you're not teaching a college class, you're running for office from a ******* state where people still make moonshine.

 

Rand Paul made the mistake of answering a question honestly prior to being elected. He can spout rhetoric about evil government and being an outsider and a teapartier right up until election day, then he has to actually become a person who governs. Then he will have to vote on issues, up or down. He will attend hearings where distraught mothers tell how their children were killed by some widget that didn't have enough safety controls, and he will have to vote after seeing the tears.
It won't be any different than the two parties.
They have to make hard decisions, they aren't idiots, most of them aren't crooks, and they run for office because they hope to make a difference. They all have to compromise to get anything accomplished, and this disappoints and infuriates large numbers of entrenched ideologues.