0 votes

Our Friends at the National Review discuss Rand Paul: Is he too honest?

Today Dan Foster and I discussed Rand Paul's questions about using the power of the federal government to end private discrimination through the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The criticism from the Right has been that Paul was too honest and too uncompromising in addressing the issue. The criticism from the Left has been that he is a racist. Highlights:

1:20—Should Rand Paul have indulged in this debate?
2:50—Was this too theoretical and therefore bad politics?
3:30—Do we really want politicians to be less thoughtful, less honest?
4:40—Is libertarianism too impractical?
6:00—Robert Gibbs says there is no place in the political conversation to talk about the appropriate role of the federal government.
6:33—The Left has thoughtfully boiled the issue down to Rand Paul being a racist.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Nice discussion. Thanks for posting

Compare the discussion between these two individuals and the mindless chatter on the page of the Washington Post article: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/135405

Those comments on the Post article have proven that the general public has no idea on how to engage in any form of thoughtful dialog without resorting to the lowest form of political discourse...that of snark and the basest of insults.

What a disgusting display we have witnessed the past couple of days. The MSM has succeeded in leading the public around by their noses leaving them totally incapable of a free thought of their own.

These past two days have made me sick. Even some of the recent posts on DP have made me sick.


for that


good discussion..this kind of discussion needs to happen nationally....

“The Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand, the largest experiment in anarchy that we have ever had." - Eric Schmidt

bump to listen to later

bump to listen to later

I enjoyed that