The liberal left, tool of the progressive globalists, has found their “one size fits all” attack; the race card. For over a year, tea party patriots have had the ‘honor’ of being called racists at every turn, and with Dr. Paul’s win Tuesday night, his candidacy is the bullseye because of his Constitutional stance and his Tea Party backing.  Dr. Rand Paul is now the poster child for the Tea Party Movement as Scott Brown only could hope for in his dreams.

Before you get all bent out of shape, remember what the federal government has actually been charged with doing, and how far off the reservation the administrations of the past 120 years have gone.  Dr. Paul isn’t a racist, the left just wants to paint the Tea Parties in that light in hopes of stopping the electoral bleeding to come.

Rand Paul, telling the truth

If we use “gaffe” in its proper, Kinsleyan form, that’s what U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul issued to NPR yesterday, and that’s what he defended on Rachel Maddow’s show last night. He told the truth about his stance on the Civil Rights Act. I’ve posted the video and transcript below the fold, because I find it fascinating to watch Paul stand by his philosophical and legal stance and refuse to dissemble in a way that would, you know, get people to stop accusing him of some archaic form of racism. It reminds me of the way his father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), stuck by his belief that the Civil War didn’t need to be fought even when he appeared on “Meet the Press.” The stakes were lower for Ron Paul, though — he stood no chance of winning the GOP’s presidential nomination, while Rand Paul stands a good chance of being elected to Senate.

So is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it’s irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes — this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf — splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

Now, few conservatives would go as far as Paul. In an essay just this month on the thought of William F. Buckley, Lee Edwards criticized Buckley’s belief “that the federal enforcement of integration was worse than the temporary continuation of segregation.”

“As a result of National Review’s above-the-fray philosophizing,” wrote Edwards, “and Barry Goldwater’s vote, on constitutional grounds, against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the albatross of racism was hung around the neck of American conservatism and remained there for decades and even to the present.”

That, in miniature, is what is happening to Paul.

Bad Behavior has blocked 1551 access attempts in the last 7 days.

%d bloggers like this: