Rand Paul victory celebration at private county club (1 Viewer)

[St. Louis Bob]

He also added "I have lots of colored friends."

 

[Neofight]

He also added "I have lots of colored friends."

For Rand's sake, let's hope his friend wasn't shining his shoes at the time.

 

[timschochet]

I believe this candidate could very well be the Dragon Reborn.

 

[Neofight]

I believe this candidate could very well be the Dragon Reborn.

I was under the impression it might be an homage to one of your favorite authors. Turns out I was wrong.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Honestly, this is much ado about nothing IMO,

Poster Posts

TobiasFunke 9

Chadstroma 5

DevilsTrifecta 3

Statorama 3

kupcho1 2

D_House 2

Desert_Power 2

Fennis 2

GroveDiesel 2

whoknew 2

KnowledgeReignsSupreme 2

Gopher State 1

bigbottom 1

Pyscho Wife 1

ukshane 1

Phurfur 1

The Ref 1

Maurile Tremblay 1

Bottomfeeder Sports 1

Bamboo Bill 1

TommyGilmore 1

Neofight 1

otello 1

Sam Quentin 1

Reaper 1

Mookie Blaylock 1

Solid work here.

 

[JJP]

The guy just won the Republican nomination for US Senate. Where should he have held his victory party? Cracker Barrel...

The left is getting desperate in their search to criticize.

 

[Gopher State]

The guy just won the Republican nomination for US Senate. Where should he have held his victory party? Cracker Barrel...

A school gym or church would be refreshing, but then the common people could get in

 

[MrPhoenix]

Hey Dems, how about addressing your own skeletons that you have in the closet instead? That'd be greeeeeat. Thanks!

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

If I ever get elected to the Senate, I'm having my victory party at Hooters.

 

[Neofight]

If I ever get elected to the Senate, I'm having my victory party at Hooters.

Man of the people!I'd likely have mine at a club like the one the RNC staffer got busted at. Man of the peephole.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

The guy just won the Republican nomination for US Senate. Where should he have held his victory party? Cracker Barrel...

The left is getting desperate in their search to criticize.

Rookie.

 

[cstu]

He was named after a snob so I don't see the big deal.

 

[Neofight]

He was named after a snob so I don't see the big deal.

Who's that (the snob)?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

He was named after a snob so I don't see the big deal.

Who's that (the snob)?

Randall Cunningham.

 

[dickey moe]

He was named after a snob so I don't see the big deal.

Who's that (the snob)?

Link

 

[ScottyFargo]

He was absolutely shredded on Rachel Maddow today. Absolutely refused to answer yes or no on whether or not he supports telling a private business that they can't be segregated, instead harped upon the idea that saying "no" would make him a racist. He emphatically stated he was ashamed of how long it took to desegregate the south, but awkwardly kept trying to say that telling a private business that they can't exclude patrons based upon race means that they also can't tell their citizens they can't bring guns into their establishments. Utterly ridiculous to conflate these two issues.

A black man is not a gun.

This guy's gonna need a lot of help.

 

[cstu]

He was absolutely shredded on Rachel Maddow today. Absolutely refused to answer yes or no on whether or not he supports telling a private business that they can't be segregated, instead harped upon the idea that saying "no" would make him a racist. He emphatically stated he was ashamed of how long it took to desegregate the south, but awkwardly kept trying to say that telling a private business that they can't exclude patrons based upon race means that they also can't tell their citizens they can't bring guns into their establishments. Utterly ridiculous to conflate these two issues.

A black man is not a gun.

This guy's gonna need a lot of help.

This is an example why strict Libertarians can't succeed - they look idiotic and out of touch. A little common sense with the Libertarian party would go a long way.

 

[ericttspikes]

The Paul v. Conway election will be fun to watch. This will be a national election, a referendum on the Tea Party. Fireworks a plenty. Conway is an impressive guy from what little I've seen, so I think this will be great political theater.

I actually like the Paul's. I think the GOP messed up marginalizing Ron in 08. He was truly their best choice. Now the GOP is bending over backwards trying to appeal to the Paul's ideology and their followers. A little late for that IMO. I suspect Rand will have the same problem Ron had in 08; his beliefs make crazy sound bites for the opposition. Much like Ron, the playbook against Rand will be to simply echo what he believes in, which can make him sound crazy to moderates, like the whole repeal the Civil Rights Act stuff. Or blow up the Board of Education, etc. Compared to dolts like McConnell though, Rand is a breath of fresh air.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Honestly, this is much ado about nothing IMO,

Poster Posts

TobiasFunke 9

Chadstroma 5

DevilsTrifecta 3

Statorama 3

kupcho1 2

D_House 2

Desert_Power 2

Fennis 2

GroveDiesel 2

whoknew 2

KnowledgeReignsSupreme 2

Gopher State 1

bigbottom 1

Pyscho Wife 1

ukshane 1

Phurfur 1

The Ref 1

Maurile Tremblay 1

Bottomfeeder Sports 1

Bamboo Bill 1

TommyGilmore 1

Neofight 1

otello 1

Sam Quentin 1

Reaper 1

Mookie Blaylock 1

Solid work here.

Most of my posts are replies to people asking me a question. I'm a guy who responds to people when they ask me questions. There are worse crimes.

 

[ericttspikes]

He was absolutely shredded on Rachel Maddow today. Absolutely refused to answer yes or no on whether or not he supports telling a private business that they can't be segregated, instead harped upon the idea that saying "no" would make him a racist. He emphatically stated he was ashamed of how long it took to desegregate the south, but awkwardly kept trying to say that telling a private business that they can't exclude patrons based upon race means that they also can't tell their citizens they can't bring guns into their establishments. Utterly ridiculous to conflate these two issues.

A black man is not a gun.

This guy's gonna need a lot of help.

I thought he held his own o.k. He has the same problem as Kerry, his views are very nuanced. He does have a tough fight. He has to find a way to stick to his positions or he will be just another flip-flopping, spineless politician, yet he also has to find a way to not sound crazy to moderates. As of right now, I think he will have a tough time doing that. But if he pulls it out, the Tea Party will prove they are a force. If not, it will be a huge blow to the movement and both the Tea Party and the RNC will be scrambling going into 2012. Witnessing the changes going on within the Republican party is fascinating. Makes me wish Hunter S. Thompson was still around to see this. I would love to read his take on these last 5 years of politics.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The only interview I've ever watched with Rand Paul is the Maddow interview. He doesn't strike me as being as smart, informed or principled as his dad.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The only interview I've ever watched with Rand Paul is the Maddow interview. He doesn't strike me as being as smart, informed or principled as his dad.

I'm starting to rethink this. It's possible that Rand Paul is being more circumspect in expressing his unpopular views because 1) he's actually trying to get elected and 2) he's now in a general election against a Democrat. I think my perspective on Ron Paul is colored by the fact that he was never really a serious candidate to win the Republican Presidential primary, so he could say pretty much whatever he actually believed. Rand Paul doesn't have that luxury. He realizes that saying "restaurants should be able to refuse service to black people" would give his opponent a pretty devastating soundbite.

 

[Fennis]

Most of my posts are replies to people asking me a question. I'm a guy who responds to people when they ask me questions. There are worse crimes.

rape is way worse.

 

[Bamboo Bill]

Did anyone bring a gun to the Country Club celebration?

 

[Phurfur]

The only interview I've ever watched with Rand Paul is the Maddow interview. He doesn't strike me as being as smart, informed or principled as his dad.

just like the rest of DC.

 

[Bamboo Bill]

The only interview I've ever watched with Rand Paul is the Maddow interview. He doesn't strike me as being as smart, informed or principled as his dad.

just like the rest of DC.

Solid analysis here.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

He was absolutely shredded on Rachel Maddow today. Absolutely refused to answer yes or no on whether or not he supports telling a private business that they can't be segregated, instead harped upon the idea that saying "no" would make him a racist. He emphatically stated he was ashamed of how long it took to desegregate the south, but awkwardly kept trying to say that telling a private business that they can't exclude patrons based upon race means that they also can't tell their citizens they can't bring guns into their establishments. Utterly ridiculous to conflate these two issues.

A black man is not a gun.

This guy's gonna need a lot of help.

This is an example why strict Libertarians can't succeed - they look idiotic and out of touch. A little common sense with the Libertarian party would go a long way.

There are libertarians who believe in the various laws that came out of the civil rights era.

 

[Gopher State]

He also added "I have lots of colored friends."

 

[ScottyFargo]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05...n.php?ref=dcblt

So, by our reckoning, here's Paul's progression on the issue over the past 24 hours:

Paul on Maddow, circa 9 p.m. Wednesday: I don't agree with the Civil Rights Act, but I don't believe in racism.

Paul statement, noon Thursday: I wouldn't support repealing the law.

Paul campaign statement, 2 p.m. Thursday: I support the law and the government's power to enforce it.

Paul on CNN, 5 p.m. Thursday: "I would have voted yes" for the law. "There was a need for federal intervention."

 

[KCC]

Members of the GOP should begin distancing themselves from this guy in a big way. He has a long history of supporting discrimination as a "right" and there is no political upside to associating with someone like that. From The Washington Post:

Rand Paul in '02: I may not like it, but 'a free society' will allow 'hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin'Here's another wrinkle in the controversy over U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul's arguments, made Wednesday to NPR and Rachel Maddow, over whether the Civil Rights Act was necessary to prevent discrimination.In a May 30, 2002, letter to the Bowling Green Daily News, Paul's hometown newspaper, he criticized the paper for endorsing the Fair Housing Act, and explained that "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." (Hat tip: Page One Kentucky. I have purchased the letter from the newspaper's online archives, but will not post it here out of respect for the copyright.)"The Daily News ignores," wrote Paul, "as does the Fair Housing Act, the distinction between private and public property. Should it be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individual's beliefs or attributes? Most certainly. Should it be prohibited for private entities such as a church, bed and breakfast or retirement neighborhood that doesn't want noisy children? Absolutely not."In language similar to the language he's used talking about the Civil Rights Act, Paul criticized racism while defending the right of businesses to discriminate."A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination," wrote Paul, "even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin. It is unenlightened and ill-informed to promote discrimination against individuals based on the color of their skin. It is likewise unwise to forget the distinction between public (taxpayer-financed) and private entities."Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul, cautioned that Paul's statements about federal laws in no way mean he's interested in repealing laws that prevent discrimination."The federal government has the power under the Civil Rights Act to make sure citizens don't discriminate on race," said Benton. "He's not going to repeal it. The only people who are talking about changes to civil rights legislation are people on the left are people who want to use this as a political attack tool. Not any serious people talking about policy."By David Weigel

 

[BoerumHill]

"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."-Rand Paul, 2002

How many libertarians does it take to screw in a light bulb?None. If there is a problem, the free market will take care of it.

 

[greenheads]

What happened to the Rand Paul supporters?

Tea party is code for racist.

 

[D_House]

The majority of the FFA would agree with Paul.

 

[MrPhoenix]

The only interview I've ever watched with Rand Paul is the Maddow interview. He doesn't strike me as being as smart, informed or principled as his dad.

just like the rest of DC.

Solid analysis here.

Sarcasm or not, he's right.

 

[bigbottom]

The majority of the FFA would agree with Paul.

While related, the issue in the poll is limited to hiring decisions (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act), while Paul's views appear to extend to places of public accommodation such as restaurants refusing to serve Black people (Title II of the Civil Rights Act). I imagine the poll results would be different if you asked whether places of public accommodation should be free to refuse service on any ground, including someone's race.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Rand Paul defends country club celebration

USA TODAY

Rand Paul, the newly elected GOP Senate nominee from Kentucky, defended holding his victory celebration at a private country club in an interview today with ABC. He's running as an anti-establishment candidate.

Golf clubs aren't exclusive, Paul said, because Tiger Woods has "brought golf to a lot of the cities and city youth and so, no, I don't think it is as nearly as exclusive as people once considered it to be."

Love it that he brings Tiger into the thought process. Paul is just another big goverment official

Minor mistake making the party an exclusive affair; much bigger mistake bringing up Tiger Woods and mentioning golf being not "nearly as exclusive as people once considered it to be." It doesn't sound as bad as it reads, but why even bring Tiger Woods up? This can be spun so many ways it only points out what a novice he is, which I suppose can be viewed as refreshing. On the other hand, that statement is pretty asinine.

My first thought was "no big deal, but his explanation was just dumb"

 

[bigbottom]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05...n.php?ref=dcblt

So, by our reckoning, here's Paul's progression on the issue over the past 24 hours:

Paul on Maddow, circa 9 p.m. Wednesday: I don't agree with the Civil Rights Act, but I don't believe in racism.

Paul statement, noon Thursday: I wouldn't support repealing the law.

Paul campaign statement, 2 p.m. Thursday: I support the law and the government's power to enforce it.

Paul on CNN, 5 p.m. Thursday: "I would have voted yes" for the law. "There was a need for federal intervention."

Oof.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

If Rand Paul now is pro-Civil Rights Act, someone needs to ask him why he thinks it was constitutional. I thought he was one of those strict constructionist types.

 

[bigbottom]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05...n.php?ref=dcblt

Paul on CNN, 5 p.m. Thursday: "I would have voted yes" for the law. "There was a need for federal intervention."

I bet his dad died a little bit inside when he heard this.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Somebody told him he was being an idiot, I guess. Hopefully people will see his back peddling for what it is.

 

[squistion]

The majority of the FFA would agree with Paul.

While related, the issue in the poll is limited to hiring decisions (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act), while Paul's views appear to extend to places of public accommodation such as restaurants refusing to serve Black people (Title II of the Civil Rights Act). I imagine the poll results would be different if you asked whether places of public accommodation should be free to refuse service on any ground, including someone's race.

Knowing this crowd I seriously doubt it. I remember that poll and was appaled by the results at the time, with the whole tone being "I should be able to do whatever I want with my business, if I don't want to hire blacks, gays, women (whatever) I should be free to do so and the government shouldn't be able to tell me otherwise." Not much of a leap from "I shouldn't have to hire black people if I don't want to" to "I shouldn't have to serve black people if I don't want to."

 

[ceo3west]

Here's another gem. Now he's saying that Obama's criticism of BP sounds Un-American. What a complete tool.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Here's another gem. Now he's saying that Obama's criticism of BP sounds Un-American. What a complete tool.

Blaming other people for screwing something up is pretty much the most American thing I can think of.

 

[ericttspikes]

Wow. That was quick. Rand flip flopping in under 24 hours. The fastest "anti-establishment" to "establishment" conversion in history.

 

[flufhed]

The Paul v. Conway election will be fun to watch. This will be a national election, a referendum on the Tea Party. Fireworks a plenty. Conway is an impressive guy from what little I've seen, so I think this will be great political theater.I actually like the Paul's. I think the GOP messed up marginalizing Ron in 08. He was truly their best choice. Now the GOP is bending over backwards trying to appeal to the Paul's ideology and their followers. A little late for that IMO. I suspect Rand will have the same problem Ron had in 08; his beliefs make crazy sound bites for the opposition. Much like Ron, the playbook against Rand will be to simply echo what he believes in, which can make him sound crazy to moderates, like the whole repeal the Civil Rights Act stuff. Or blow up the Board of Education, etc. Compared to dolts like McConnell though, Rand is a breath of fresh air.

Alot of good info in this post.Pretty much sttes every thought I have had about Paul.

 

[ffldrew]

He was absolutely shredded on Rachel Maddow today. Absolutely refused to answer yes or no on whether or not he supports telling a private business that they can't be segregated, instead harped upon the idea that saying "no" would make him a racist. He emphatically stated he was ashamed of how long it took to desegregate the south, but awkwardly kept trying to say that telling a private business that they can't exclude patrons based upon race means that they also can't tell their citizens they can't bring guns into their establishments. Utterly ridiculous to conflate these two issues.

A black man is not a gun.

This guy's gonna need a lot of help.

Man's a genius - just got a major endorsement from Denny's for this. And now that corporations can contribute/influence campaigns Denny's has announced that the Grand Slam is now the Rand Paul breakfast.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If Rand Paul now is pro-Civil Rights Act, someone needs to ask him why he thinks it was constitutional. I thought he was one of those strict constructionist types.

The most important part of the Civil Rights Act, IMO, was the part invalidating Jim Crow laws. That part is authorized by the 14th Amendment.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

If Rand Paul now is pro-Civil Rights Act, someone needs to ask him why he thinks it was constitutional. I thought he was one of those strict constructionist types.

The most important part of the Civil Rights Act, IMO, was the part invalidating Jim Crow laws. That part is authorized by the 14th Amendment.

If you watch the Maddow interview, the only point of contention was over discrimination by private entities. That's the part he seemed to have a problem with two days ago but has now backtracked on.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Wow. That was quick. Rand flip flopping in under 24 hours. The fastest "anti-establishment" to "establishment" conversion in history.

Washington does that to you...

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If Rand Paul now is pro-Civil Rights Act, someone needs to ask him why he thinks it was constitutional. I thought he was one of those strict constructionist types.

The most important part of the Civil Rights Act, IMO, was the part invalidating Jim Crow laws. That part is authorized by the 14th Amendment.

If you watch the Maddow interview, the only point of contention was over discrimination by private entities. That's the part he seemed to have a problem with two days ago but has now backtracked on.

Yeah, that's a harder one. Once the law treats everybody equally, I don't know what gives the federal government the power to make sure that hotels treat everybody equally as well. Assuming that federal anti-discrimination laws are desirable, that may be an example of where the federal Constitution was initially suboptimal.