Give Some Answers, Dr. Paul
Tuesday 25 May 2010
by: Eugene Robinson, Op-Ed

Rand Paul. (Photo: Gage Skidmore; Edited: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t)
Washington - Not so fast, everybody. Rand Paul can't abruptly disavow the extremist views on civil rights that he's been espousing for years and expect us all to just move along. Was he lying then? Is he lying now? Or has the tea party movement's newly crowned Mad Hatter changed his mind?
Republican crisis managers wisely didn't allow Paul to stray within range of the Sunday talk shows, but they can't keep him hidden away in some Kentucky cave until November. Sooner or later, the Senate candidate is going to have to answer a direct question: Was he being untruthful on the occasions when he said the federal government has no authority to outlaw racial discrimination in private businesses such as restaurants? Or is he being untruthful now in claiming he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Actually, there are quite a few direct questions that Paul will be asked. Does he still believe it ought to be permissible to deny Americans access to housing because of the color of their skin, as he argued a few years ago? I have a personal stake in this one, since I live in a neighborhood where a legal covenant once kept African-Americans out. Is this sort of thing cool with him?
I'd also like to know whether Paul really believes in a conspiracy among the U.S., Canadian and Mexican governments to turn North America into a "borderless, mass continent" bisected by a 10-lane superhighway. Because that's what he said in 2008.
"It's a real thing," he said of the imaginary threat to U.S. sovereignty, "and when you talk about it, the thing you just have to be aware of is that if you talk about it like it's a conspiracy, they'll paint you as a nut."
Very little paint is needed.
And while we're at it, what about Paul's recent analysis of the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? The Obama administration faces growing criticism for not being tough enough on the oil company BP for its failure to stop the gushing flow of crude that is fouling Louisiana's ecologically sensitive coastal marshes. Paul, however, sees things differently. "What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'" Paul said. "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."
The "un-American" part is consistent with the campaign by Republican cynics and tea party wing nuts to delegitimize Obama's presidency. But the general idea -- that it's wrong to hold private firms strictly accountable for disasters such as the Gulf spill -- appears to be something that Paul really believes, since he also dismisses the recent West Virginia mine explosion in which 29 miners were killed.
"We had a mining accident that was very tragic," he said. "Then we come in, and it's always someone's fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen."
But maybe accidents are less likely to happen when appropriate safety standards are established and enforced. This kind of cause-and-effect reasoning is only meaningful to those who live in the real world, however. From all evidence, Paul lives in Libertarian La-La Land, where a purist philosophy leads people to believe in the purest nonsense.
Now that he is running for the Senate as a card-carrying Republican, Paul is going to have to abandon, or pretend to abandon, many of his loopy beliefs. This won't be easy, as illustrated by the hemming and hawing he did before finally endorsing the Civil Rights Act. Even then, he suggested that the law was justified only by the prevailing situation in the South. As soon as Paul is allowed out of his cave, someone should ask him whether the landmark legislation properly applies to the rest of the country.
Sarah Palin accused reporters of practicing "gotcha" journalism in seeking to elicit Paul's views. As we know from the 2008 campaign, Palin's definition of a "gotcha" interview is one in which actual questions are asked. But think about it: Did anyone imagine the Republican Party could possibly field a candidate who Republican Chairman Michael Steele wouldn't have been eligible to move into my neighborhood, either, if Paul's view had prevailed. On Sunday, Steele ventured that Paul's philosophy is "misplaced in these times" -- but also said he "can't condemn" it.
That's pathetic, Chairman Mike. Rand Paul can't have it both ways. Neither can the GOP, and neither can you.
Eugene Robinson's e-mail address is eugenerobinson@washpost.com.
(c) 2010, Washington Post Writers Group
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
Eugene. This is not a
Tue, 05/25/2010 - 09:36 — Anonymous (not verified)Eugene. This is not a sentence.
"Did anyone imagine the Republican Party could possibly field a candidate who Republican Chairman Michael Steele wouldn't have been eligible to move into my neighborhood, either, if Paul's view had prevailed. "
Is there an actual live human at truthout who reads articles before they are posted to check the facts and grammar? Seems to me like they just hit the trusty F7 key and let spell check take care of it!
In regards to Rand Paul, though, who cares what he thinks about the civil rights act? Here is a chance to elect someone to the Senate who is against the drug war, which is hurting black people a lot more than Jim Crow ever did. Go read Michelle Alexander's book, "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness". He also wants to drastically cut military spending, end US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and limit the power that multinational corporations hold over our politicians.
Basically the Tea Party is trying to elect someone who holds positions that Democrats have run on for years and were never able to get elected with, but the liberals are too busy looking a gift horse in the mouth to notice.
It seems to me like the establishment is showing that they don't care so much about issues, but they want to make sure they are in control of who is elected and who isn't.
Either that or, to paraphrase Mark Twain, I wonder if the Democrat party is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or imbeciles who mean it!
I care what he thinks about
Tue, 05/25/2010 - 10:22 — basta (not verified)I care what he thinks about the Civil Rights act, for one, and it doesn't seem like he wants to limit the power that multinationals hold over our politicians since he so casually dismisses the death and misery resulting from the laissez-faire policies that directly led to the oil spill, the mine disaster, among many other preventable disasters.
If these are the positions that dems have run on over the years, it's no wonder the country is in such disarray.
The problem I see with Rand
Tue, 05/25/2010 - 12:39 — davewtf (not verified)The problem I see with Rand Paul is that he wants to live in a utopian Free Enterprise system that our economy has not had in decades, and never will again.
A realist would never had said what Rand Paul said about the Civil Rights Act, and RP should be called on it. But, of course, he has never felt the institutional racism that so many others dealt with before the Civil Rights Act was law, nor would he, given his skin color, gender, and relatively privileged upbringing.
Yeah, isn't part of the T-P
Tue, 05/25/2010 - 12:47 — brooke heppinstall (not verified)Yeah, isn't part of the T-P "platform" about runaway corporate power in government? Let me get this straight - BP and mining companies DON'T need the gov'ts. boots on their neck watchdogging them to keep our environment clean and our workplaces safe. Um, isn't that giving corporations MORE power over gov't. agencies? Did we elect these corporations? Honestly, it's hard to imagine that the surveys actually show that T-P followers tend to be more 'educated', employed, white male, etc.. Where did they graduate from school? Some fly-by-night outfit they found on the back of a matchbook? Their inability to follow a logical construct is scary. They're like pre-teens in their thinking. They want all the trappings of adulthood without the rules. There's a reason parents say 'no' when your logic doesn't add up. It's like Rand Paulbots have no understanding of real life consequences. Yikes. Can you imagine a country run by adolescents? Oh, yeah. We just had 8 years of that didn't we? Nuff said.
T-P...might want to think
Tue, 05/25/2010 - 12:54 — brooke heppinstall (not verified)T-P...might want to think about a name change for their party. Wiping up a lot of poop lately. Of course, GOP is becoming more apt when you see the expressions on the faces of the real Republicans every time Paul opens his mouth for a juicy sound bite. DEM! But that boy's good!
I just wanted to note that
Tue, 05/25/2010 - 15:50 — Matt (not verified)I just wanted to note that the remarks about the mine were not in the context of the West Virginia tragedy, but rather the death of two miners in Kentucky. I think he might have a similar reaction in both scenarios; however, to say that was his reaction to the WV mine is just inaccurate.
I CARE IF HE IS AGAINST THE
Tue, 05/25/2010 - 16:19 — fred fep (not verified)I CARE IF HE IS AGAINST THE CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT
Who cares what else he is on my side against or for? Bush had my views on immigration, but I despise him and his ilk. Mussalini had the trains running on time.
I also am puzzled by more educated people supposedly being tea bagger's strength. Well, Sarah Palin is a college grad, right? And she has no command over syntax, logic, English, snse. That Boomers are mostly right-leaning galls em as a boomer but recalling the Me Decade and Yuppies, it isn''t surprising. A large portion of protestors in 60s were in it for frisbee and girls, a little revealed truth
Let's talk Chevron for a
Tue, 05/25/2010 - 16:40 — Jade Queen (not verified)Let's talk Chevron for a respite from BP's drama, for a minute. Ecuadorians are suing for pollution damages in Ecuador because Chevron successfully avoided venue in New York. With venue in Ecuador, a lone judge there can bring in a judgment for billions. CBS asked the U.S. lawyer involved how he will recover the money. Chevron no longer has assets in Ecuador. His answer was that he will take the judgment to the U.S. and ask that it be enforced. So let's go back to BP and Rand Paul. Rand Paul is not a judge with the ability to enforce anything. Lawsuits for damages will be outside his range of influence. Nonetheless, civil damages may be affected by BP's issues.
Gene, Booby, what's your
Tue, 05/25/2010 - 18:53 — BRT549 (not verified)Gene, Booby, what's your beef? You don't understand why you let yourself get so far behind that Rand Paul just isn't making sense to you? Get a grip.
This incessant trying to stuff a square peg in a round hole is only going to frustrate you, so until you "get it", do us all a favor and relinquish the soap crate you've been proselytizing from. Did you actually bother to listen to or read the speech that Rand Paul had made, or were you so irate after another hour of fist-pounding with Rush and Glenn that any message other than what you wanted to hear just couldn't past all that impacted ear wax?
And here I thought that people who submitted articles were actually required to have some measure of journalism skills.
I have several pointed
Tue, 05/25/2010 - 23:37 — victory (not verified)I have several pointed questions:
Who does Rand Paul's eyebrows?
Do you think there is any chance that Sister Sarah and Rand Paul will run away together and produce perfect little mindless babies with big mouths, to populate the world and attend future Tea Parties?
Can we stop talking about inane people now?
Haven't we devoted enough time, money and energy on them?
Could we just solve the oil spill problem, war problems and joblessness, instead?
What? You can't figure that out? Gee, that's surprising.
I guess it's back to the Glenn and Rush Shows, where everyone is dumb as a shoe, but think they have all the answers.
Is anyone else sick of all this dumbing down? Or is this the best we can do here?
The North American Union is
Wed, 05/26/2010 - 01:00 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)The North American Union is VERY real, and there is tons of evidence to prove it. People were starting to wake up to it and saying, "Hell no(!)", so it may have been somewhat put on the back burner for now or become more stealthy, but obviously Robinson, et al., you haven't even looked at the strong evidence that the North American Union is being created in preparation for the U.S. completely abandoning our liberty lifeline and our only protection from absolute tyranny and despotism, the U.S. Constitution, abandoning entirely the sovereignty of the U.S., and folding us into world government.
Can you spell "E.U.", anybody? If it could happen in Europe, it can happen here, and the globalists have come right out in our faces and said this is what they're up, creating the "New World Order (NWO)", which is code for one-world government. The Rockefellers, Kissinger, the Bushs, Obama, etc., are all chomping at the bit to finalize world government that has been their plan all along, for a long, long time. They ain't foolin' around, they aren't just talking, and they mean business; and they have already setup much of world government right underneath our noses for decades. Can anybody spell "U.N."?
The NWO and world government aren't a myth or a "conspiracy theory", and neither is the North American Union. They are conspiracy FACTS. Look into our "public" highways being sold off to foreign corporations, particularly one out of Spain. This is NO joke. These things are going on, and without much outward U.S. government involvement except for the leaders of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico meeting to celebrate joining together. But the designed hell is breaking loose over our mostly porous border with Mexico, so the Obamatron is presently putting on a show of policing it with National Guard for now...
...You watch, this won't
Wed, 05/26/2010 - 01:00 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)...You watch, this won't last, the attention on it will fade away, or we will be distracted with something "much more serious". These globalists, many of them right in the U.S. government, like Obama, want to use nuclear bombs for pete's sake (on Iran, etc.)! These people are freaking insane! If they believe they have to, they will cause or allow another 9/11 on U.S. soil or elsewhere to get us all rallying around nationalism and internationalism again, anything to succeed in bringing about their one-world government and NWO which they have been slowly but surely bringing into reality for a coon's age.
H.G. Wells wrote and published a book in 1939 called, The New World Order, for God's sake; and in it he said, "Countless people will hate the new world order and will die protesting against it"! You see? They even know that the mass awakening to what is really going on will happen as it has already begun to do, and they have planned for it. They plan on exterminating millions, and perhaps billions, of Americans and other world citizens who will stand up against it because they know it isn't really about saving and freeing the world, but about enslaving it and none of us having any True Freedom(s) anymore.
Wake up, people. This battle is for real, and we are in the endgame right now. There is no more time to pussyfoot around. Either you are for True Liberty and Freedom, for the U.S. Constitution, and are True American Patriots for national sovereignty; or you are against True Freedom and Liberty, a traitor to the Constitution and national sovereignty, and are an enemy to us all. Wake up and face corporate-fascism's plans for all of us, to bring us under the complete control and subjugation of worldwide despotism and tyranny that we ALL have a DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY to stand up against, or we are supporters of mass global enslavement and mass murder.
Thank you, S. Wolf Britain,
Wed, 05/26/2010 - 09:02 — Austin Loomis (not verified)Thank you, S. Wolf Britain, for not using the word "amero" in your diatribe about the North American Union conspiracy theory. If you had, I would have had to stop taking anything you say seriously ever again. As it is, I simply choose freely to do so.
That said, I will concede
Wed, 05/26/2010 - 09:03 — Austin Loomis (not verified)That said, I will concede that S. Wolf Britain may be right about the New World Order qua NWO, but if it exists, it's anti-human, not just anti-American.
And, if you read what I('ve)
Wed, 05/26/2010 - 12:00 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)And, if you read what I('ve) said carefully, Austin, I make abundantly clear that the NWO is anti-human, not just anti-American. As I've said, it is to enslave and tyrannize the entire world, not just the United States of America.
Now, I really don't care if you decide not to take anything I say seriously ever again, except that it will of course make me feel very sorry for you because you choose to live in denial and to bury your head in the sand like a good ostrich.
The Amero is part of the North American Union plan, but you are of course free to seek to discredit that which you know nothing of the truth about, and expect people to listen to you about it just because you say so. Most people do listen to such people, to their demise.
I, on the other hand, hope that people don't take my word for ANYTHING, and that they look into what I share, hopefully not just listening to that which supposedly debunks the truth; but, of course, really doesn't. The problem is, most people won't do that.
Anyway, believe what you want at your own peril, don't wake up to what's really going on, don't fulfill your responsibility(ies) and duty(ies) to stand up against it, and you will be complicit, have the blood of countless people on your hands, and will be held completely accountable for it all relatively soon.