The bottom-line on this whole Rand Paul/Civil Rights Act non-controversy is, "the establishment is petrified." Why else would progressives on both the left and right go all the way back to 1964 to run against him?
In reviewing the blogosphere reactions to the Rand Paul/Civil Rights Act dust-up, it appears that most people are behind him. Thinking people, after all, can see right through the race-obsessed left's outrageously outrageous outrage and straw man attacks.
Some bloggers do (sensibly) worry about the politics of the situation, but I think we need to remember that the left will spin anything and everything against the right. In other words, there are no "safe" opinions. Remember, they painted "nationalized education/prescription drug benefits for all/bailout extravaganza" George W. Bush as a "far-right, anti-government extremist."
So let's keep this all in perspective. It's only a controversy as far as we on the right allow it to be. Besides, this isn't an argument about race. It's an argument about power:
Paul, the darling of the Tea Partyers and one of the highest profile GOP Senate candidates in the country, cannot bring himself to say -- clearly and unequivocally -- that the Federal government should have the power to prohibit private businesses from discriminating on the basis of skin color, religion, or national origin.
Think about it for a moment ... The government having "the power to prohibit private businesses from discriminating on the basis of skin color" doesn't eliminate racism, but conveniently sweeps it under the rug instead. For how can one avoid twisted racists like the plague, if we're not even allowed to know who they are?
But that's another argument for another time ... For now, I leave you with Jack Hunter ...
The Meaning of Rand Paul
The day after Rand Paul’s landslide Republican primary victory for US Senate in Kentucky the mainstream Left tried to paint him as a segregationist and the mainstream Right either ignored or attacked him, and for good reason. Like his father Ron, Rand Paul represents revolution—and the establishment is petrified.
Let’s begin with the Left. Afraid that they can’t beat a conservative Republican of Paul’s pedigree in this Tea Party-influenced, anti-Obama political climate of 2010, liberals are trying to run against him in 1964. Cherry picking irrelevant references Paul has made about private property rights and how they could possibly relate to the Civil Rights Act or even the Americans with Disabilities Act, Democrats are trying to portray Rand the libertarian as a closeted Klansmen who secretly hates “coloreds” and “cripples.”
It’s no surprise that in any discussion about government intrusiveness and private business, race-obsessed liberals immediately equate free will and free markets with Jim Crow. When MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow hysterically brought up the specter of segregated lunch counters during an interview with Paul, author Thomas Woods noted the absurdity of even having such a conversation today, writing for The American Conservative: “any non-hysteric knows a segregated restaurant would be boycotted and picketed out of existence within ten seconds, but we’re supposed to fret about fictional outcomes from the repeal of a law that will never be repealed.” Fictional indeed, and portraying Paul as somehow anti-black is no different than conservatives who portray antiwar protesters as anti-American—where legitimate concerns by citizens about the actions of their government are misconstrued to imply horrible and untrue things about the concerned. Liberals howl when rightwing talk hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck call President Obama “racist,” and now the Left shamelessly borrows from their playbook.
But it’s not just the Left who are upset over the rapid ascent of America’s next top conservative idol. Former Bush speechwriter David Frum finds Paul to be as “extreme” as liberals do, writing on the day after the election, “Rand Paul’s victory in the Kentucky Republican primary is obviously a depressing event for those who support strong national defense and rational conservative politics.” Frum’s preferred candidate in the Kentucky primary, Trey Grayson, was not only a former Bill Clinton Democrat but a George W. Bush Republican, deviating little from the party establishment and heartily receiving their endorsement—as former Vice President Dick Cheney and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell lined up behind Grayson in a desperate attempt to prevent Paul from winning. With Paul trouncing Grayson 59% to 34%, the old Republican guard lost in a Randslide.
Read the whole thing here: The Meaning of Rand Paul
[...] More on the Rand Paul Civil Rights Non-Controversy But it’s not just the Left who are upset over the rapid ascent of America’s next top conservative idol. Former Bush speechwriter David Frum finds Paul to be as “extreme” as liberals do, writing on the day after the election, “Rand Paul’s victory in the Kentucky Republican primary is obviously a depressing event for those who support strong national defense and rational conservative politics.” Frum’s preferred candidate in the Kentucky primary, Trey Grayson, was not only a former Bill Clinton Democrat but a George W. Bush Republican, deviating little from the party establishment and heartily receiving their endorsement—as former Vice President Dick Cheney and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell lined up behind Grayson in a desperate attempt to prevent Paul from winning. With Paul trouncing Grayson 59% to 34%, the old Republican guard lost in a Randslide. [...]