Posted on 05/24/2010 4:34:15 PM PDT by grand wazoo
WASHINGTON — Rand Paul, the Tea Party candidate who challenged the Republican establishment to win the party’s Senate nomination in Kentucky two days ago, criticized a landmark civil rights law on Thursday, landing himself in a potentially damaging dispute over civil rights and race.
In doing so, he provided Democrats an opportunity to portray him as extreme and renewed concern among Republicans that his views made him vulnerable in a general election.
Mr. Paul, in a series of television and radio interviews, suggested that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was too broad and should not apply to private businesses, such as luncheonettes. As his statements drew a swarm of attacks from his opponents, Mr. Paul issued a statement declaring that he would not support repealing the landmark 1964 statute and blaming political opponents for trying to distort his views by saying he favored repeal.
“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws,” he said. Later, in an interview on CNN, he said that if he had been in the Senate in 1964, he would have supported the act.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Well, we’re all in agreement here pretty much.
Can’t states pass anti-discrimination laws instead of the feds? It’s a states issue not a federal issue. States can’t pass laws mandating discrimination, but they can pass laws banning discrimination. The S. Ct. can take a look at those laws. But the feds shouldn’t be passing the laws
Anybody that didn't see it coming hasn't been paying attention.
Agreed. After Palin got spanked you would think that people would wake up. Lose the naivete, you're swimming in the shark pool now. The liberal propaganda machine is your enemy, you have a responsibility to be prepared.
That's because the GOP is a sham party, run by the elites, that exists merely to provide the illusion of choice, and to serve as the left's punching bag. The entire history of the GOP is one long retreat.
Really? Why?
The Washington Generals of politics.
Children of privilege. God love 'em, they bring a coffee cake to a knife fight.
I’ve seen it in the past but now it seems coordinated and I haven’t noticed that before. It’s like they all, major networks, AP, papers are on the same page with what they cover and how they cover it.
Maybe it’s been that way all along, I just didn’t see it.
I think he thought he was smarter than Sarah Palin. I think he bought into the notion that Sarah just wasn’t smart enough to deal with the media but HE would be able to handle them. He (and she) doesn’t speak sound-byte. He speaks in full sentences and thoughts.
Really? Why?
Because there used to be a time when most conservatives saw the civil rights act of 1964 as a major usurpation of power by the federal government at the expense of states and personal liberties.
People who want to be offended by his remarks would never consider voting for him anyway. The Democrats have several racial/ethnic voting blocks in their pockets. Republicans would do well to write them off and not try to buy their votes at the expense of everyone else.
“People who want to be offended by his remarks would never consider voting for him anyway.”
I don’t buy this. Don’t get me wrong, Rand Paul is right in his position regarding the civil rights act, but you’re ignoring political reality if you don’t think that his initial remarks (with an assist from the media) damaged his support with SOME people who probably would consider voting for him.
I still think he’ll win easily, but he screwed up here. NOT because he’s wrong on the issue, but because he allowed it to become an issue in the first place.
SOME is a very indefinite number. You win SOME. You lose SOME.
..............but because he allowed it to become an issue in the first place.
There is no way to avoid these sorts of attacks by the left. If you speak honestly about difficult issues, some people will criticize you. The alternative is to allow them to dictate the boundaries of the discussion.
“Maybe it’s been that way all along, I just didn’t see it.”
Yes, once your eyes are opened, you begin to notice what was there all along.
Political battles are not won on the extremes; conservatives will support a political candidate, lefties not. It's the great middle that decides elections.
It's not enough to consider how it will play against either base; it also matters how it plays in the middle.
We will get what we vote for.
No, you miss the point. We ARE the GOP. Do you serve to be the left’s punching bag? Well they do punch you.
When you are faced with media bias onslaughts, politicians have 3 options:
1. Cave in
2. Stand up produly and say something that the media will destort and use to destroy the person who says it.
3. Be smart enough to stand ground while changing the terms of the debate to be on YOUR terms.
very few are good enough to get to #3.
...for those interested. :D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.