DeMint Suddenly Concerned With Rand Paul’s Positions

May 20, 2010

One would think that people like DeMint, Palin and Erick at Redstate who so often claim to support people on principles and positions would take the time to fully understand same as regards the people they endorse, wouldn't one? Evidently DeMint never quite got around to it. Paul isn't simply wrong here, he's being ideologically pure and purely Libertarian stupid politically. And the issues extend far beyond race.

DeMint, who endorsed Paul in the Kentucky Senate primary, flatly stated that he supports the 1964 Civil Rights Act, adding, "I'm going to talk to Rand about his positions."

Given his endorsement, how does that differ so much from voting on a bill one hasn't read? On merit, it doesn't.

Here's a worthwhile read on the CRA from Bruce Bartlett. And if you think Weigle is helping here, think, again, because Paul's logic is politically indefensible on a very grand scale.

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.

Hey, you want to import lead-painted toys from China? Go for it. Your bad, because you'll go bankrupt after enough children get sick, mentally ill, or die. Great. Ghetto kids can now go back to eating lead-based paint chips, it's Independence Day!!

Should government be regulating food? Why bother. Once people figure out your burgers are horse meat, or contain harmful bacteria, they'll go to Burger King, instead.

Redstate and others repeatedly lied in saying that Paul is a Conservative, when at best he might be considered a throw back paleo-con. But actually he's a Libertarian, an ideology that has never formed a working formula for governing a contemporary society. And in my opnion, they and DeMint put winning an inside the beltway battle over the greater good. If it seems harsh to say they were lying, think of the alternative? If they weren't, then they're simply stupid, along with never bothering to consider the consequences for the party, as a whole.

Contemporary conservatives long ago came to embrace the need for a civil society because man is not perfect. Left to their own devices, whether for greed, or evil, or whatever, some portion of the population will attempt to exploit others for profit and benefit. America long ago decided it didn't want that on race and a host of other issues. Like it, or not, the battle is a nuanced one today. Oh, but Rand Paul's too big a man for such trival things. But when your response is, I won't support repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you've already lost the debate, because you've lost control of it. This is not the discussion we need to be having today.

Harkening back to some version of America that doesn't and will never exist is a sort of fool's gold of ideological purity that might get you through one primary, but now we have to deal with the potential damage to the entire Republican brand. We had Obama and the statist agenda in the cross-hairs. In Paul, the Left has precisely what they wanted – an anti-Obama, if you will. And I don't mean that in a good way. But there's a good chance this idiot in Kentucky is going to become the poster boy against which all Republicans will be judged.

I was there for DeMint on Rubio, DeVore and wanted us to take out McCain, because we all know he's enemy number one to conservatives. Score wins on those three and conservatives win and send a message. I gave Lee a pass, because he seemed reasonable. But they didn't even manage to get him across the finish line. And McCain gets a free pass, along with help from guest posters at Redstate. What kind of deal was that for conservatives? Frankly, it sucked. And I said so at the time.

But that wasn't the whole deal the DC conservative establishment wanted, I assume because it didn't hurt McConnell enough. So, it had to be on to Kentucky, where only Daddy Ron's national network, not DeMint, or Redstate, was enough to put him over the top. I drew a line in the sand because the potential damage from Paul far outweighed any benefit of weakening McConnell. But that wasn't enough for DeMint and the crew out here that marches in lock-step with him.

And now they'll come running back to the establishment they so hate for effort and money that, even if it saves Paul, will be wasted, as it could have been better spent somewhere else. As I believe conservatism is about the balance of rights and responsibilities, I'm invoking the you broke it, you bought it policy here.

Let Palin, DeMint and Erick get on a plane and go win Kentucky. Paul was a dumb choice in the primary and he remains a dumb choice now, win or lose. Because even if he gets to DC, he'll be holding candle-light vigils with that other idiot Adam Kokesh. Once the Left gets done shoring up their base against Paul with the race card, no doubt that and more is coming, too.

But do let me know how all that hopey changey stuff is working out for ya, guys! Because even if Paul wins, conservatives lose when it comes to governing philosophy and on a host of issues Paul hid behind the tenth amendment on, more often than a white collar criminal invokes the Fifth. The dirty little secret is, the myopic eye doctor doesn't have a workable governing philosophy applicable at the federal level at which he's running to serve.

Please consider supporting RiehlWorldView with a small donation
, by shopping at Amazon via our Associate link in the sidebar or by re-distributing our content across the Web with the options below. Thank you.

  1. HughS says:

    Well let me take a stab at the “pragmatic response” to your post. Grayson was unelectable in KY. You can complain about Paul forever but that does not change the fact that Grayson was unelectable. He had major problems with the core conservative base because he went out on a limb and attacked then Republican Governor Ernie Fletcher several years ago. That bought him the enmity of the base. That he lost by 24 points to an outlier like Paul tells us how unpopular Grayson was in his own Party. If you’re going to complain about bad judgment rip on Mitch for a while. He deserves it.
    Second, would you rather have liberal Democrat Jack Conway in the Senate or Rand Paul? Instead of complaining about the candle lighting nutcase you think you have in Paul, explain to us how you would deal with a net Republican loss in KY if Conway is elected.
    Paul can be handled by an effective Party Whip. Conway will be owned lock, stock and barrel by Chuck Schumer (or whoever Majority Leader is in 2011). Which way do you want it? The real dirty little secret is that we need to replace Bunning with a Republican, even if it is Ron Paul. Or do you want to conduct a purity campaign, which is precisely how Republicans find themselves in the minority so often.

  2. Red Diva says:

    Excellent! You nailed this one. What a serious waste of time and effort Rand Paul is, and how sad for the voters of Kentucky that they didn’t see it in time.

  3. Lisa Graas says:

    Grayson was **made** unelectable by people like Sarah Palin, Erick Erickson, Jim Demint, James Dobson, and not to mention Fox News, especially Glenn Beck.

  4. Lisa Graas says:

    Trey Grayson ran as a candidate who would be ‘EFFECTIVE’ in Washington……….and……..Grayson is a conservative Republican. Kentucky has been royally ripped off.

  5. leilani says:

    The fact that Rand Paul is Ron Paul’s anointed heir wasn’t exactly a secret to those geniuses who endorsed him.(Although Dan Riehl here to his credit was just about the only conservative blogger I know of to make a legitimate effort to warn Kentuckians about that.) And it wasn’t a secret that the democrats were all praying Ron Paul, Part Deux would win the primary for a good reason – one we’ve only just begun to reap the blowback from.
    Thanks to Rand Paul, rather than spending the next 4 months trying to convince voters why they need to help us put an end to the eurodhimmie socialist agenda in DC, we’re all gonna be debating the damn Civil Rights Act of 19effin64!
    All the ‘conservatives’ who’ve been cheerleading (and are STILL cheerleading) for this guy – a guy who hangs regularly with Alex Jones and Code Pinker Adam Kokesh, FGS – as though he were the second coming of Ronald Reagan need to have their effen heads examined.
    How everybody believed in the first place that a guy whose only claim to fame is that he IS his father’s son, who was bankrolled by his father’s creepy out-of-state financial backers, is nonetheless a born-again orphan who has nothing whatsoever to do with Ron Paul, Inc.’s kooky-fringey tone-deaf messianism, nosirree, is a complete mystery to me.
    Sigh. What’s done is done. Evidently the Paulbots have successfully hijacked the Tea Party* banner.
    But if their new standard bearer won’t even TRY to sell his half-baked second-gen Ronulism better than he did to NPR & on Rachel Maddow’s show last night, it looks like we’re going to end up lose a safe seat – I don’t care how hard we suck it up, swallow our principles & work 24-7 to manufacture far-fetched excuses for l’il junior here.
    Just brilliant, Kentucky TPers, and Sarah, & Erik & DeMint & Bunning. Thanks evah so much.
    [* RIP,Tea Party 2009-2010. It was great while it lasted, but gee it sure would have been nice if yall had told us it was hemlock you were drinking.]

  6. HughS says:

    “Grayson was **made** unelectable by people like Sarah Palin, Erick Erickson, Jim Demint, James Dobson, and not to mention Fox News, especially Glenn Beck.”
    That simply is not true. As I mentioned above, Grayson alienated the base of the Kentucky Republican Party when he attacked sitting Republican Governor Ernie Fletcher at an event well attended by state political activists called Fancy Farm. Look it up. Fletcher was under attack by then Democratic Attorney General Greg Stumbo, who alleged a hiring scandal in the Fletcher administration. Grayson, who was at the time the Kentucky Secretary of State, chose to attack fellow Republican Fletcher at the Fancy Farm event. He did so at great risk and Kentucky Republican Party heavy weights such as Larry Forgy told Grayson he had crossed the line. When Mitch made it clear that Bunning would not receive his support in 2010 the Bunning base deserted Mitch and everyone associated with him, including Grayson. This is not complicated.
    The only person outside of the state of KY that may have hurt Grayson is Dobson. It remains for the Grayson camp to explain why they lost him.

  7. Lisa Graas says:

    It just keeps coming.
    From Page One Kentucky:
    Rand Paul in 2002: “A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination – even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin.”

  8. Lisa Graas says:

    ” Grayson alienated the base of the Kentucky Republican Party when he attacked sitting Republican Governor Ernie Fletcher at an event well attended by state political activists called Fancy Farm.”
    HuH???? Ummmm, no. Check out this endorsement list…..and……they’re all pro-life, too.

  9. T says:

    Well Dan, I’ll go with Mark Levin on this one. At least he saw through the Lamestream Media’s traps and while he may not have supported Rand, Mark didn’t let the LSM get away with it.
    That’s why I trust Mark.

  10. Lisa Graas says:

    I will grant you that there was some bad blood over the Fletcher deal…………but it’s the electorate who voted who elected him because Fox News told them to.

  11. Dan Riehl says:

    “Mark didn’t let the LSM get away with it.”
    I’m not letting them get away with it. I’m simply pointing out that the broader voting public doesn’t give a rat’s patootie about some nuanced discussion of the Constitution as it plays out within the hardcore political echo chambers on the Left and Right. This is all simply a set-up before revisiting Paul’s need to bounce his first official spokesperson, or whatever he was, for the lynching pic.
    I don’t think Mark ever endorsed Paul btw. So, my thinking is more in line with his, than DeMint’s and others here fwiw.

  12. HughS says:

    “HuH???? Ummmm, no. Check out this endorsement list…..and……they’re all pro-life, too.”
    Excellent point: please explain why Grayson lost by the margin he did if he had the endorsement list you link. You think Dick Cheney was paying attention to Fancy Farm? Heh.
    My point stands. You haven’t refuted it. But you are doing a great job at linking your blog.

  13. alwaysfiredup says:

    I’m actually excited by the prospect of a Republican libertarian in the Senate. He doesn’t have any support on either side of the aisle for extreme libertarianism. All he can do is nudge. And I think we need a nudge in that direction. Any anti-statist direction is a good direction.

  14. HappyAcres says:

    I honestly don’t understand you.
    Are you saying Paul is wrong, or that he’s unelectable?
    I’m tired of fighting the interminable rear-guard action you’re resigned to. The ratchet clicks and clicks, always in one direction. Where exactly is your line in the sand?

  15. T says:

    Now how about we discuss that Scott Brown. Personally, I didn’t trust him but I don’t live in liberal land so my opinion didn’t count. I didn’t send him any money either.
    Like someone said, ” I thought Scott Brown claimed to be “41st” not “60th” vote.
    Has he voted more with the Dems than the Republicans?

  16. Paul is marginally electable, Grayson was not. End of discussion. Rant, rave, whine, cry, gnash teeth – doesn’t matter, it is what it is. Paul is not the perfect candidate, nor has the perfect platform but he is what we have in KY. and I damn sure hope they support him.
    If DeMint should be doing anything here, it’s girding Paul for battle and maybe giving him step-by-step instruction on “remove foot from mouth”, then the fine art of “STFU”.
    What KY. voters now have before them is Liberal vs. Conservative/NeoCon/Libertarian – whatever the Rand Paul “label du jour” is. And while I am writing from a distance, I still have a dog in any race where Federal Congressional representation is the prize. That’s a privilege we all have. And in this race I’d rather have Paul (even with Daddy Ron, out-of-state funding and knee-jerk racial WTF remark) elected than the “Pelosi Fiberal” behind Door #2. To me, that’s what it comes down to.
    “…and if you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with…” – Stephen Stills

  17. Mr. K says:

    Grayson was unelectable? That’s kinda funny and ironic; considering he has actually been elected to statewide office before, and he was outperforming Paul in all of the general election polls during the Primary. Rand Paul will lose this Senate seat in November. And for the record; I would prefer an honest liberal anti-American National Defense hack, over an Libertarian who uses the Founding Fathers to bash our National Defense and to blame us for 9/11.

  18. brooklyn says:

    Could not agree more with Mr. Riehl, although I am sorry to say, I don’t go for the ‘conservative establishment’ in DC Battle – Conspiracy theory games.
    This was some embracing FASHION, a fashion of purism and ‘libertarian’ politics, because it is popular.
    These are some of the types who simply do not do their homework (regretfully like Mrs. Palin), who will embrace the fashion of whatever they think is popular.
    It has been stunning to see some ‘conservatives’ defend the abandoning a sworn Oath to the Governorship in Alaska, for it isn’t something a real conservative would do. Conservatives don’t run away from responsibility. Her ‘celebrity’ is a vivid example of the fashionable “ICON” building we used to never engage upon, for we were focused on basis – keeping it real.
    I could go on with the many contradictions, perhaps Beck’s isolationist denial is the very worst of all.
    But it has become easy to claim ‘no government’. It is easy to run to a rather delusional ‘libertarian’ concept, because it is simple, but hardly reasonable.
    We are conservatives for a good reason. We are not opposed to ALL GOVERNMENT, nor were the Founding Fathers, and they certainly did not create the USA with the idea it would never change – or grow beyond the original 13 Colonies and it’s original set of laws.
    Fashion is the problem, and it has grown quite irresponsibly on the good side, when we have greater priorities in saving this fine FREE Country. WFB set up the way, and it is stunning to see some lose sight of the best offering. Some are simply exploiting the ‘I am more Conservative than You’ fashion, even to the point of dividing us all.

  19. Lisa Graas says:

    HughS, I did refute your point. I showed you a long list of “establishment Republicans” who endorsed Grayson. You said he alienated establishment Republicans. Point refuted.
    He did alienate “some” establishment Republicans, as I noted in my addendum, however this has nothing to do with why Grayson lost. Grayson lost because big media on both the left and the right wanted him to lose. Big media reaches far more homes than one can reach via 30-second ads, mailings and online activism. The very early endorsement of Sarah Palin and Fox News probably had the biggest impact on Kentucky Republicans. People were told, ad nauseum, that Paul would/should win. He was literally romanticized by Fox News. Virtually every person I talked to, in my looong list of phone calls for Grayson here in my home county, told me they thought Paul would win overwhelmingly, though more than 70% wanted to vote for Grayson. How many Republicans are going to support an underdog whose opponent was endorsed by Sarah Palin and, unofficially, by Fox News? Remember that only 18% of Kentuckians even identify with the Tea Party movement. They identify more with Fox News than with the Tea Party movement, by far. Further, many many Tea Party people here did not want to support Rand Paul at all because of these views which we all have known about down here for quite some time…….but Paul supporters (not all, but a lot of them) are rather pushy folk. Calls to the voter hotline on election day about shenanigans at the polls by Paul supporters bear this out.
    So, here’s the thing. Dan is right when he says that those (myself included, admittedly) who debate the Constitution didn’t make much of an impact here and won’t make much of an impact in the general, either, except to the extent that we might prompt big media to cover this or that aspect of the story. The vast majority of registered Republican voters here, I’m quite sure, don’t pay attention to politics apart from local politics and what they hear on television news. Most people use Facebook nowadays………..but not to discuss politics. It’s all the television news hype that has put Rand Paul into office. It’s like the Obama campaign all over again. Rand Paul is pretending to be something he really is not, to fool people……….and Kentucky bought it because Sarah Palin and Fox News…..and the liberal media…..told them to. It was a dumb move by Palin and Fox…….and a smart move by the liberal media.

  20. MrK:
    “..Grayson was unelectable? That’s kinda funny and ironic; considering he has actually been elected to statewide office before…”
    Anyone who loses by 20%+ of the vote in a primary is unelectable. I don’t dispute you may prefer Grayson’s platform, but in the state of KY., he was unelectable to higher office.

  21. The Stephen Stills lyric quote I used earlier is still applicable:
    “…if you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with…”
    You ideologues who want to pick Rand apart (and not without some merit, I might add)now have to decide if you want to tow the ideology anchor behind you, erstwhile support the very Fiberals you love to hate, or accepting that in the great State of Kentucky, they would be better off with Rand Paul than that very Pelosi/Reid/Fiberal offering.
    I understand your disappointment, but I implore you to place your backing with the candidate which would most likely add a Conservative slant to Congress. In Kentucky, that’s Rand Paul.
    We either embrace this, or stand as sore losers once again. I know which side I want to be on…
    One man’s opinion – YMMV

  22. Lisa Graas says:

    HughS wrote: “The only person outside of the state of KY that may have hurt Grayson is Dobson. It remains for the Grayson camp to explain why they lost him.”
    I will grant you that the Dobson endorsement made an impact, but here’s the thing. It made virtually NO impact when he endorsed Grayson. Almost none whatsoever……but when he pulled it and said he’d been lied to, it was big news. That’s what helped Paul, not the endorsement itself.
    But Dobson soon found out how badly he goofed in pulling the Grayson endorsement and saying he’d been lied to about Paul.
    See him bolt from a Fox News reporter when asked about it, at the end of this video:
    See? Fox News “covered it”……..but just barely. In fact, it was Paul who misrepresented himself to Dobson. Kentucky pro-lifers joined together in an email campaign to tell Dobson about Rand Paul’s position on the morning after pill and partial birth abortion…….and his flawed federal abortion legislation…..and the fact that Paul gave a false document to the press to smear Kentucky Right to Life….right before Fox News asked him the question in the video above.
    It’s not Trey Grayson that has explaining to do. It’s James Dobson….and Rand Paul.

  23. syn says:

    CPAC should have dealt with the problem at the last CPAC gathering when they took the money from Ron Raul’s Campaign for Liberty embracing the libertarian nuts.
    NOW you are bitching?
    Fine for CPAC to embrace the Libertarian nuts yet when the time to endorse you then freak out about the nutty Libertains.
    CPAC-David Keene and Grover Norquist-you made this fracking bed so STFU!

  24. syn says:

    Mr Riehl next year when you are at the next CPAC event with the Birchers, Truthers and Paulites you fracking remember what you said today while David Keene continues to embraces the Libertarian nuts.
    CPAC embraced the Libertarians nuts yet you have the audacity to bitch about endorsements? STFU MF!

  25. syn says:

    “Grayson was **made** unelectable by people like Sarah Palin, Erick Erickson, Jim Demint, James Dobson, and not to mention Fox News, especially Glenn Beck.
    Posted by: Lisa Graas | Thursday, May 20, 2010 at 07:02 PM”
    Darling you are lying!
    CPAC, darling, it was CPAC who delivered the Libertarians nuts.

  26. syn says:

    “HuH???? Ummmm, no. Check out this endorsement list…..and……they’re all pro-life, too”
    Who cares about ‘pro-life’ issues when a majority of Catholic faithful VOTE to empower abortion?
    The Catholic Church is about as “Sanctify of Life” as is Islam the ‘Religion of Peace’

  27. Anon says:

    Rand Paul is only saying what everyone alredy knows intuitively, that it is wrong for the government to tell you how to run your busines and that includes who hire and who you want as a customer.
    If this idea were debated in isolation from the hysteria surrounding the civil rights movement it would be obvious to all but the far left that this is only common sense if you want a free society.
    But, as has long been the case, the debate revolves around taking the most egregious exceptional situation and using that as a point of reference…this is how US law is made now and how issues are debated, and that goes for the Right and the Left though the left is obvously more prone to this type of straw man argument.
    The fact that this idea is not only controversial but politcally deadly to even utter shows you how far gone the country is and that we are never, NEVER going to get back on track.

  28. WPE says:

    We’ve already been through that kind of “freedom” – it was the Jim Crow south. And there’s a reason it’s gone and we’re a better country for it. Sorry, you look a little too black to eat with me. And you’re daughter’s too black to go to school with my kids. And you’re a little too brown to be drinking from the same fountain I do. That’s not freedom, that’s hate.
    Mr. Paul’s libertarian views don’t extend to drugs, abortion, national security or the coal industry. Strange set of choices he’s made.

  29. Anon says:

    You’re using straw men again, Paul referred only to the part about private business and discrimination, nothing to do with government or public areas, so schools and public drinking fountains would have nothing to do with it.
    What is wrong with “It’s my business and I’ll hire who I want since I’m paying their salary”?? There is nothing wrong with it which is why you have to resort to the race card to silence any discussion of the idea–on its merits–that a private enterprise that takes no gov. money should be able to hire/serve whomever they want on whatever basis they want to whether its distateful to others or not. That is what freedom is.
    Also, are you saying that we can’t choose with whom we want to eat? Ha, I didn’t think the nanny state had gone so far as to demand “diversity” at the dinner table, but I’m sure it is not too far down on the agenda.

  30. Ricky says:

    Agree with ya. That kind of freedom Hendrik Verwoerd called “Apartheid”. And it was commonsense to them. Lars Larson also justified and promoted it the other day.
    I guess if you are white and you have never suffered the consequences of these kinds of beliefs it is impossible to convince you. But that is over now, a new day came ages ago, thank God!

  31. WPE says:

    MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don’t serve black people?
    PAUL: Yes.
    That’s frigging Un-American. It took this country a helluva long time to get close to fulfilling the dream of “all men are created equal”. We’re a better country now than we were when rednecks were running around saying “sorry, no nigg**s served here”.
    Point’s the same. That’s not freedom, that’s hate.

  32. WPE says:

    And “Also, are you saying that we can’t choose with whom we want to eat? ”
    No, you are. You know, “sorry, the black and brown guys can’t come in.”
    You apparently don’t understand the ramifications of your own position.

  33. Anon says:

    Oh I understand the ramifications perfectly,that I should be able to eat with whomever I chose to and so should you, whether you agree or disagree with my choice of table mate.
    If x restaurant won’t serve Y person then in a free society the Y group would open their own restaurant and then they could either exclude x group or not. In a society that wished to promote equality of X and Y, if Y could show collusion/monopoly or other cause then Y could get government funding to open a Y restaurant or other business. This would have been the slower, less sexy and less divisive way to move away from a legally segregated society. Instead, we developed a series of unconstitutional and wholly invasive laws and have been living with the negative fall out ever since.
    What you wan to do is set up yourself as the arbitrator of what is “hate” and then punish it accordingly, but that is a slippery slope to authoritarianism and away from freedom, though of course you will never admit that because you are too enamoured of the idea of your own goodness and rightness to ever admit that the dark side of regulating private activity.

  34. Ricky says:

    In this instance it is not a matter of “regulating private activity”. History has shown that this “freedom” (justified hate) leads to the worst abuses of human rights ever in the history of men.
    The “dark side of regulating private activity” does not come close…

  35. Anon says:

    On what basis did the Nazis seek to exterminate the Jews? On what basis have gays been historically persecuted? On the same basis that legal segregation rested upon and it is on the same basis that mandated integration rests upon: that the government can decide for its people which of its people are “good” and which are “bad” and what private activity is the business of the state.
    You believe that our government will never make any more “bad” choices, I don’t. That’s the difference between a liberal and a libertarian. History, unfortunately, falls on the side of exercising extreme caution in ceding to the state the power to make these decisions.

  36. Ricky says:

    I have never seen it as “mandated integration”. I simply see it as doing away with legalized racism.
    The libertarian position sounds good in theory, but what is its track record in terms of practical implementation in the real world?
    The conservative position is the most balanced and realistic. And is why up to now America has been the leader of the FREE world. Limited and healthy government as proposed by conservatists, although not immune to making “bad” choices, can best oversee “madated integration” if that is what you want to call it, without over-reaching its powers.
    It is not hard to figure out that liberalism and libertarianism if allowed to run full cause will ultimately lead to chaos and regression.

  37. Anon says:

    I’m not sure how you could possibly view forced busing to achieve racial integration or government quotas/targets based on race/ethnicity/sex or legal suits against companies that don’t have the ‘right’ number of special classes of people as anything other than forced integration. The fact that so far people are still nominally free to live in whatever neighborhood or state they choose to, whether it is integrated or not doesn’t give me much comfort. I don’t at all disagree with the GOALS of civil rights legislation–to remove legal barriers so that everyone can complete equally. But, I very much disagree with the ham fisted methods that have been used and are being used to forcibly compel some kind of diversity utopia that exists only in the minds of the Daily Kos types.
    Ending Jim Crow and increasing opportunities for blacks could have been achieved without the draconian, unconstitutional methods employed…just like we could have fought Al Quada without resorting to torture and the asertion of a host of other unconstitutional crap.
    True, the libertarian philosophy taken in its full to the extreme would probably result in if not anarchy then a kind of retro feudalism where those who can protect their property rights have all the rights. But I am living through the results of the liberal world views and at this point, anything looks better than that.

  38. Ricky says:

    Not a fan of affirmative action either. I have always refused to participate, by the grace of God I got where I am today on merit.
    Affirmative Action was needed though for a period of time to correct the imbalances brought about by legal segregation and in the case of South Africa, apartheid.
    I understand better where you are coming from now and actually agree with you more than I thought.
    On Al Quada though, thank God for George Bush and his resolve, he was exactly what America needed at the time… So glad the liberals and liberitarians were not in charge!

  39. WPE says:

    Well, since you brought up Hitler. I kinda doubt he’d support the Civil Rights Act — he wasn’t big on the treat everyone as equals thing. But I bet he’d have a major hardon for your “deny service to anyone you want” law. “Ya mean I can kick the Jews? outta my place?” Yeah, he’d LUUUVVVV that law.
    Congrats, you’re not just a libertarian supportor, you’re a frigging Nazi sympathizer.

  40. Anon says:

    WPE, what you seem incapable of comprehending is that once you give the government power to decide these things they can always change up who/what are the protected classes. Without the rule of law behind the Nazis discrimination against Jews would have been just that, garden variety discrimination that they had triumphed over for 6 centuries…private discrimination can Never have the power that discrimination by the state does….private businesses would only have the power to say “I won’t hire you/I won’t serve you” they could never have confiscated Jewish businesses and assets let alone hurded them into slave labor camps without the force of law.