Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: grand wazoo

“No amount of nuance will satisfy the leftists. The civil rights bill of 1964 is sacred text to them.”

Not true. He just needed to say what he’s said since the controversy erupted:

“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.”

Would that have been so hard?


21 posted on 05/24/2010 5:30:53 PM PDT by sam_whiskey (Peace through Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: sam_whiskey

Yes, he could have just said “Barry Goldwater was wrong to have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And Ronald Reagan was wrong to have boldly supported Goldwater for President that year.”

Then Rand Paul would have clearly identified himself as being a modern politically correct individual who has assimilated 1960s liberalism and now calls it “conservative”.

God bless Lyndon Johnson, founding father of 21st century conservatism.


26 posted on 05/24/2010 6:23:20 PM PDT by Pelham (without Deporting 20 million illegals, border control is meaningless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: sam_whiskey
Not true. He just needed to say what he’s said since the controversy erupted:

“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.”

So you think they are now satisfied with his explanation? They attacked his position on Meet the Press.

28 posted on 05/24/2010 7:27:31 PM PDT by grand wazoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: sam_whiskey

Well, yes, if you want to completely avoid controversy, and the national spotlight that comes with it, that would be a safe answer.

He wins in Kentucky, it’s a Republican seat in a state that went for McCain handily in a year that the Democrats are going to do very badly.

And now, because of this controversy, conservatives / grass roots / tea partiers are more aware of Rand Paul and more on his side than ever before. If he was going to run for President at some time, and win, he would initially have to be the guy that the conservatives / grass roots / tea party supports. He’s not going to be getting the votes of people who prefer Romney or Gingrich at this point. He’d be going after the votes of people who like Palin. In any given year, there would likely be a number of candidates vying to be the true conservative candidate. Rand Paul has taken a step toward the front of that pack.


37 posted on 05/25/2010 2:31:49 AM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson