Harvard should not allow smoking anywhere on its property.” (emphasis supplied)
If one wants to argue that Harvard assumes the role of a quasi public institution because of its federal and state subsidies and privileged tax benefits, that is certainly a respectable intellectual position. But hardly one which disqualifies a Republican running against a Democrat. One can certainly take the position that the rights of private property, even Harvard's, trump a visitor's right to smoke. Many on these threads have argued that the business owner or property owner should have superior rights to regulate smoking as it chooses over the power of the state to ban smoking.
As to his endorsement of the Clintons, he has evidently recanted this nonsense written when he was young. Note: Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama both wrote a lot of nonsense when they were young and I do not excuse them because of their age. So, cotton should be held some account but he should also be credited for recanting and, to my knowledge, neither Hillary nor Michelle have gotten any smarter.
I have no problem with the state limiting the sale of alcohol to minors.
Paleo conservatives ought to be encouraged, not discouraged, by cottons statements as quoted because it is clear that he will not confine his conservatism to a Wall Street Journal myopia which limits conservatism to opposing spending and taxes. These remarks suggest that Cotton, if elected, would be active on social issues, a tendency which should please paleos.
