Does Rand Paul's win spell trouble for the Republican Party?

[kalm]

I guess I have enjoyed this discussion since I seem to keep jumping in. One reason is that , for the most part, it has been done without name calling and petty stereotyping. Thanks for that.

I generally tend toward a libertarian philosophy. However, I would guess that I am a moderate libertarian (if there is such a thing) because I do believe that one has to be practical in approaches. My basic belief is that government should leave business and commerce alone. But that isn't totally practical. There have to be laws that (1) make the rules for fair play (which I would assume even the most extreme libertarian would concur) and (2) to regulate the behavior of others due to the impact on society at large (pollution, market manipulation, devaluing neighbor's property due to different uses, etc.) This is certainly one of those practical applications. Does a person have a right to discriminate? While wrong, if the number of people who discriminate is immaterial then there probably is no need for government regulation. But it doesn't take an observant person to understand that discrimination and segragation was rampant in society prior to the civil rights laws. And the exlusion of a significant portion of the the population from significant portions of the market place simply due to race could no longer be tolerated. So one principle, libertarianism, was trumped by another principle, equal participation.

And yes society was successful prior to the civil rights laws, but much less successful than it could have or should have been.

Well if you're gonna phrase it like that, I guess I'm a libertarian too.

Good post.

[OL FU]

I guess I have enjoyed this discussion since I seem to keep jumping in. One reason is that , for the most part, it has been done without name calling and petty stereotyping. Thanks for that.

I generally tend toward a libertarian philosophy. However, I would guess that I am a moderate libertarian (if there is such a thing) because I do believe that one has to be practical in approaches. My basic belief is that government should leave business and commerce alone. But that isn't totally practical. There have to be laws that (1) make the rules for fair play (which I would assume even the most extreme libertarian would concur) and (2) to regulate the behavior of others due to the impact on society at large (pollution, market manipulation, devaluing neighbor's property due to different uses, etc.) This is certainly one of those practical applications. Does a person have a right to discriminate? While wrong, if the number of people who discriminate is immaterial then there probably is no need for government regulation. But it doesn't take an observant person to understand that discrimination and segragation was rampant in society prior to the civil rights laws. And the exlusion of a significant portion of the the population from significant portions of the market place simply due to race could no longer be tolerated. So one principle, libertarianism, was trumped by another principle, equal participation.

And yes society was successful prior to the civil rights laws, but much less successful than it could have or should have been.

Well if you're gonna phrase it like that, I guess I'm a libertarian too.

Good post.

This probably means we aren't libertarians

[OSBF]

Great post, dback.

I think it's pretty clear that Rand Paul is not at all racist. His position is not, it seems to me, driven by his views on race. But his position is driven by his libertarian ideology... which he seems to carry to something of an extreme. That seems, frankly, just as troubling.

Milton Friedman put the ideology like this: "no one who buys bread knows whether the wheat from which it is made was grown by a Communist or a Republican, by a constitutionalist or a Fascist, or, for that matter, by a Negro or a white." Not only does this "illustrat[e] how an impersonal market separates economic activities from political views and protects men from being discriminated against in their economic activities for reasons that are irrelevant to their productivity—whether these reasons are associated with their views or their color" but it also "enables people to cooperate peacefully in one phase of their life while each one goes about his business in respect of everything else."

The irony here is that at the time it was written, the civil rights movement was well underway. Only two years before the publication of Capitalism and Freedom one of the defining moments of the movement took place: a number of black students refused to leave a lunch counter after being denied the cups of coffee they wished to purchase. This is one of many examples of discrimination in the quintessentially economic activity of consumption and such discrimination was a major focus of this movement. It sought in large part the end the endless discrimination in the economic activities of blacks throughout the nation. Being denied access to a great many stores, restaurants, services and the like (i.e. consumption) as well as many job opportunities (i.e. employment) solely based on color was a major source of contention and anger of those involved and was the motivation for many of the now famous sit-ins and protests.

Exactly Skelly.

Paul's views on 40 year old legislation that won't be overturned are fairly irrelevant. None the less, unintentional racism is still racism to those being descriminated against.

Unintentional Racism, I like that term. And likely where many people fall on the spectrum, good intentions, but miss just a little with the delivery.

The real tragedy is threefold, that we even need legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that it took until 1964 to get the legislation, and that even in a country as great and diverse as ours we still haven't been able to move past these racial issues and debates.

[OL FU]

Exactly Skelly.

Paul's views on 40 year old legislation that won't be overturned are fairly irrelevant. None the less, unintentional racism is still racism to those being descriminated against.

Unintentional Racism, I like that term. And likely where many people fall on the spectrum, good intentions, but miss just a little with the delivery.

The real tragedy is threefold, that we even need legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that it took until 1964 to get the legislation, and that even in a country as great and diverse as ours we still haven't been able to move past these racial issues and debates.

I may be wrong but while we still have racial issues and while we may have debated it here, the real debate on the civil rights Act has been over for a while.

[OSBF]

Unintentional Racism, I like that term. And likely where many people fall on the spectrum, good intentions, but miss just a little with the delivery.

The real tragedy is threefold, that we even need legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that it took until 1964 to get the legislation, and that even in a country as great and diverse as ours we still haven't been able to move past these racial issues and debates.

I may be wrong but while we still have racial issues and while we may have debated it here, the real debate on the civil rights Act has been over for a while.

For most of mainstream America, that is true. However, it disturbs me to hear the outer fringes on the right want to re-open debate on the merits/legality of things like civil rights and affirmative action. I wish we lived in a society where such laws were not needed. Talk about Utopia.

[Pwns]

Of COURSE it was invented to justify government intrusion. When I'm selling something and government says that I can't freely choose who I sell it to that's government intrusion. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. Now, you could argue that it justifies government intrusion because the government intrusion is justified. An ends justify means argument. I would disagree with the idea that government intruding in order to deny people free choice in who they enter into commerce with and/or associate with is justified. But at least we'd agree on the reality of it being government intrusion.

I just really, really disagree with the idea that you, me, or anybody else has the right to force someone else to associate with us or enter into commerce with us. Such laws do not further the cause of liberty; they are substantial attacks upon liberty.

Plus it's yet one more instance in which we made a mockery of the Constitution. No way the Constitution really bestows the power to do that upon the Federal government. I'm guessing they used the commerce clause and said that discriminating based on X or Y has an EFFECT upon interstate commerce therefore Congress's power to regulate commerce between the States comes into play. That's ridiculous. Someone walking into a restaurant to buy a sandwich isn't interstate commerce; and it doesn't become interstate commerce because the materials used to make the sandwich came from other states either. Not really. The whole deal with "interstate commerce" being creatively defined is just an excuse to give the Federal Government powers it wasn't supposed to have.

I will paraphrase George Will on This week (parenthesis added would be mine take)

The civil rights act replaced one right, the right for individuals in the marketplace to discriminate (immoral) with another right, the right for each individual to participate equally in society.(moral).

I still disagree While the federal goverment is intrusive, the purpose of public accomations was not intrusion. It was to provide equal protection. If it was instrusive this is one case where instrusiveness was necessary. The states, including mine, were not providing equal protection through segregation.

I think the civil rights law would not be justified in the constitution through interstate commerce but through equal protection and I think I justified my position very well earlier. I won't go back over it again. Seperate but equal did not work whether in schools or on buses or at lunch counters.

There's nothing necessarily immoral about discrimination. Hiring a job applicant with more experience over someone with less experience is discrimination. Not letting felons carry guns is discrimination. Charging 23-year-old males more for car insurance than 16-year-old females is discrimination. Discrimination is not a bad thing so long as there is at least some reasoning behind it.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

I don't have anything of note to add to the discussion, but I felt the need to jump in and just agree with an above poster that I've enjoyed the discussion, and the way it's been handled, in this thread immensely.

Exactly. A couple of months back I had said that it would be nice to see at least a few discussions that were not just monkey's throwing shit at each other. This one has been reasoned debate without the emotional BS.

[OSBF]

I will paraphrase George Will on This week (parenthesis added would be mine take)

The civil rights act replaced one right, the right for individuals in the marketplace to discriminate (immoral) with another right, the right for each individual to participate equally in society.(moral).

I still disagree While the federal goverment is intrusive, the purpose of public accomations was not intrusion. It was to provide equal protection. If it was instrusive this is one case where instrusiveness was necessary. The states, including mine, were not providing equal protection through segregation.

I think the civil rights law would not be justified in the constitution through interstate commerce but through equal protection and I think I justified my position very well earlier. I won't go back over it again. Seperate but equal did not work whether in schools or on buses or at lunch counters.

There's nothing necessarily immoral about discrimination. Hiring a job applicant with more experience over someone with less experience is discrimination. Not letting felons carry guns is discrimination. Charging 23-year-old males more for car insurance than 16-year-old females is discrimination. Discrimination is not a bad thing so long as there is at least some reasoning behind it.

That isn't discrimination, those are sound rational decisions based on facts accepted by society, or in the case of insurance, statistical methods. Discrimination would be if you had 2 equally quallified job candidates and picked a white over a black because you don't like blacks. Or renting your rental property to only whites, provided EQUALLY quallified minority potential tennants are available and have requested to rent from you.

In my mind you enter the relm of discrimination when you cross over into the irrational or illogical decision making process. True discrimination is extremely immoral, and I don't think most segements of our society will tollerate it today.

Does it still happen? Sure, and that's so unfortunate. One would think that in a country as great as ours we could eventually outgrow the need for laws like the CR act of 64, but we haven't yet. Will we get there someday? I like to think so.

[OL FU]

I will paraphrase George Will on This week (parenthesis added would be mine take)

The civil rights act replaced one right, the right for individuals in the marketplace to discriminate (immoral) with another right, the right for each individual to participate equally in society.(moral).

I still disagree While the federal goverment is intrusive, the purpose of public accomations was not intrusion. It was to provide equal protection. If it was instrusive this is one case where instrusiveness was necessary. The states, including mine, were not providing equal protection through segregation.

I think the civil rights law would not be justified in the constitution through interstate commerce but through equal protection and I think I justified my position very well earlier. I won't go back over it again. Seperate but equal did not work whether in schools or on buses or at lunch counters.

There's nothing necessarily immoral about discrimination. Hiring a job applicant with more experience over someone with less experience is discrimination. Not letting felons carry guns is discrimination. Charging 23-year-old males more for car insurance than 16-year-old females is discrimination. Discrimination is not a bad thing so long as there is at least some reasoning behind it.

I think it was obvious I was talking about that kind of discrimination

[Appaholic]

... While I agree with you & RaP in principle with regard to liberty, the sad fact is that history has shown it is not a realistic conecpt in practice. Because, to protect everyone's liberty to do what ever they want is to invariably trample on someone else's liberty...I guess this is where I have to admit that a certain amount of government is not only good, but necessary....the government isn't requiring the business owners to open their private residences to anyone by law, but basically telling them you have to if you want to participate in the public marketplace, you can't discriminate based upon these criteria which are based upon the "All men are created equal" concept....wish the free marketplace could regulate without laws, but history has shown it's incapable of assuring this protection & naive to continue to think it could....

The bottom line with Rand Paul is that he is good for America (first), good for the Republicans (second) and is not a threat to civil liberties or civil rights. His approach may or may not have been more effective "in the day," but is definitely the most effective approach for today.

It took big brass balls to appear on the Maddow show and take the grilling. He handled it pretty well and keeps getting better as he goes along by focusing more on present-day fairness and issues and less on historical wonk issues. History does matter but Rand has it almost right and a lot better than most.

Rand Paul represents a truly hopeful, productive and functional future. Consider Rand Paul in comparison to the facrcical caricature of itself that the 60's civil rights movement has become, as represented, for example, by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

I don't disagree at all.....glad to have some fresh perspective out in the discussion....

[kalm]

I don't have anything of note to add to the discussion, but I felt the need to jump in and just agree with an above poster that I've enjoyed the discussion, and the way it's been handled, in this thread immensely.

Exactly. A couple of months back I had said that it would be nice to see at least a few discussions that were not just monkey's throwing **** at each other. This one has been reasoned debate without the emotional BS.

Eat shit and die mother fucker!

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Exactly. A couple of months back I had said that it would be nice to see at least a few discussions that were not just monkey's throwing **** at each other. This one has been reasoned debate without the emotional BS.

Eat shit and die mother fucker!

I wish I'd have seen this earlier when I had the energy to Google an appropriate response. Kalm fuckin' nailed me on that one!

[CitadelGrad]

I may be wrong but while we still have racial issues and while we may have debated it here, the real debate on the civil rights Act has been over for a while.

For most of mainstream America, that is true. However, it disturbs me to hear the outer fringes on the right want to re-open debate on the merits/legality of things like civil rights and affirmative action. I wish we lived in a society where such laws were not needed. Talk about Utopia.

It isn't necessary to re-open the debate on affirmative action. That debate has never ended. Hopefully, it will end with the death of affirmative action.

[JohnStOnge]

I think the civil rights law would not be justified in the constitution through interstate commerce but through equal protection and I think I justified my position very well earlier. I won't go back over it again. Seperate but equal did not work whether in schools or on buses or at lunch counters.

The provisions you're talking about deal with what governments do. Here's the relevant language:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

A restaurant owner opting not to do business with someone is not a State denying equal protection.

There is nothing, NOTHING in the Constitution that really authorizes the Federal government to tell a private business owner that they cannot choose to refuse to engage in commerce with someone if they don't want to nor is there really anything in the Constitution that authorizes the Federal government to become involved in the hiring decisions of private businesses.

[OL FU]

I think the civil rights law would not be justified in the constitution through interstate commerce but through equal protection and I think I justified my position very well earlier. I won't go back over it again. Seperate but equal did not work whether in schools or on buses or at lunch counters.

The provisions you're talking about deal with what governments do. Here's the relevant language:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

A restaurant owner opting not to do business with someone is not a State denying equal protection.

There is nothing, NOTHING in the Constitution that really authorizes the Federal government to tell a private business owner that they cannot choose to refuse to engage in commerce with someone if they don't want to nor is there really anything in the Constitution that authorizes the Federal government to become involved in the hiring decisions of private businesses.

Once again, I would disagree. The absence of a law prohibiting discrimination where discimination is rampant is to legally deny someone equal protection. In the perfect world, one or two people who decide to discriminate would be a non-issue. But we had a situation where 20% of our population was significantly handicapped by discrimination. In the south that discrimination was "according to the law", in my opinion a clear violation of the constitution. In the north the constitutional issue was less clear but certainly one could argue that by not protecting against rampant discrimination the state was denying liberty.

BTW, what is considered a privilege of a citizen. Someone who is more versed in constitional lingo can instruct. Privileges certainly seems to be a board term and it would not be over reaching to assume participation in the market place is one of those privileges.

[OSBF]

For most of mainstream America, that is true. However, it disturbs me to hear the outer fringes on the right want to re-open debate on the merits/legality of things like civil rights and affirmative action. I wish we lived in a society where such laws were not needed. Talk about Utopia.

It isn't necessary to re-open the debate on affirmative action. That debate has never ended. Hopefully, it will end with the death of affirmative action.

It would be wonderful if we can ever get to the point when our society has evolved to a level where it is no longer necessary. I hope I live to see that day. I have faith that my children will, but I'm not so sure I will see it.

[JoltinJoe]

The public accommodations provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were authorized under congress's commerce clause authority found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution. The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Courts review congressional action under the commerce clause pursuant to a "rational basis" test, meaning whether Congress in utilizing its commerce clause authority has specified any rational connection between its law and its impact on interstate commerce. Thus, congressional authority under the commerce clause is deemed to be broad.

By the 1960s, it was an already established principle that congress had the authority under the commerce clause to regulate what would otherwise be purely private conduct if that conduct, repeated on a wide-scale basis, had the capacity to affect interstate commerce.

Modern commerce clause principles were formalized during the New Deal era and much of the New Deal legislation was enacted by congress explicitly under its commerce clause authority.

The public accommodations provisions of the civil rights laws were upheld by the courts because discrimination on the basis of race in the availability of services such public dining and lodging affected interstate commerce under the doctrine of substantial cumulative economic effects. The reasoning was the discrimination in the availability of accommodations, based on race, would hinder or dissuade minorities from engaging in interstate travel on a wide-scale basis, which would ultimately have a substantially negative effect on interstate commerce. Congress acted to promote interstate commerce by knocking down barriers to full travel on the part of minorities. It reasoned that a private party who offers lodging to interstate travelers was therefore lawfully subject to congressional commerce clause authority, and cannot assert that this was purely private conduct, because he had offered his services in interstate commerce.

An interesting case which establishes the principle used to enact these provisions of the civil rights act is a case called Wickard v. Filburn -- or what my study group in law school jokingly called the "Wheat Police Case."

[OL FU]

The public accommodations provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were authorized under congress's commerce clause authority found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution. The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Courts review congressional action under the commerce clause pursuant to a "rational basis" test, meaning whether Congress in utilizing its commerce clause authority has specified any rational connection between its law and its impact on interstate commerce. Thus, congressional authority under the commerce clause is deemed to be broad.

By the 1960s, it was an already established principle that congress had the authority under the commerce clause to regulate what would otherwise be purely private conduct if that conduct, repeated on a wide-scale basis, had the capacity to affect interstate commerce.

Modern commerce clause principles were formalized during the New Deal era and much of the New Deal legislation was enacted by congress explicitly under its commerce clause authority.

The public accommodations provisions of the civil rights laws were upheld by the courts because discrimination on the basis of race in the availability of services such public dining and lodging affected interstate commerce under the doctrine of substantial cumulative economic effects. The reasoning was the discrimination in the availability of accommodations, based on race, would hinder or dissuade minorities from engaging in interstate travel on a wide-scale basis, which would ultimately have a substantially negative effect on interstate commerce. Congress acted to promote interstate commerce by knocking down barriers to full travel on the part of minorities. It reasoned that a private party who offers lodging to interstate travelers was therefore lawfully subject to congressional commerce clause authority, and cannot assert that this was purely private conduct, because he had offered his services in interstate commerce.

An interesting case which establishes the principle used to enact these provisions of the civil rights act is a case called Wickard v. Filburn -- or what my study group in law school jokingly called the "Wheat Police Case."

Thanks, shows me what I get for thinking

[AZGrizFan]

It isn't necessary to re-open the debate on affirmative action. That debate has never ended. Hopefully, it will end with the death of affirmative action.

It would be wonderful if we can ever get to the point when our society has evolved to a level where it is no longer necessary. I hope I live to see that day. I have faith that my children will, but I'm not so sure I will see it.

Government-forced affirmative action has DELAYED that day, OB.

[ngineer]

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.

Excellent point. I was actually shocked by Paul's avoidance of the question being put to him. It looked bad and will certainly need major massaging and 'spin' to prevent fallout from hurting him in November. I have a lot of respect for his father, but this 'positioning' on whether the Civil Rights Act is applicable to commercial interests isn't 'conservative', it's 'reactionary'. For him to avoid the question of whether the government had the authority to require integration at the lunch counter raises significant concerns over basic human rights protections. Be watchful of the old 'code words'...in the 1960's it was "states rights", now it's "less government". I don't think the question is 'how large' government is, but whether it is efficient and doing what the people want. We certainly need a substantial sized government to address defense, national security, highways, bridges, sewer, water,etc. Of course, there is the 'third rail' of social security, medicare and medicaid which many bleat about, but have no answer that would not throw our system into chaos. Unfortunately, it comes down to "whose ox is getting gored" when people start talking about shrinking government. Reagan talked about it all the time, yet the federal government grew tremendously during his eight years.

[JoltinJoe]

have a lot of respect for his father, but this 'positioning' on whether the Civil Rights Act is applicable to commercial interests isn't 'conservative', it's 'reactionary'.

The power of congress, under its Commerce Clause powers, to regulate what would otherwise be private business decisions if those decisions, repeated on a wide-scale by others in private businesses, can have an impact on interstate commerce, is established law. It existed as constitutional law prior to the 1960s (to suggest it was invented to justify the Civil Rights Act is not correct) and was generally affirmed by the Rehnquist Court in the 1995 decision, United States v. Lopez, even though the court rejected the statute at issue in that case.

I can agree that congress should only exercise its commerce clause powers to affect private choices in the most narrow of cases. But I also think that acting to prevent discrimination in the availability of accommodations, which acted as a de facto bar to full participation in American life and commerce for tens of millions of Americans, was a legitimate and necessary use of this power, and certainly one of those narrow cases in which action was appropriate.

[OL FU]

have a lot of respect for his father, but this 'positioning' on whether the Civil Rights Act is applicable to commercial interests isn't 'conservative', it's 'reactionary'.

The power of congress, under its Commerce Clause powers, to regulate what would otherwise be private business decisions if those decisions, repeated on a wide-scale by others in private businesses, can have an impact on interstate commerce, is established law. It existed as constitutional law prior to the 1960s (to suggest it was invented to justify the Civil Rights Act is not correct) and was generally affirmed by the Rehnquist Court in the 1995 decision, United States v. Lopez, even though the court rejected the statute at issue in that case.

I can agree that congress should only exercise its commerce clause powers to affect private choices in the most narrow of cases. But I also think that acting to prevent discrimination in the availability of accommodations, which acted as a de facto bar to full participation in American life and commerce for tens of millions of Americans, was a legitimate and necessary use of this power, and certainly one of those narrow cases in which action was appropriate.

I concur and thanks for saying it much more eloquently than I could.

It amazes me that some don't understand the necessity of this. Notwithstanding the possibility that our country was on the verge of collapse from continued segregation, to exclude 20+% of the population from equal participation was unacceptable and immoral.

[JoltinJoe]

One of the big failings of Libertarians is that they think the world is an utopia. Free Market/enterprise did not eliminate discrimination. Only the Government (and Federal at that) has the ability to do that, in the REAL world.

I think that reflects a complete misunderstanding of the Libertarian outlook. Libertarians would not agree with the implied premise that freedom to discriminate...in terms of people making decisions about who they would and would not associate with or engage n commerce with...should have been eliminated. People should be free to decide not to associate with other people or not to engage in commerce with other people. Period.

During those times there were state and local laws that said that restaurant owners, etc., HAD to provide separate facilities based on race. That too was an infringement on liberty and it was fair game. But when the Federal government tells the owner of a private business that he or she MUST do business with people he or she would prefer not to do business with that is flat out wrong. Shouldn't be happening.

John:

Let me ask you these questions.

You do agree that the power "to regulate Commerce ... among the several states" is an enumerated authority delegated to the Congress under Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution?

In a free-market society as ours, what is commerce among the several states other than a collection or series of many private business transations, the sum of which constitutes commerce among the states?

And if that is true (and I think it is), doesn't the Congress by necessity possess the authority to regulate private conduct if that conduct, on a repeated basis, possesses the capacity to affect interstate commerce?

If not, what else could the Commerce Clause imply in a free-market society?

Before the Supreme Court's decisions in the 1930's-40's upholding the congressional commerce clause authority to regulate even private contracts, the Supreme Court in 1916, held in a case called Hammer v. Dagenhart -- and over a landmark dissent by Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes -- that federal laws which sought to establish minimum standards for child labor were unconstitutional as a violation of a private commercial contract rights of the employers. So, for consistency sake, you would have to count yourself among the majority in that case. Agreed?

Holmes' dissent in that case is must reading for those interested in the history of American constitutional law. Twenty-two years later, Holmes's dissent formed the basis for a 9-0 decision which upheld the National Fair Labor Standards Act.

[OSBF]

It would be wonderful if we can ever get to the point when our society has evolved to a level where it is no longer necessary. I hope I live to see that day. I have faith that my children will, but I'm not so sure I will see it.

Government-forced affirmative action has DELAYED that day, OB.

I'm not gonna disagree with you there, however, the delay has not been nearly as significant as if the country followed a strict conservative doctrine when it comes to civil rights. Just look at the battle being waged for equal rights under the law by same sex families. The christian right can crow all they want, but the govt take on same sex marriage has nothing to do with morals, but is all about $$$$. They just don't want to have to give the married filling joint return tax break to another 10% or so of the population.

[Ivytalk]

Rand will find a way to lose this election to an oatmeal Democrat who will last one term, and life will go on.