[counterpunch]

If you violate civil rights in the name of protecting them, have you protected civil rights at all, or only violated them?

[gwilhelm56]

I question his sanity by going on the “MADCOW” Show to begin with.

[Leisler]

I trade one libertarian for one RINO all day long.

[EGPWS]

But Mr. Paul’s position is complicated.

Not at all.

The Constitution is the cornerstone of his position and those who oppose the speak of Rand Paul oppose the dictate of the Constitution.

The perpetual political graying of the Constitution is what complicates a constitutional position.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

The Left and the neo-con Right do not want to address the points that Rand makes. This is all about marginalizing someone who represents a serious threat to their status-quo.

[Gene Eric]

>> Senator Jon Kyl ... said, in mild rebuke of Mr. Paul, “I hope he can separate the theoretical ... from the actual votes we have to cast based on real legislation here.”

I prefer the neglected option #3; that which concerns the constituents.

[rlmorel]

I am no fan of Rand or Ron Paul.

But this article is a steaming pantload.

[jonrick46]

The real problem is those who could care less about the Constitution will twist the intent of the Constitution in order to play the Race Card. These Yahoos are so obsessed with the Race Card tactic that they would play it on their mother if it gave them one inch of advantage. I hope the voters of Kentucky see right through this nonsense and elect Rand Paul in a landslide. Rand Paul needs to use this episode as a teaching moment for the voters of Kentucky. He needs to show them that the state has more devious intentions than dictating restaurant seating arraignments. He needs to teach the Constitution in whatever opportunity comes his way. This is one of them.

[dtrpscout]

To be perfectly honest, I’d say that most white people in the South (and other sections of the country, too) would have opposed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. I know that democrats such as Robert Bird, Al Gore Sr, and many others did. But, that’s irrelevant...this is not 1964. Were Rand Paul alive in 1964 and of age, especially in Kentucky, the odds are that he would NOT have “marched” with MLK, who was largely seen by the public and local media as a rabble-rouser, communist and person who was upsetting a social system that the country had come to accept. You can’t logically judge the mores of 1964 by those of 2010. Its a trap, and a loser.

[Pelham]

Barry Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. He correctly predicted that this bill would lead to ever expanding control over the lives of private citizens. It basically is where political correctness lodged itself into the fabric of American life.

Prior to this bill Americans could behave in a fashion guaranteed to offend the social justice crowd. That’s one of the hazards of a free society- some people will discriminate in ways that others don’t like and find grossly unfair. Politicians decided in 1964 that this was way too much freedom for individual Americans to have, and so this law gave government the power to reign in the riffraff and keep them from abusing their freedom. It’s been a Brave New World ever since.

[B Knotts]

In this sense, Mr. Paul’s quandary reflects the position of the Tea Partiers, whose antipathy to government, rooted in populist impatience with the major parties, implies a repudiation of politics and its capacity to effect meaningful change.

As a self-identified Tea Partier, I'd say I've had just about enough of the "meaningful change" provided by the political class.

[Theophilus]

I hopes he advances his ideological purity to victory after devestating victory!

[Leisler]

Looks like RINOs didn’t get the Bennett message. The ear of ‘dear Senatorial colleagues’ is over. Either fight or get out. I don’t care how, how well. And, don’t have any spit swapping, rump rangering relations like Hatch/Kennedy.