TEA Party backed Rand Paul wins Kent. GOP Senate Primary

I was originally on-board with the Tea Party when they were a 'No Incumbants' Movement. I also feel it would be a wake-up call to Washington if no incumbant were returned to their seat as representatives of us, the people. Democrats, Republicans, independents... any incumbant would be tossed into the ranks of the unemployed.
But, when it was taken over by the people at FOX News and the Republican Party... I bailed. Great intention... horrible result.

Congrats to Rand! Here's to more Libertarian-minded people being elected this November.

unsung wrote:

Congrats to Dr. Paul. Real change will be coming to Washington.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05 ... -kentucky/

perhaps the Teabaggers had a bit to do with this...however, I think his daddy's connections (i.e. Campaign Cash) had much more to do with his win...either way, congrats to Mr. Paul...

Jason P wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

I was originally on-board with the Tea Party when they were a 'No Incumbants' Movement. I also feel it would be a wake-up call to Washington if no incumbant were returned to their seat as representatives of us, the people. Democrats, Republicans, independents... any incumbant would be tossed into the ranks of the unemployed.
But, when it was taken over by the people at FOX News and the Republican Party... I bailed. Great intention... horrible result.

I choose to follow the principle and not the party. In my case, that means not voting for two republican incumbents.

I do agree that certain republicans have hijacked the movement to be self-serving. It's too bad that the sane majority are ruled by parties that cater to the fringe edges of the political spectrum.

I think they have tried to co-opt the movement, but are realizing they have no real control over the message. They have created a monster and now have no control over it. thats pretty funny!

so far it hasnt had much of an impact on actual elections and i dont think it will. in fact the only real election yesterday went to a democrat. sure the dems will lose seats, but midterm elections always go to the party out of power. it wont be the slaughter that tea partiers make it out to be. i think there is a movement on the left side to get rid of incumbents as well.

i think for me i'm kinda excited about the unintended consequences. it could be that the ultimate consequence would be to isolating the old republican party (and maybe electing a few libertarians) and throw out a huge amount of career politicians on both sides at the same time. that would be pretty cool.

hummmmmmmmmmm..............

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/2 ... 82872.html

Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul believes that the federal government blurred the lines between public and private property when it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and made it illegal for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race.

Paul explained his views on "The Rachel Maddow Show" Wednesday, just one day after wholloping his opponent in Kentucky's Republican primary.

Maddow focused on the Tea Party-backed candidate's civil rights stance after he publicly criticized parts of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Paul told Maddow that he agrees with most parts of the Civil Rights Act, except for one (Title II), that made it a crime for private businesses to discriminate against customers on the basis of race. Paul explained that had he been in office during debate of bill, he would have tried to change the legislation. He said that it stifled first amendment rights:


Maddow: Do you think that a private business has a right to say that 'We don't serve black people?'

Paul: I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. Butdo discriminate.

But I think what's important in this debate is not getting into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question 'What about freedom of speech?' Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires is that
we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it...


Paul argued that Maddow's questions weren't practical, but were instead abstract. She asked Paul to tell that to protesters who were beaten in their struggle for equal rights:


Maddow:... Howabout desegregating lunch counters?
Paul: Well what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says 'well no, we don't want to have guns in here' the bar says 'we don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each-other.' Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion...

Maddow: Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen's lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership. This is not a hypothetical Dr. Paul.


Paul will face Democratic Senate candidate and Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway in the general election to replace Republican Sen. Jim Bunning on November 2, 2010.

flywallyfly wrote:

hummmmmmmmmmm..............

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/2 ... 82872.html

Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul believes that the federal government blurred the lines between public and private property when it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and made it illegal for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race.

Paul explained his views on "The Rachel Maddow Show" Wednesday, just one day after wholloping his opponent in Kentucky's Republican primary.

Maddow focused on the Tea Party-backed candidate's civil rights stance after he publicly criticized parts of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Paul told Maddow that he agrees with most parts of the Civil Rights Act, except for one (Title II), that made it a crime for private businesses to discriminate against customers on the basis of race. Paul explained that had he been in office during debate of bill, he would have tried to change the legislation. He said that it stifled first amendment rights:


Maddow: Do you think that a private business has a right to say that 'We don't serve black people?'

Paul: I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. Butdo discriminate.

But I think what's important in this debate is not getting into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question 'What about freedom of speech?' Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires is that
we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it...


Paul argued that Maddow's questions weren't practical, but were instead abstract. She asked Paul to tell that to protesters who were beaten in their struggle for equal rights:


Maddow:... Howabout desegregating lunch counters?
Paul: Well what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says 'well no, we don't want to have guns in here' the bar says 'we don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each-other.' Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion...

Maddow: Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen's lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership. This is not a hypothetical Dr. Paul.


Paul will face Democratic Senate candidate and Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway in the general election to replace Republican Sen. Jim Bunning on November 2, 2010.

While I see his point that in a true libertarian point of view, Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the government dictating rules to private businesses, but that nuanced answer won't play well politically against "Rand Paul disagrees with the Civil Rights Act of 1964" political ads and soundbytes.

But if he does believe that it crossed the lines, where does he stand on other government intrusions into the private sector like building codes, OSHA/safety regulations, labor laws, etc?

I THINK PAUL'S WIN IS A GOOD THING...FOR THE DEMOCRATS... seriously, how easy is it going to be to campaign against a guy that thinks the civil rights act is unconstitutional? and that thinks that the FDA and other organizations should be abolished?? this was a gift to the dems because it is so easy to make soundbytes about where he stands on the issues, and according to most research, soundbytes do resonate with voters.

Backstop-440 wrote:

Is Rand Paul going to get the GOP's backing in the actual election this fall?

The strict libertarian view does not line up with the Republican views on Roe v Wade or the war on drugs.

He should have it being that he is the official candidate.

The Libertarian view definitely does NOT match up with the current GOP's ideas on the war on drugs. As far as abortion, Libertarians are split on this issue. The marjority are probably on the "choice" side, but definitely not all of them. What it comes down to is the question of whether the fetus is a life or not. If it is a life, it is worth protecting. If it isn't a life, it isn't. Check the Libertarian Party's website for a stance on abortion-- I don't even see it there anymore. It is much less an issue to this party above all of the others.

I do believe Rand thanks the fetus is a life, and therefore has all the rights afforded to human beings already born.