Yesterday I wrote a post about -- like a million other Wednesday morning quarterbacks -- one of the possible paths to victory in Kentucky for Jack Conway -- a Senate seat and candidate I have a particular interest in.
The path went straight through Ran Paul's purist teabaggery.
Now it can be told: Election eve, I was downright worried for Jack. Paul was (and still is) going to raise a ton of Tea Bucks. And, I had heard, Paul was shrewd, and was already tacking to the center to capture the centrist vote.
But then Paul's victory speech showed that, to the contrary, Paul was doubling down on Teabag Libertarianism.
Jack's chances had just improved markedly.
Then yesterday Paul questioned the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- and therefore the racial integration of Kentucky's businesses, from diners in coal country in the east to hotels in Paducah in the west.
It took Barry Goldwater the whole 1964 presidential election to implode.
It took the Gingrich Revolution two to six years, depending on how you measure it.
It took Rand Paul less than 24 hours.
Even Joe Scarborough now says Paul's extremism has moved the race to the lean Democrat column, with Conway likely to win.
Paul set himself up, in short, to be 2010's Barry Goldwater -- whose radical libertarianism and 10th Amendment states' rights advocacy turns him from right wing darling to general election loser in record time.
Except that in 1964, Goldwater's views were not counter to nearly 50 years of settled Supreme Court law and societal acceptance. Goldwater was a libertarian - but he was rooted in his time.
George Allen's soft Macaca racism didn't play, even in the appalachian town of Breaks, Virginia where he said it. And in Kentucky, just one mile to the west, Paul's refusal to endorse the Civil Rights Act of JFK/MLK/LBJ won't play either.
It was a brilliant display of political self-immolation -- or self-mutilation -- surely more than self-mortification.
Paul's Constitutional Hot Tub Time Traveling back to the 1950s (or even 1920s) - and his particular focus on state's rights and the Commerce Clause (more on that below) open more and more opportunities for Conway.
(BTW, why stop at at 1930? Why not Constitutional Hot Tub Time Travel back to 1860? Seriously, a reporter needs to ask Paul if he believes states have the right to secede).
The NPR/Maddow demographic, of course, cares most about the Civil Rights implications of Paul's retrograde constitutionalism -- as do Kentucky's African Americans, who make up 8 percent of the Commonwealth.
But its implications for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the the Department of Education are perhaps of greater personal concern to Kentucky's senior voters, among others.
Which gets us to the John Roberts and Nino Scalia part of this post.
Rand Paul and the Tea Party's constitutional extremism, if and when the public clearly views it, is way out of the American mainstream.
Mainstream America does not believe Social Security is unconstitutional. It does not believe Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional. It does not believe the Department of Education and the Civil Rights Act are unconstitutional.
Americans accept the principal of finality -- be it the Civil War or the certification of the 2000 election - and the constitutionality of above federal programs.
The scary thing is, based on recent Court decisions, the Roberts Court majority -- or at least the Roberts-Alito-Scalia-Thomas plurality -- does not accept finality -- or stare decisis, as translated into legalese. Moreover, the Roberts/Scalia plurality takes a narrow view of Congress' ability to regulate business through the Commerce Clause, like Paul.
And that is the basis for the legal challenges to the Health Care Reform Act now being brought by the right wing Republican Attorneys General like Virginia's Kenneth T. Cuccinelli.
(Conway refused to join the state Attorneys General challenge to the law, natch).
Some Tea Baggers may think the constitutional challenge to Health Care is a good one-off political attack. But Paul and the Tenth Amendment true believers (who evidently haven't read the rest of the Constitution, such as the Commerce Clause the Supremacy Clause) -- see the Health Care challenge as merely the first domino to tip over.
If Health Care's constitutional basis falls, so too falls Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and yes, the Civil Rights Act.
That Paul is sticking to his fundamentalist libertarian guns on this point is bad politics -- but it is good for America's public dialog.
It forces the Tea Party and Tenth Amendment Movement to come to Jesus, and decide if it truly believes that much of our federal government is illegally constituted -- or merely needs a change in leadership and policy (though they don't seem to accept the validity of election returns, at least in the case of Barack Obama).
Jack Conway, thankfully, is the perfect candidate to speak truth -- and reason -- to the Tea Party/Tenth Amendment/Radical Libertarians.
As Kentucky Attorney General and courtroom lawyer before that, Jack has proved his chops as a legal and constitutional thinker. Back when we were housemates, he would have me quiz him before finals until he knew the all the cases cold.
Legal precedent and stability and the rule of law. Something neither Rand Paul nor even the Roberts-Scalia wing care much about. But Jack Conway does.
What is at stake isn't merely one Senate race in Kentucky.
It's the Constitution itself.
Kentucky Republicans backed the Rand Paul view of the world in their primary.
But if the Supreme Court does, we're in real trouble.
Another reason why Kentucky 2010 is so important -- as is America 2012.
How did you feel about "big government," "states' rights," federal spending, federal overreach, federal encroachment on civil liberties, federal infringement of state sovereignty, and the like, between January 20, 2001 and December 31, 2006?
Pretty much the same as I do now. Except I am now more anxious than I was then about the possibility that we may not be able to restore the Republic based on freedom, liberty and justice.
I am curious why it matters what people thought in the past if they are now concerned. A lot has happened since Jan. 2001. You know as well as I that it can take folks a long time to accept that their value system was wrong and that they have been betrayed.
Psychologically it is a hard thing to accept and patience should be granted. Unless your goal is simply to use the chance provided by time to claim some nefarious purpose, such as "this proves racism". In that case I will throw the B.S. flag on you and anyone else using this fallacious argument.
There are racists in all walks of life, but I have met many T. Party folks and they are not racist. But many supported Bush and now realize their mistake.
All of us need to be careful about Generalizations and Stereotypes, not just the "conservatives".
If you open a business, what else for than to serve your customers? The customer is your sole reason for existence and so it is stupid and self-defeating to not serve those for whom your business exists.
But I bet you never thought about that.
Then you have huge problem.
If it violates the 10th amendment or the bill of rights, who carries the blame but the fool who violates it?
Uh, he's a big liberal on MSNBC (yeah, a former republican, but not a conservative).
I'm not sure why this would be a surprise to anyone. Only to those who have difficulty with political discourse, I suppose.
I can't even watch him he's so conservative. There are conservatives on MSNBC unlike all conservatives on FOX
Since the election of the first African American as president of the USA, the conservative racists are coming out from under the rocks left right and center. What a shame on this nation?
Yet maybe the light of day will help kill off this pest.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/flashback_paul_spokesman_resigned_over_racist_mysp.php
I rest my case. There is enough corroborating evidence to securely think of Rand Paul as a racist. I do not agree with his position and largely think that what you said is plaintively obvious to anyone that has thought on the issue for more than five minutes. For Paul to support such a position, despite what you said, speaks to his beliefs, which I believe are racist.
In fact, isn't Obama a racist by your definition, since Jeremiah Wright is his buddy?
Does anyone here even know what racist means?
I have no problem admitting that my father is a racist and a xenophobe. He has ignorant and unenlightened views about black people, arabs, etc., even though he is friends with several black and arab people. Does the fact that my father is a racist make me one automatically? I can tell you with certainty that the answer is no, because I feel no hate for people based on such silly and false divisions of mankind as race and apperance. I truly do judge people and beliefs by their character and content. If I am ignorant of something, I have no problem admitting it, and if I do not like something or someone I will admit it and be tolerant so long as fundamental rights or laws are not violated.
btw, in the article you linked to, the spokesman didn't even post that comment, someone else did. So not only are you committing guilt by association on Paul, but also on the abscure spokesman as well. They may very well have some racists thoughts, but I think they, like anyone, deserves the benefit of the doubt until the case can be proven a little better.
Do you have the right to choose who you associate with? Can I barge in your private house any time I want?
Do you believe in any sort of property rights?
You believe rights are more important then national security. So your not a terrorist, just a terrorist enabler. You see the craziness now? Care to explain how your statement is not the same?
As far as Roberts and Scalia, yes, I'm sure that he would welcome them and that they, thinking the way he does, would be willing to sit there. I don't think the absence of other than whites would trouble them at all, nor would the presence of the gun-toters he likely would welcome, either.
That's an ugly lie. Rand Paul did NOT refuse to endorse the Civil Rights Act. He said there was only one provision of it that he would have tried to change (Title II) had he been in Congress when it was debated. He added that this was not an issue for him and that he doesn't like to associate with people who engage in discrimination. He has since stated the obvious, in order to try to combat this shameful smear campaign, that he has no intention of ever pushing to repeal Title II of the Act or any other part of the Act.
Shame on this site for printing outright lies like this.
Shame on you for not knowing what this guy really stands for.