Posted on 05/26/2010 6:37:33 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Skip ahead to 4:30 of the clip. Between the racial politics involved, his duty as chairman to defend a Republican nominee, and bipartisan consensus that the Civil Rights Act was not only necessary but long overdue, he’s got a fine line to walk here. And it shows: When Tapper pressed him about this on ABC, he conceded that Paul’s position on discrimination by private businesses made him “uncomfortable” but refused to denounce it on grounds that, er, “I can’t condemn a person’s view.” (You can watch here.) In fairness, there’s really no smooth “spin” to be had in this case, which explains why Karl Rove reportedly encouraged Paul to back out of his “Meet the Press” appearance. Steele tried gamely in Tapper’s segment to steer the conversation onto safer ground, but couldn’t quite get there; Palin, when asked about Paul on “Fox News Sunday,” resorted predictably to complaining about media bias. The problem is that, even if you take the J.E. Dyer approach and emphasize that Paul’s not a racist, just a guy who worries about federal overreach, you run into this point from Sam Tanenhaus:
However attractive it may be just now to depict all political conflict as a neatly bifurcated either/or, with the heroic individual pitted against the faceless federal Leviathan, the truth is that legislative battles over civil rights laws were waged within government, and between competing incarnations of it, federal vs. state. Passage of the Civil Rights Act, as Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina observed last week, hinged on the Interstate Commerce Clause, which “was properly used by the courts and the Congress.”
The fact that the feds have since overreached doesn’t mean the feds should have no reach at all, and to argue that way at a moment when the GOP’s attacking ObamaCare as an abuse of the Commerce Clause is as dangerous as it is unnecessary. If the conservative take is that Congress took a mile in passing the individual mandate only because we gave them an inch by, um, letting them desegregate lunch counters, you’ve just raised the moral stakes on O-Care considerably for a whole lot of undecideds and not in a way that favors our side. The smart, and I think legally correct, way to defend the CRA while opposing the mandate is to follow Randy Barnett and Ace by arguing that the Thirteenth Amendment, not the Commerce Clause, gives Congress power to reach private actors in matters of racial discrimination. With race, as with religion, the normal constitutional rules don’t apply, and it’s the Constitution itself that says so. Read Ace, especially, for an elaboration on that point. It’s okay for the feds to operate a business (ask any GM shareholder) but it’s not okay for them to operate a church. The Establishment Clause makes a special exception because of the historical risk of religious persecution. It’s not okay for the feds to tell people whom they should associate with but it’s okay to tell business owners that they can’t racially discriminate. The Thirteenth Amendment makes a special exception because of the historical reality of America’s racial caste system. What’s ironic about Paul’s position is that in his own way he’s made the leftist mistake of reading the Constitution that he wished existed instead of the one that does. It’s a libertarian document, but it’s not perfectly libertarian. And a good thing, too.
Facepalm.
Deport Steele. If anyone can blow the November last stand it is him.
Its Michael Steele who is “misplaced.” What a useless weakling. He should be defending Paul, not doing what comes naturally to him: licking the boots of the liberal media and apologizing for someone who articulates a Conservative viewpoint.
Not the man of Steele.
Started reading Ken Blackwell’s book last night. Nothing new, but he reinforces the case against Obama and his efforts to fundamentally change our nation and abandon the Constitution. His book so far is right on...and Ken gets it.
I so wish Ken could have gotten that position. Steele is a total dunce.
We are deservedly being punished for using race as the criteria for choosing the head of the RNC.
Ken Blackwell was the best man for the job but the stupid party wanted a “moderate”.
Know what one is? Can he describe the basic tenets of many currently, commonly used philosophies?
Ditto to that.
He SHOULD have said: “In the Republican Party, we have three kinds of conservatives, and some of them overlap: 1) Christian conservatives, 2) fiscal conservatives, and 3) libertarians. Bear in mind, all of these are conservatives. We need them all in the Republican Party. They all love the Constitution (unlike the democrats, who seem to see it as a nuisance), and insist that the government should follow its letter and spirit. Rand Paul’s views are welcome in this party. Try having an intellectual discussion with him, instead of fishing for a ‘gotcha!’ soundbite. Thanks.”
An answer like that would have plowed some ground. However, he had to do the Jackie Gleason, “hommina-hummina-hommina” routine.
I LOVE Ken Blackwell. He was our Sec of State.
I deliberately delayed my move to Utah by a few weeks so I was eligible to cast an absentee ballot for him in his run for governor, against that loserball Strickland.
He’s a good man. I’d vote for him for any office he wished to seek. For once, it would not be a wasted vote.
Uh, no Michael, YOU’RE misplaced in these times!
Is there anyone else available to do this job at RNC ?
Newt ?
Any doubts now that Michael Steele isn’t a democrat plant?
Paul’s philiosophy is exactly what this country needs now.
Yet more confirmation that I have more in commen with libertarians than Republicans.
Fire Michael Steele.
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.