Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Paul beat the hand-picked candidate of the highest ranking Republican Party member in the United States.

IMO, it can only help the GOP - they need to get away from the type of party they were under Bush. If they are going to be credible again, it has to come from the non-Washington, fiscally responsible type of candidacy that they have with Paul. Anything that bucks the party's power core is probably a good thing since they aren't going to win just going back to the same old playbook again.

GannonFan wrote:IMO, it can only help the GOP.......

Not if he isn't a social conservative.

Oh wait........he opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest.......nevermind.

I think it shows that the Tea Party, contrary to the opinion of many, hold republicans responsible for where we are along with democrats. First Utah and now Kentucky.

My guess is that if Rand holds some of the same ideas as Ron and if the majority of the conservative candidates held those positions then the republican party would be in trouble. That is not going to be the case.

I do believe Rand has done something few republicans would consider which is question whether Afghanistan is critical to our national security. That kinda puts him in a different category. and that is not a bad thing.

PS, The republican party is already tarnished. One of the things I find funny when McConnell talks about how well the republicans are going to do in 2010. They aren't going to do well because of McConnell and other repubs, they are going to do well because of how poorly the democrats are doing.

dbackjon wrote:Paul beat the hand-picked candidate of the highest ranking Republican Party member in the United States.

You still don't get it.

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Paul beat the hand-picked candidate of the highest ranking Republican Party member in the United States.

You still don't get it.

I was going to say to dback, "And your point is?"

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Paul beat the hand-picked candidate of the highest ranking Republican Party member in the United States.

You still don't get it.

I get it. Anti-incumbent fever is hitting both parties. The Republican Party can't count on anti-Democratic fever to sweep them to victory in November, like they have planned on.

dbackjon wrote:

Baldy wrote: You still don't get it.

I get it. Anti-incumbent fever is hitting both parties. The Republican Party can't count on anti-Democratic fever to sweep them to victory in November, like they have planned on.

It's much much more than any "anti-incumbent" fever.
You might not get it now, but it will hit you like a sledgehammer come November.

dbackjon wrote:Paul beat the hand-picked candidate of the highest ranking Republican Party member in the United States.

Sure...it could spell trouble...

I doubt it will...since that highest ranking Republican Party member is part of the problem and needs to go too...

Maybe he'll get the message...

A stinging rebuke to McConnell, for sure.

mainejeff wrote:

GannonFan wrote:IMO, it can only help the GOP.......

Not if he isn't a social conservative.

Most of us social conservatives are fiscal conservatives and foreign policy conservatives first. Lots of social conservatives don't want to inspect someone else's bedroom.

The perfect case in point is Ron Paul himself, who is personally a social conservatives.

Rand Paul and politicians like him will be the salvation of the Republican Party.

Did Rand really say that the civil rights act prohibiting discrimination in the market place was not appropriate?

I hope he didn't say that.

OL FU wrote:Did Rand really say that the civil rights act prohibiting discrimination in the market place was not appropriate?

I hope he didn't say that.

Yes, he did say that.

OL FU wrote:Did Rand really say that the civil rights act prohibiting discrimination in the market place was not appropriate?

I hope he didn't say that.

I would implore you to visit maddow.msnbc.com and watch Rachel Maddow's interview with Rand Paul. It's lengthy, but if you want to get the whole sense of what Paul said you need to watch it. The media accounts on this so far have been poorly done, in my opinion.

Maddow did yet another amazing job with this interview. Maddow, as much as she's ultra liberal, has always done an excellent job in my opinion to be fair in her reporting and has been more than willing to give those who she disagrees with airtime and the opportunity to answer questions without being interrupted. She's cordial but frank, and will only push you when you're obviously dodging a question.

I lost a little (not a lot) of respect for Dr. Paul in this interview -- and not because of the opinion he's arguing for on the Civil Rights Act. While I disagree with it, I can at least understand the argument from a legal standpoint. It's really not all that "out there". Why I lost respect for him is his posturing around the question and dodging it. If you believe private businesses shouldn't fall under the cloud of the Civil Rights Act, say it. Be proud of it. Don't dodge the question. Say that you would have worked to have that section of the Act removed.

Dr. Paul has tried to brand himself as an "outsider", a man's man, someone who's not afraid to say what's on his mind and to rail against the mainstream of both political parties. You can't do that and then coward behind this controversial issues. You can't have it both ways, Dr. Paul.

There's a place for Dr. Paul in our government, I really believe it. I really wouldn't mind it if he made it into Congress -- as long as there's a liberal lion like Ted Kennedy there to fight against him. As much as I bash the lunatic fringe -- I don't classify Dr. Paul in that category. Is he ultra conversative? Perhaps. But that surely doesn't make him a lunatic. He's shown to me that he's an intelligent thinker, this interview aside. And since I typically like intelligent people that I disagree with, I'd even think about voting for him if he ran in Georgia.

Just wish he would have been upfront and blunt about his position on the CRA and ADA instead of hiding behind the whole "Well I disagree with any type of discrimination, but..." argument. We get it, you're not a racist and you're scared to death of being painted in that corner. But if that's what you believe, say so. We have a right to know.

dbackjon wrote:

OL FU wrote:Did Rand really say that the civil rights act prohibiting discrimination in the market place was not appropriate?

I hope he didn't say that.

Yes, he did say that.

Well then if then this seat no longer should be safely republican. That shows a total lack of understanding that the only way to guaranty equal protection under the law requires equal protection in the market place. There is no way to acheive one without the other.

OL FU wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Yes, he did say that.

Well then if then this seat no longer should be safely republican. That shows a total lack of understanding that the only way to guaranty equal protection under the law requires equal protection in the market place. There is no way to acheive one without the other.

Again, I'd ask that you actually watch the interview. The issue (and Paul's answer) is a lot more complex than a yes or no.

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:

OL FU wrote:Did Rand really say that the civil rights act prohibiting discrimination in the market place was not appropriate?

I hope he didn't say that.

I would implore you to visit maddow.msnbc.com and watch Rachel Maddow's interview with Rand Paul. It's lengthy, but if you want to get the whole sense of what Paul said you need to watch it. The media accounts on this so far have been poorly done, in my opinion.

Maddow did yet another amazing job with this interview. Maddow, as much as she's ultra liberal, has always done an excellent job in my opinion to be fair in her reporting and has been more than willing to give those who she disagrees with airtime and the opportunity to answer questions without being interrupted. She's cordial but frank, and will only push you when you're obviously dodging a question.

I lost a little (not a lot) of respect for Dr. Paul in this interview -- and not because of the opinion he's arguing for on the Civil Rights Act. While I disagree with it, I can at least understand the argument from a legal standpoint. It's really not all that "out there". Why I lost respect for him is his posturing around the question and dodging it. If you believe private businesses shouldn't fall under the cloud of the Civil Rights Act, say it. Be proud of it. Don't dodge the question. Say that you would have worked to have that section of the Act removed.

Dr. Paul has tried to brand himself as an "outsider", a man's man, someone who's not afraid to say what's on his mind and to rail against the mainstream of both political parties. You can't do that and then coward behind this controversial issues. You can't have it both ways, Dr. Paul.

There's a place for Dr. Paul in our government, I really believe it. I really wouldn't mind it if he made it into Congress -- as long as there's a liberal lion like Ted Kennedy there to fight against him. As much as I bash the lunatic fringe -- I don't classify Dr. Paul in that category. Is he ultra conversative? Perhaps. But that surely doesn't make him a lunatic. He's shown to me that he's an intelligent thinker, this interview aside. And since I typically like intelligent people that I disagree with, I'd even think about voting for him if he ran in Georgia.

Just wish he would have been upfront and blunt about his position on the CRA and ADA instead of hiding behind the whole "Well I disagree with any type of discrimination, but..." argument. We get it, you're not a racist and you're scared to death of being painted in that corner. But if that's what you believe, say so. We have a right to know.

I have read the comments. And while I too can understand the argument, it ignores the basic fact (at least I think it is a fact) that equal protection under the law cannot exist when discrimination is legally allowed in the market place even if implicitly. The south had Jim Crow laws which institutionalized discrimination and violated equal protection. Most of the north did not have such laws, but accomplished the same thing through housing discrimation (and other forms) that, while not explicitly stated as legal, were legal through the absence of law. The south discriminated aginast blacks by law. The north allowed discrimination by the absence of a law.

I don't judge a man by one opinion but for me this is an important one. Probably because I am overly sensitive due to many trips to the north where I was presumed racist due to my accent. But without the restrictions on discrimination in the market place, removing Jim Crow alone would not have solved the problem. As I said look at much of the north prior to the civil rights act.

hopefully this shows that I understand the issue and have thought about it.

OL FU wrote:

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:
I would implore you to visit maddow.msnbc.com and watch Rachel Maddow's interview with Rand Paul. It's lengthy, but if you want to get the whole sense of what Paul said you need to watch it. The media accounts on this so far have been poorly done, in my opinion.

Maddow did yet another amazing job with this interview. Maddow, as much as she's ultra liberal, has always done an excellent job in my opinion to be fair in her reporting and has been more than willing to give those who she disagrees with airtime and the opportunity to answer questions without being interrupted. She's cordial but frank, and will only push you when you're obviously dodging a question.

I lost a little (not a lot) of respect for Dr. Paul in this interview -- and not because of the opinion he's arguing for on the Civil Rights Act. While I disagree with it, I can at least understand the argument from a legal standpoint. It's really not all that "out there". Why I lost respect for him is his posturing around the question and dodging it. If you believe private businesses shouldn't fall under the cloud of the Civil Rights Act, say it. Be proud of it. Don't dodge the question. Say that you would have worked to have that section of the Act removed.

Dr. Paul has tried to brand himself as an "outsider", a man's man, someone who's not afraid to say what's on his mind and to rail against the mainstream of both political parties. You can't do that and then coward behind this controversial issues. You can't have it both ways, Dr. Paul.

There's a place for Dr. Paul in our government, I really believe it. I really wouldn't mind it if he made it into Congress -- as long as there's a liberal lion like Ted Kennedy there to fight against him. As much as I bash the lunatic fringe -- I don't classify Dr. Paul in that category. Is he ultra conversative? Perhaps. But that surely doesn't make him a lunatic. He's shown to me that he's an intelligent thinker, this interview aside. And since I typically like intelligent people that I disagree with, I'd even think about voting for him if he ran in Georgia.

Just wish he would have been upfront and blunt about his position on the CRA and ADA instead of hiding behind the whole "Well I disagree with any type of discrimination, but..." argument. We get it, you're not a racist and you're scared to death of being painted in that corner. But if that's what you believe, say so. We have a right to know.

I have read the comments. And while I too can understand the argument, it ignores the basic fact (at least I think it is a fact) that equal protection under the law cannot exist when discrimination is legally allowed in the market place even if implicitly. The south had Jim Crow laws which institutionalized discrimination and violated equal protection. Most of the north did not have such laws, but accomplished the same thing through housing discrimation (and other forms) that, while not explicitly stated as legal, were legal through the absence of law. The south discriminated aginast blacks by law. The north allowed discrimination by the absence of a law.

I don't judge a man by one opinion but for me this is an important one. Probably because I am overly sensitive due to many trips to the north where I was presumed racist due to my accent. But without the restrictions on discrimination in the market place, removing Jim Crow alone would not have solved the problem. As I said look at much of the north prior to the civil rights act.

I whole heartedly agree with the arguments you present, and that would be the exact argument I would use if I was arguing against Dr. Paul.

My point wasn't and isn't that Paul is correct. He's wrong. My point is that Paul's position is being blanketed as being whole heartedly against the Civil Rights Act. That simply isn't the case. He's simply arguing (weakly, I might add) against the implementation of the Act against private businesses. And while I totally disagree, it's not nearly as fringe a line of thinking that he's being painted out to be.

Furthermore, his position would be consistent with his economic policies of small government. While we'd disagree on that point, I at least appreciate his consistency.

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:

OL FU wrote:
I have read the comments. And while I too can understand the argument, it ignores the basic fact (at least I think it is a fact) that equal protection under the law cannot exist when discrimination is legally allowed in the market place even if implicitly. The south had Jim Crow laws which institutionalized discrimination and violated equal protection. Most of the north did not have such laws, but accomplished the same thing through housing discrimation (and other forms) that, while not explicitly stated as legal, were legal through the absence of law. The south discriminated aginast blacks by law. The north allowed discrimination by the absence of a law.

I don't judge a man by one opinion but for me this is an important one. Probably because I am overly sensitive due to many trips to the north where I was presumed racist due to my accent. But without the restrictions on discrimination in the market place, removing Jim Crow alone would not have solved the problem. As I said look at much of the north prior to the civil rights act.

I whole heartedly agree with the arguments you present, and that would be the exact argument I would use if I was arguing against Dr. Paul.

My point wasn't and isn't that Paul is correct. He's wrong. My point is that Paul's position is being blanketed as being whole heartedly against the Civil Rights Act. That simply isn't the case. He's simply arguing (weakly, I might add) against the implementation of the Act against private businesses. And while I totally disagree, it's not nearly as fringe a line of thinking that he's being painted out to be.

Furthermore, his position would be consistent with his economic policies of small government. While we'd disagree on that point, I at least appreciate his consistency.

I wasn't arguing whether the media presentation was correct. In fact, my natural inclination would be to believe that the media is guilty until proven innocent. I, also, don't presume that he is opposed to civil rights in general or that he is a racist because he believes that business should have the right to discriminate. But I do question his understanding that without that particular prohibition on the market, the civil rights act is gutted.

I also understand this particular issue may be more important in my view than others.

The fact is that the repeal of Jim Crow laws, while important, was the easy target. Implicit legality of discrimination in the market place was in many respects a larger and more difficult obstacle to equal protection than the hard to defend institutionalized racism of Jim Crow.

If the party elites are going to fight the tea-party instead of trying to bring the factions of the party together, then it is true.

I just can't see the GOP elites being suppportive of a guy who is pro-civil liberties and is for reductions in defense spending.

Fox News was covering some sort of controversy involving Paul Jr this morning, but I missed the gist of it. Did anyone catch that?

SuperHornet wrote:Fox News was covering some sort of controversy involving Paul Jr this morning, but I missed the gist of it. Did anyone catch that?

Deals with his interview on the Rachel Maddows show...