Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul, facing withering criticism for questioning elements of the Civil Rights Act, lamented the state of the media Thursday when asked about the tempest swirling around his remarks.First, I would like to ask Paul where President Obama's honeymoon was? The right has waged a relentless war against the president since before he even won the Democratic primary.
"I thought I was supposed to get a honeymoon," Paul sighed in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "When does my honeymoon start after my victory?"
In an appearance on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show" Wednesday night, Paul debated whether the landmark federal anti-discrimination legislation should apply to private businesses – unleashing a torrent of attacks from national Democrats eager to undercut his candidacy two days after he secured the GOP nomination.
I understand Rand Paul's comments, and I partially agree with him. Could a business survive if it actively discriminated a percentage of the population? While libertarians would argue that it is the private enterprise's right to exclude and the free market would most likely weed out the practice of discrimination, the reality is that the free market would fail to do so now. Conservatives have attacked liberals and the notion of a post-racial America since Obama won the presidency, so what makes me think they are right that discrimination would cease or remain the same if portions of the Civil Rights Act were to be removed?
I also had another thought.
"There was an overriding problem in the South that was so big that it did require federal intervention in the Sixties," Paul said. "The Southern states weren't correcting it, and there was a need for federal intervention."
Can one not apply Paul's logic to the immigration debate? What are Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, or California doing to correct immigration from Mexico?