Rand Paul: Another High Tech Lynching

Townhall.com ^ | 5/24/2010 | Ken Blackwell

[Servant of the Cross]

Dr. Rand Paul was hoping for a “honeymoon” after his thumping victory in the Republican U.S. Senate primary in Kentucky. No such luck. Dr. Paul is a conservative Christian and if he wants a another honeymoon, he needs to talk to his wife.

Instead, what Rand Paul got was a grilling from one end of the chattering class to the other about his supposed opposition to the great Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is a fact that he stumbled in some of his answers to questions about individual titles of that act. Dr. Paul was not alive when the act was debated in front of the whole country in 1964. He needs to bone up on his history.

But the high tech lynching that is taking place now is of a piece with what the liberal media put Clarence Thomas through in 1991. Because Judge Thomas is an original construction jurist, he was seen as a threat by liberal activists. Because Justice Thomas is black, he is vilified by leftists who believe that all minorities must support their left wing causes. (snip)

Rand Paul is right to say that slavery and segregation were stains ... we overcame because conservative Republicans joined with liberal Democrats to pass the great Civil Rights Act of 1964.

President Lyndon Johnson was the first one to recognize the crucial role played by that proud Lincoln Republican, Sen. Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois. He gave a signing pen to the powerful Senate Minority Leader who provided the critical votes to break a filibuster engaged in by Democrats.

The liberal media is trying to sandblast Ev Dirksen’s name from the Senate Office Building named for him. We can’t let them do it. And helping Rand Paul is one way to stop the left from re-writing history.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"a mandate that calls for good government, term limits, and a balanced budget amendment, among other things. He talks about his belief that more issues should be dealt with on a local level rather than on a federal level."

This was the intro, and this is what Rand Paul should have stuck to in the interview. Do not go down rabbit trails that the interviewer wants to discuss. He's the candidate, he has to control his message. Not what the interviewer wants to talk about.

"I haven't really read all through it because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn't been a real pressing issue in the campaign, on whether we're going for the Civil Rights Act."

All that needed to be said for the question in bold and move on. Do not pontificate any further. The only thing I would change is to say it was passed almost 50 years ago. Dr. Paul, by your stumbles you have made it an issue and opened the door for your opponent.

[cbkaty]

Actually, I believe that was exactly your intent. That is why you have no rebuttal to my reply. At least on the merits of the argument. Just sarcasm....

OK.....maybe my rebuttal was not a rebuttal in your mind.....fair enough.

This libertarian doesn't profess to understand the "beat around the bush and avoid tough questions" polititians. Being a libertarian requires reasoning....and an absolute dedication to the U.S. Constitution.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Paul's voters, including myself, have been getting the message all of our lives."

I'm not talking about you. You probably know all of Paul's positions in detail. I'm talking about those casual voters whose one vote can cancel out your own. He has to get his message out to all voters of Kentucky, not just his current followers. This was a bad start. Not lethal by any means, but he should have focused on smaller government, less taxes, term limits etc... his platform. Not the 1964 civil rights act. He let the interviewers get the better of him. We can't let the MSM lead our candidates around on a leash.

[RobRoy]

One thing that annoys me is that the T, E and A in TEA party are actually an acronym for "taxed enough already". IOW, It bugs me when people call it the "Tea Party".

It is, quite literally, the "TEA party">

It is the "Taxed Enough Already Party".

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Being a libertarian requires reasoning....and an absolute dedication to the U.S. Constitution."

Being a conservative requires that also, plus it requires having the ability to get elected. Which means don't let the MSM play you for a tool. Hmmmmm I guess that's why there are no libertarians to speak of in the Senate. They get played for tools by the MSM.

This must be the general line of the MSM. Another libertarian, pull out the 1964 civil rights act, drug legalization, make candidate look like a fool and get the lefty elected. Good strategy by the libertarians.

You claimed to have reasoning on your side, yet you still have not engaged me in my rebuttal to your reply. You engage in attacks, but not reasoned debate. Funny. Until you want to actually engage in a debate on the merits of what was said, go away.

[cbkaty]

While we conservatives all agree that private property rights are sacrosanct, we shouldn’t be engaged in some philosophical connundrum about whether people can make up any rule as they please on their own property

As long as I do not deprive a person of life, liberty, or property, I make the rules on my property....even my road is private....It's good to be Texan.

[Theophilus]

inherent danger of incongruity between states’ rights and morality

It is immoral not to love my neighbor. It is exponentially more immoral for a government to try force me to love my neighbor because love that is compulsory is not love at all.

States rights are as amoral as the states collective boundaries. However, they are greater part of the infrastructure of our free republic. The more we tear away and dissolve them, the closer we get to our eventual collapse.

Proverbs 22:28
Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.

1 Corinthians 13
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing.

[cbkaty]

You claimed to have reasoning on your side, yet you still have not engaged me in my rebuttal to your reply.

I see now..you being an "enlightened" conservative demand that I debate on your terms....ain't gonna happen pal....

[Deb]

Its not his fault. It was only stupid because he didn't understand that (1.) the Left will only champion a Republican if they can be used to club and take out another Republican and (2.) it doesn't matter if what you say is right or wrong, true or false, it will be used to club you when you are no longer needed.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"As long as I do not deprive a person of life, liberty, or property"

If you're going to quote the fifth amendment to me, quote the whole section... without due process of law. You cannot deprive a person of liberty to come into your private business establishment, open to the public and discriminate based on race. That's what the 1964 civil rights act says as I understand it. You can still discriminate in your private property. Such as your house or a private club where the general public is not generally allowed in.

Private associations (not open to the general public) can still discriminate based on race, gender etc. The only reason that the Masters caved to allow members in who were blacks and then women was because of public pressure, not governmental law.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"I see now..you being an "enlightened" conservative demand that I debate on your terms"

No, the general terms of debating require that you have to stand up for your positions. When questioned upon them and shown to be faulty, you don't then attack and belittle the messenger. You defend your positions. Obviously you can't. Hence, change the subject...

[Theophilus]

"Paul's voters, including myself, have been getting the message all of our lives."

When I say that, I am saying that we have been getting the message that we are incompetent to govern, provide for, and make decisions ourselves. The message is from government elitist politicians and the MSM. Most voters in Kentucky even the "casual" ones, even the Democrats, have that vile message and the point I was making was that Rand Paul simply needs to continue being who he is and saying what he has always said with perfect dedication to his principles. We don't need any message from him. We will send him. He will be our devastating message. Kentuckians understand that Rand Paul will be a new shot heard round the world.

Interviewers can and will continue to mount their slimy, suggestive, slanderous, implicative attacks. They will only add to his fame and name recognition. He can't control them or choose the pitch, but he will continue to be at bat and he will continue to knock them out of the ballpark.

[DLfromthedesert]

Right. Now businesses are forced into hiring cross dressers.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

I hope you are right about Kentucky voters. Even the casual ones. The MSM will attack him and get him off his game by bringing up stupid arguments that have nothing to do with politics in 2010, such as the 1964 civil rights act. They can ask the question, he can attempt to answer philosophically while trying to show off his libertarian credentials. Or he can make the interviewer look like a fool while still getting his message out. For a perfect example of this, look at how Christie handled that reporter in New Jersey when the reporter questioned him on his “mean” tone. Believe me, a few instances of that happening and the reporters will get the message.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Right. Now businesses are forced into hiring cross dressers."

Which as I understand the 1964 civil rights act, has nothing to do with that. That law had to do with race, not cross dressers. We are getting sucked into this argument. We need to make the argument that the law was about race, not sexual deviancy....

[DLfromthedesert]

Right. But now they’re piggybacking all this other stuff onto the original law.

[cbkaty]

No, the general terms of debating require that you have to stand up for your positions.

I did...you did not agree....that is fine, I accept that...why continue to embarrass yourself?

[TheBigIf]

Yet the federal powers derived through the 64’ civil rights act are being used as the precedent for forcing crossdressing, homosexuality, etc.. on the private sector.

[Nervous Tick]

>> Its not his fault.

Ah, but it IS.

Paul claims to be wise enough to deserve to be elected to SENATOR of his state.

He has absolutely zero excuse for being this naive.

[Deb]

Nonsense. Trent Lott wasn’t naive. Rick Santorum wasn’t naive. Don Imus wasn’t naive. When the Left decides to destroy you, truth or reality or naivety never has anything to do with it.