Rand Paul wins KY Senate primary

[Lemon law]

Yes, it really does look like the newly minted Rand Paul suffers from hoof and mouth disease over his comments on the civil rights act.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37550.html

Rand has since tried to back pedal but I wonder if this is the first of many such gaffs and the democrats will be there to exploit everyone of them, while running paid commercial re runs to keep the issues fresh in everyone's mind.

In other links, the Paul family game plan is laid out, Ron Paul will not run for prez in 2012, but they will back some proxy to keep the party alive in 2012. Then Rand will run for Prez in 2016. But will that game plan work if Rand forgets to win the KY general election Senate race in 2010?

The 2012 KY race will certainly attract national attention, which is likely to help the name recognition of the dem more than Rand.

 

[BigDH01]

Let's say the Business was a small locally owned Residential Property Management Firm. According to Paul they should be able to discriminate against certain people by not renting them housing based solely on their race. Sound good to you?

It does if the market is efficient. If there are many property managers in town or it is easy to enter the market then it wouldn't be a problem as a competitor would quickly take the displaced business. However, housing is one of the least efficient markets, so there is likely a high cost to enter and the supply/demand is relatively inelastic. This is one market where it would be difficult to justify not having anti-discrimination laws.

My post was not really in favor of a universal ideology in this regard. In your example, an inefficient market may necessitate anti-discrimination laws. What if it was a small convenience store instead? What if the town had 12 such shops? Even in the absence of anti-discrimination laws, do you think a single owner would make the decision to deny service to a whole group of customers? In highly competitive and efficient markets, I don't see it happening.

The problem with Rand Paul when he envisions the virtue of the market or the private sector is that he pictures the latter situation (efficient markets) and not the former (inefficient markets). I believe that if every sector and industry could be efficient, we wouldn't need anti-discrimination laws. Today, some markets are closer to that efficiency than others.

 

[nick1985]

But will that game plan work if Rand forgets to win the KY general election Senate race in 2010?

The 2012 KY race will certainly attract national attention, which is likely to help the name recognition of the dem more than Rand.

My God, you are dumber than I thought!

 

[Lemon law]

Think about it Nick, Rand Paul has national name recognition but Conway does not, so Conway can only go up. And the sooner the dems use Conway to bash Rand, the quicker Conway gains name recognition.,

 

[nick1985]

Think about it Nick, Rand Paul has national name recognition but Conway does not, so Conway can only go up. And the sooner the dems use Conway to bash Rand, the quicker Conway gains name recognition.,

Would you like to bet $50 too?

 

[spidey07]

Think about it Nick, Rand Paul has national name recognition but Conway does not, so Conway can only go up. And the sooner the dems use Conway to bash Rand, the quicker Conway gains name recognition.,

Umm, NO. Jack Conway has been attorney general for a while now. People knew who he was. Rand Paul came out of nowhere less than a year ago. Nobody knew who he was. Then he snowballed in fundraising (over 3 million) from like minded people who want to stop Obama and the direction our country is going in.

I don't think you understand what is happening with the mood in this country, specifically how Kentucky feels about Obama with something like a 65% disapproval rating and 45% strongly disapprove. Also 70% against the healthcare law and 85% against the bailouts. They are VERY motivated to stop Obama.

Also in both the D and R primaries the candidate who ran a negative campaign lost. If Conway runs an attack/negative campaign it only goes in Paul's favor.

-edit-
Just to make this thread easy to find folks can search Rand Paul Teabags Lemon

 

[Red Dawn]

It does if the market is efficient. If there are many property managers in town or it is easy to enter the market then it wouldn't be a problem as a competitor would quickly take the displaced business. However, housing is one of the least efficient markets, so there is likely a high cost to enter and the supply/demand is relatively inelastic. This is one market where it would be difficult to justify not having anti-discrimination laws.

My post was not really in favor of a universal ideology in this regard. In your example, an inefficient market may necessitate anti-discrimination laws. What if it was a small convenience store instead? What if the town had 12 such shops? Even in the absence of anti-discrimination laws, do you think a single owner would make the decision to deny service to a whole group of customers? In highly competitive and efficient markets, I don't see it happening.

You don't see it because you have blinders on. Take Convenience Stores, do you think one owned by a Korean Immigrant in LA would serve Blacks if they didn't have too?

 

[BigDH01]

You don't see it because you have blinders on. Take Convenience Stores, do you think one owned by a Korean Immigrant in LA would serve Blacks if they didn't have too?

Likely. Even if they didn't, blacks would literally have thousands of other choices. If every convenience store in LA decided not to serve blacks, you can bet that I'd be selling my home and packing my bags to open up convenience stores all over.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you. I think anti-discrimination laws are important in inefficient markets, not important in efficient markets. It's a matter of specifics.

 

[sandorski]

He's not Racist, just blindly Idealistic. Which is worse?

 

[Red Dawn]

He's not Racist, just blindly Idealistic. Which is worse?

I didn't get the impression he was racist either but that he thought that it was acceptable for a Owner of a Business to discriminate based on race.

 

[bamacre]

So Paul believes that owners of a private business should be allowed to discriminate based on race? Wow.

First off, let me say that Rand totally bombed on Maddow's show. Not because I disagree with his position, but because he completely failed to directly answer her questions, and he completely failed to articulate and explain his position. She gave him plenty of time to do so, this was not a "hit piece," she wasn't out to get a "gotcha" out of him. He looked exactly like a politician, and he ran his entire campaign on not being your typical politician. And for that, he disappointed a lot of people.

Red, to answer your question, yes. And I will try to do a better job than he did of explaining that position. Not because I think nor expect everyone to agree with me, but so that people may get a better understanding of where he's coming from.

This is a matter of private property rights. So this discussion goes further than politics, because we're dealing with political philosophy. I think we would all agree that is it ok for a bar to require a cover charge to enter their establishment, or a club in LA to pick and choose who they allow on their property, even if they discriminate by dress or even who they deem to be physically attractive. Personally I believe that the owners of business should choose whether or not their visitors are allowed to smoke cigarettes on their private property. But if one is a staunch supporter of private property rights, then they also must believe that private property owners can also discriminate by race, disability, sexual orientation, whatever. It is a difficult position to take, but to believe otherwise very much contradicts with one's understanding of private property rights.

It is different for government, and for more than one reason. Government doesn't have private property, as government belongs to the people. Beyond that, government has a monopoly on force, and much, if not all, of what it does. And this is of course not the case in the marketplace where we all have choices, at least under free market conditions. If government does not allow a homosexual to get married, he or she is shit out of luck. If a restaurant does not allow a homosexual to enter and eat, he or she won't starve to death, as they'll simply go somewhere else.

One thing Rand did try to explain is that while this discussion is important because it deals with political philosophy and private property rights, it is in another sense not as important because society has progressed significantly from the days of vast bigotry and ignorance, and continues further in that direction. So if we all woke up tomorrow and Congress got rid of that part of the Civil Rights Act, and private businesses had the legal right to discriminate by race or gender, or whatever, would our country really be that different? No. Society wouldn't allow it. Sure there may be a few bars or restaurants in the deep south that could succeed economically under those bigoted conditions, but for the most part we'd all live our lives just the same.

So in a sense, it isn't government that should be celebrated but us human beings who have progressed, become more intelligent, and recognize people not as blacks, or gays, or men, or women, but as human beings.

This isn't about supporting the ideas of bigotry and racism, this is more about not allowing those few remaining bigots and racists to limit and dictate our understanding of freedom and liberty.

 

[sandorski]

I didn't get the impression he was racist either but that he thought that it was acceptable for a Owner of a Business to discriminate based on race.

Pretty much, as Bamacre points out, he wouldn't really address it though. He wants all the benefits of the legislation, he just doesn't want it to be part of Legislation.

 

[PJABBER]

... So in a sense, it isn't government that should be celebrated but us human beings who have progressed, become more intelligent, and recognize people not as blacks, or gays, or men, or women, but as human beings.

This isn't about supporting the ideas of bigotry and racism, this is more about not allowing those few remaining bigots and racists to limit and dictate our understanding of freedom and liberty.

Very well written post, bamacre.

However, unlike yourself, I did find Paul's replies to Maddow to be well articulated.

The problem with "progressives" is that they invariably live in a very small box. The more they claim everyone else is inadequate for not living in the same small box they inhabit, the more they define the narrow limits of their perspective.

He did not answer with a "simple yes or no" because he did not accept the box she was trying to put him in, even as she badgered and insisted that her's was the only possible box out there.

The more the racist "progressives" claim that there has been no progress since the 19th and 20th centuries and those battles of the early part of the last century need to be waged in the present, the more they demonstrate their complete disconnect with the more pressing issues of the present day.

 

[Turin39789]

*snip*

This isn't about supporting the ideas of bigotry and racism, this is more about not allowing those few remaining bigots and racists to limit and dictate our understanding of freedom and liberty.

I think you did a very good job explaining the position. Kudos.

My problems with it are first and foremost that I think property rights have a limit. Of course the only example I can think of right now are the protected classes, probably refliecting a deep personal character flaw on my part, or I'm just preoccupied. I think being too absolutist in regards to any philosophy/ideal is nearly always going to far. The human social world just doesn't reflect absolutes, and the burden of tolerance seems a bearable one.

My second problem is that I don't think we are nearly so advanced as you say. I've seen predjudice/bigotry in just about any closed/semi-closed community(left or right) I've come across.

 

[BigDH01]

Very well written post, bamacre.

However, unlike yourself, I did find Paul's replies to Maddow to be well articulated.

The problem with "progressives" is that they invariably live in a very small box. The more they claim everyone else is inadequate for not living in the same small box they inhabit, the more they define the narrow limits of their perspective.

He did not answer with a "simple yes or no" because he did not accept the box she was trying to put him in, even as she badgered and insisted that her's was the only possible box out there.

The more the racist "progressives" claim that there has been no progress since the 19th and 20th centuries and those battles of the early part of the last century need to be waged in the present, the more they demonstrate their complete disconnect with the more pressing issues of the present day.

She asked a very simple question, he just knew that the public at-large would not like the answer. However, the question she asked is one that strikes at the very core of his fundamental ideology.

"In terms of legal remedies for persistent discrimination, though, if there was a private business, say in Louisville, say somewhere in your home state that wanted to not serve black patrons, or wanted to not serve gay patrons or somebody else on the basis of a characteristic they decided they didn't like as a private business owner, do you think they have a legal right to do so, to put up a 'blacks not served here' sign?" - Maddow

Paul goes on to talk about schools, voting, housing etc in the 50s. This is a fairly simple question. It's not a "gotcha" question. I know he's a self-proclaimed libertarian and I know what his answer is here. I agree with Bamacre that he bombed. He didn't openly embrace this necessary consequence of his ideology and explain its merits.

 

[PJABBER]

She asked a very simple question, he just knew that the public at-large would not like the answer. However, the question she asked is one that strikes at the very core of his fundamental ideology.

When someone demands a yes or no answer to a complex or philosophical or legal question it is way often a trap. :awe:

The laws in question were passed when Paul was one year old. They have been further the subject of numerous judicial reviews in the intervening years. Paul blatantly said he accepted them as the law of the land and has no intent to repeal them, though he could nitpick the various individual parts just as the various cases before the Supreme Court were meant to define the niceties. What more does Maddow want?

As a liberal she NEEDS to hear the politically correct catch phrases that identify the vapid, politically correct postmodernist that would be the only acceptable choice to share her tiny box.

She NEEDS to play the race card, early and often. All liberals do, it validates them. But how effective is that in a conversation with someone who is post-racial?

Does badgering the point with someone who is not racist, who already accepts the law of the land that mandates equal access for all, who is not a knee jerk liberal nor a knee jerk Party hack, but who sees a complexity in the post-racial debate serve any purpose other than to play the race card and show off Maddow's oh so "progressive" creds?

Libertarianism highly values the expression of individual thought and an individual's right to live with as little government fiat as is possible, while welfare liberalism only values group think and group welfare to the detriment of individual liberty.

As Paul recounted, quite accurately, to offer one right or privilege is often at the cost of another. If we are to live in a post-racial world, all rights must be considered in the balance. A progressive, by definition, is not willing to accept that equality does not mean enforced preference. Hence, the little box mentality manifests itself again.

I actually feel sorry for Maddow, as I feel pity for progressives forced to live out injustices of the past they believe were never really addressed, ever waging wars that have past, over and over again. Often before they were even born, as is the case with a Maddow.

Though I do not know all of Dr. Paul's ideology, I just haven't tracked his viewpoint until yesterday, I found his argument to be one that ANY post-racial person would reasonably offer.

Obviously the postmodernist tutelage that so many under the age of 40 have been indoctrinated by remains a real barrier to achieving a post-racial world.

 

[sandorski]

Ya, a "trap" of decisiveness. He should have just said "Yes", then explain his personal view on it. Instead he just went babbling on and on looking evasive the whole time.

 

[PJABBER]

Ya, a "trap" of decisiveness. He should have just said "Yes", then explain his personal view on it. Instead he just went babbling on and on looking evasive the whole time.

Too many people are used to consuming the pablum that comes from the opinion shows like Maddow's and expecting everyone else to enjoy it as much as they do.

I saw no evasion but I did see an attempt to provide a detailed explanation of the libertarian viewpoint.

I did see Maddow continually playing the race card, but she is a "progressive" so I did not expect anything more there.

It is refreshing to see someone present a reasoned and rational counterpoint to the scurvy leftist/postmodernist diatribes. And I certainly do hope, win or lose, this election gives Dr. Paul a platform to introduce libertarian principles to as wide an audience as possible.

Keep knockin' him guys! Like Palin, all you do is give him a magnificent platform for real hope and change!

 

[sandorski]

Too many people are used to consuming the pablum that comes from the opinion shows like Maddow's and expecting everyone else to enjoy it as much as they do.

I saw no evasion but I did see an attempt to provide a detailed explanation of the libertarian viewpoint.

I did see Maddow continually playing the race card, but she is a "progressive" so I did not expect anything more there.

It is refreshing to see someone present a reasoned and rational counterpoint to the scurvy leftist/postmodernist diatribes. And I certainly do hope, win or lose, this election gives Dr. Paul a platform to introduce libertarian principles to as wide an audience as possible.

Keep knockin' him guys! Like Palin, all you do is give him a magnificent platform for real hope and change!

lolFail

 

[Red Dawn]

Keep knockin' him guys! Like Palin, all you do is give him a magnificent platform for real hope and change!

To compare him to Anita Bryant..err Palin does him a great disservice.

 

[werepossum]

She asked a very simple question, he just knew that the public at-large would not like the answer. However, the question she asked is one that strikes at the very core of his fundamental ideology.

"In terms of legal remedies for persistent discrimination, though, if there was a private business, say in Louisville, say somewhere in your home state that wanted to not serve black patrons, or wanted to not serve gay patrons or somebody else on the basis of a characteristic they decided they didn't like as a private business owner, do you think they have a legal right to do so, to put up a 'blacks not served here' sign?" - Maddow

Paul goes on to talk about schools, voting, housing etc in the 50s. This is a fairly simple question. It's not a "gotcha" question. I know he's a self-proclaimed libertarian and I know what his answer is here. I agree with Bamacre that he bombed. He didn't openly embrace this necessary consequence of his ideology and explain its merits.

I pretty much agree. Of course it's a gotcha question, as Maddow wants to minimize chances of Paul being elected, but it's a reasonable gotcha question. It's not "Do you still beat your wife"? but rather a question that strikes at the conflict between libertarianism and the civil rights movement, and Paul just bombed. (Not that big a deal, it's on MSNBC so about as many people saw it as travel in the typical illegal alien's pickup.) And it's a hard question, too. I have the same libertarian core beliefs, but I've also worked two jobs where I've heard the owner ask "You didn't hire that ni@@er did you?" In this economy especially it's not hard to imagine that such a place might be the only place hiring your particular skill set. If we accept that the government has the moral right to license and regulate a business, is it such a stretch to say the government cannot set certain broad restrictions on hiring practices to protect some individuals? On the other hand, the only way these things can be enforced is by head counts as they are today, with non-representative numbers of each identifiable group taken as proof of discrimination - which it manifestly is NOT. There's a legitimate argument on both sides.

On the other hand I don't think there is a legitimate argument that a business should be able to refuse service based on factors beyond one's control. Any business has an affect on like businesses in the same market; if there are three fried chicken places in an area that would normally have two, then it's unlikely that a fourth will open, so discrimination by a business materially affects the possibility that an individual can access a particular good or service. Paul should have concentrated on that - or just reiterated that he supports civil rights. You don't have to jump into a trap just because it's there.

 

[PJABBER]

To compare him to Anita Bryant..err Palin does him a great disservice.

I really don't know him at all. As I mentioned earlier, my only exposure is as of yesterday.

With that disclaimer, I can see why he has such an appeal, at least to those who tend toward the libertarian perspective and those, like the Tea Party, that are for fiscal constraint in government.

Palin is a grass roots person. She is inspiring and energizing. Paul comes off more the introvert intellectual, someone who can deliver the studied nuance and offer an explanation in depth as required, and isn't that the left's greatest criticism of Palin? The obverse seems no more appealing to the lefties, does it?

The postmodernist opposition's ears are ringing. For their tone-deafness, they cannot hear either of these two. But from what I can tell in the short introduction that I had in the past day to Paul, these two are playing much off the same sheet of music. Palin has the melody down pat. Paul is adept at contratempo, as well as knowing much more about the composer and the school, should it come to that.

 

[Red Dawn]

Palin is a lazy money grubbing opportunist

Fixed for accuracy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Palin has the melody down pat.

It's marvelous what she can do with a moose call.

 

[BigDH01]

When someone demands a yes or no answer to a complex or philosophical or legal question it is way often a trap. :awe:

It wasn't a trap. She gave him ample time to answer the question. He used this time in an attempt to divert attention. He should've simply said yes and then listed the merits of individual freedom of expression. His answers appeared jumbled and uncomfortable.

The laws in question were passed when Paul was four years old. They have been further the subject of numerous judicial reviews in the intervening years. Paul blatantly said he accepted them as the law of the land and has no intent to repeal them, though he could nitpick the various individual parts just as the various cases before the Supreme Court were meant to define the niceties. What more does Maddow want?

A concise answer to a concise question. It's obvious that he doesn't want the federal government to intervene here, he should've simply stated that he does think it should be legal for a private business to discriminate.

As a liberal she NEEDS to hear the politically correct catch phrases that identify the vapid, politically correct postmodernist that would be the only acceptable choice to share her tiny box.

In this case, Paul was the one trying to be politically correct by dodging the question. He did not answer clearly because he knew the answer would be politically unpopular. She was trying to get the politically incorrect answer from him. He missed the opportunity to separate himself from other politicians.

She NEEDS to play the race card, early and often. All liberals do, it validates them. But how effective is that in a conversation with someone who is post-racial?

Although I think some liberals play the race card all too often, I find it funny that you claim liberals are in a small box while making such sweeping generalizations yourself.

Does badgering the point with someone who is not racist, who already accepts the law of the land that mandates equal access for all, who is not a knee jerk liberal nor a knee jerk Party hack, but who sees a complexity in the post-racial debate serve any purpose other than to play the race card and show off Maddow's oh so "progressive" creds?

I don't think anyone thinks that Paul is a racist, he just refuses to display his "libertarian" creds when given the opportunity on the national stage.

Libertarianism highly values the expression of individual thought and an individual's right to live with as little government fiat as is possible, while welfare liberalism only values group think and group welfare to the detriment of individual liberty.

Boxes again.

As Paul recounted, quite accurately, to offer one right often is at the cost of another. If we are to live in a post-racial world, all rights must be considered in the balance. A progressive, by definition, is not willing to accept that equality does not mean enforced preference. Hence, the little box mentality manifests itself again.

I actually feel sorry for Maddow, as I feel pity for progressives forced to live out injustices of the past they believe were never really addressed, ever waging wars that have past, over and over again. Often before they were even born, as is the case with a Maddow.

Then you feel sorry for all progressives, as, by definition, they all have to accept enforced preference lest they lose the label "progressive?" The only "boxes" I see around here have been imposed by you. The term "Progressive" has been used throughout history as the antagonist to the Conservative. Paul and Progressives actually have a few things in common (or at least should, as a libertarian).

Though I do not know all of Dr. Paul's ideology, I just haven't tracked his viewpoint until yesterday, I found his argument to be one that ANY post-racial person would reasonably offer.

So why didn't he just come out and be forward with it? Why the deflections?

Obviously the postmodernist tutelage that so many under the age of 40 have been indoctrinated by remains a real barrier to achieving a post-racial world.

I would've thought you'd like postmodernism, given its emphasis on the local.