Rand Paul

 Update:  I just read from Allahpundit, who I consider a pretty reliable source, that Rand Paul is chummy with Alex Jones.  An anyone who knows me knows that Alex Jones does not sit well with me on a lot of levels.  I find this dismaying.  It could lead to a Democrat getting that seat.  I still think I'd rather have Dr. Paul in that seat than any Democrat, but I'm leery of what might come out of his mouth.  Still ... his dad keeps getting elected.  And then there's that guy who thinks Guam might capsize.  He's in office.  Rand should get out of the national spotlight while (if) he can and concentrate on Kentucky.

Plus, of course ... Obama was more than chummy with Jeremiah Wright.  And he got elected President.  So maybe there's hope.   Kind of a twisted route to hope, though, eh?
--------------------------------------

An old progressive friend asked me if I caught Rand Paul's interview on Rachel Maddow.

This would be like asking Thomas Sowell if he caught Rand Paul's interview with David Duke.  I avoid Rachel Maddow because she has a quasi-religious agenda she would like to see foisted on America.  The religion of the left.

But I did go check it out on YouTube.  It was horrible.  But not for the reasons Maddow and Joe Klein think.

Rand's position on private property rights and freedom of association are right on, but Maddow was interested only in getting him to say at the very least that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which was passed with majority Republican support and with a minority of Democratic support, incidentally) went too far. She wanted to get a soundbyte saying either that he wouldn't have voted for it, or that he doesn't fully support it. That's all the progressive advocacy media needs. Rachel was not interested in finding what Rand Paul's views are on the issue of race. She wanted this:

"AGAINST CIVIL RIGHTS!!!! THIS PROVES THE TEA PARTY IS RACIST LIKE WE SAID ALL ALONG!!!!!" This is what they want. And Paul figured it out, too late. He wasn't prepared for the interview. Too bad.

Of course, this may be one reason many people voted for him. He's not a career politician and he sucks at the dance. So instead of trying to dance, he should have just stated his philosophical position and told her that how he would have voted in 1964 is a hypothetical question as it is now 2010.   Rand couldn't have been more than a year old when the Civil Rights Act was passed.

If she were interested in an honest, intellectual discussion of the merits and demerits of that act, it would have been a different story, but that wasn't the case. That's never the case with Ms. Maddow.

The Civil Rights Act, with all of its merits and flaws, is a sacred cow to the Left today, and to say it was flawed in any way is blasphemy.  That is the way it will be presented in the media.

The distinction between public and private is important, and people have lost sight of it. Freedom ain't free.

No matter how abhorrent we may find it, JUST AS we must allow Westborough Baptist "Church" people to do and say the things they do and say, we must also allow racists to be racists until the racists impinge on the life, liberty, or property of another.

We can (and people like Martin Luther King, Jr. have done it successfully in the past using Ghandi's methods) apply social and financial pressure on such businesses and people to get them to change their minds, but again, it's their building, their business. If they don't want white people in there, I won't go in. If they allow smoking and I don't want to experience smoke, I won't go in. If they don't let black people in, and I don't like THAT, I won't go in.

Just as I get to decide who I let in my own private home on whatever criteria I choose, private businesses should be able to decide who they let in to their businesses, and even who they hire.

Hooters should be able to hire only female waitresses if that's the image they want to project, and if they want all waitresses to have a c-cup or larger, that is Hooters' business. Customers can vote with their feet. If an employer wants to hire only black men, or only Pakastani women, if a Chinese restaurant wants to hire only Chinese people, or even to SERVE only Chinese people -- a private company should be able to do what they like. That's Liberty, like it or not.

Rachel wanted Rand Paul to say "I am against the 1964 Civil Rights Act" so they have a soundbite to beat him and the Tea Party over the head with in the coming election, that is all.

In the comments, someone translated the subtext in a humorous, but all too truthful manner:

I watched that interview live last night.. This was my take on the whole interview:

Rachel: Are you a racist?
Rand: No.
Rachel: So you admit to being a racist?
Rand: No.
Rachel: You're defending being a racist?
Rand: No.
Rachel: Does your mother know you're a racist?
Rand: I'm not a racist.
Rachel: Sir, just yes or no. Does your fat, racist mother know you are a racist?
Rand: No, no, that's all wrong.
Rachel: So you never admitted to your racist whore of a mother that you're a vile, disgusting racist?
Rand: Wait...
Rachel: Sorry for inturrupting, go ahead and admit to being a racist.
Rand: No.
Rachel: Thanks, Dr. Rand Paul, for coming on and having a civil discussion about what a racist you are.
Rand: Uhh... Thanks?

It was also pointed out in the comments to the gloaters (who desperately want this to be Rand Paul's "Katie Couric" interview)   that his father has very similar views and that he's been elected to Congress several times.

"Racist!"

That again?

Yawn.