Kentucky is saying “no” to Rand Paul.
The Kentucky Senate has adopted a resolution declaring any form of discrimination to be inconsistent with American values. The move is in reaction to remarks made by Kentucky U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul.
Louisville state Senator Gerald Neal introduced the resolution late last week during a special session on the state budget. It was adopted without objection in the predominantly Republican chamber.
I thought the faux outrage over Paul's remarks on the Civil Rights Act had pretty much peaked, forgetting for a moment that there is no limit to how low the craven can go. All discrmination bad -- there's a shocking position for you.
Paul's ruminations on the issues of liberty and equality and how far the government should go to regulate private behavior for the public good provided the potential for the kind of meaningful debate the pundits and politicians and voters always say they desperately want. Surprise, surprise, they didn't really mean it.
Paul's remarks, by the way, demonstrate why libertarians usually get about 1 percent or less of the vote. They'd much rather wallow in philosophical purity than say the predictable sort of things that get people elected. But Paul also demonstrates that he is perhaps more of a pragmatic politician than his followers might like. His rush to "explain" what he "really" meant would make any Democrat or Republican envious.
Comments
What a load. Offering a resolution absolutely no one would or could object to. Real risk taker this Neal is.
Grandstanding pandering putz.
Actually, it is a good thing that the Kentucky Senate did by passing that resolution. In the current political environment of 30-second sound bytes and much editorializing and much venom-spewing, the Kentucky Senators were protecting the state and themselves from any repercussions from Paul's opinions. Rarely in the political world does one see a colleague taking a fall because one of their own is in hot water.
You're absolutely right, Leo, about Libertarians. They are so used to not being elected or even running a contentious second to a Democrat or Republican for the office that most of the time they philosophize and don't really know which parts of what they are offering appeals to enough people to get elected, nor how to soften an issue enough to get elected.
This year some Libertarians are running as Republicans, thus Rand Paul (whose father Ron is a Texas Republican Rep.). I notice that since Rand Paul made his first "Republican" mistake, he has changed his staff, and hopefully, has taken up Senator Mitch McConnell's offer to tutor him on.......well, how to run a campaign and win.
BTW Libertarians and Republicans have some convictions in common, like small government, fiscal constraint, national security, etc. In fact, the Libertarians, to my knowledge, have never changed their convictions in favor of compromise. And they have been patient enough to wait for the current political environment, which has come to their conclusions about many issues.
One difference I see between Republicans and Libertarians is that the latter are not social conservatives along with being fiscal conservatives.