Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

May 21, 2010

WHEN A WALK-BACK BECOMES A SPRINT.... It all started with a simple, 11-word question: "Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?" The question was posed by the editors of the Louisville Courier-Journal to Rand Paul, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky.

The answer proved problematic -- Paul says he's opposed to discrimination, but also opposes laws that impose restrictions on free enterprise. The Civil Rights Act went too far, Paul argued, when it mandated requirements on private entities. That's what he told Courier-Journal, NPR, and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, and it's consistent with what he wrote in 2002 when he articulated his opposition to the Fair Housing Act for the same reasons.

Indeed, Rachel specifically asked Paul if a private business should be able to refuse service to black people. The Republican candidate replied, "Yes."

And then the evolution of Rand Paul kicked into overdrive.

Over the course of 24 hours, Paul went from opposing the Civil Rights Act to opposing repeal of the Civil Rights Act to considering the Civil Rights Act settled law to actually supporting the legislation he said he would have opposed.

[Paul] said he would have voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act if he were in the Senate at the time, calling the racial climate at the time "a stain on the South and our history."

"There was an overriding problem in the South that was so big that it did require federal intervention in the Sixties," he said. "The Southern states weren't correcting it, and there was a need for federal intervention."

Presented again with the original question that got him in trouble in the first place, the Kentucky Republican said, "Yes, I would have voted yes" on the Civil Rights Act.

As political flip-flops go, Rand Paul's reversal is one for the books. "Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?" He had a very specific answer before yesterday, which he'd articulated on multiple occasions, over the course of many years. It just happens to be the exact opposite of the position he endorsed while on CNN.

It appears that Paul had a choice: defend his deeply held principles and try to convince voters of the merit of his ideas, or abandon those principles when they became politically problematic and put his Senate bid in jeopardy. Paul has obviously made his decision.

Indeed, he's trying to soften other extreme beliefs, too. Paul has already voiced opposition to the Americans with Disabilities Act, but when asked about the ADA by Wolf Blitzer yesterday, the Senate hopeful said, "I'd have to look at it and see."

Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (50)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Interestingly, the most mainstream of outlets - The Page - isn't buying it. The headline right now calls him an "Inartful Dodger."

I'm not sure whether it's simply a process critique or shock that he actually defended segregation, but in any case, it signals he will not get an easy ride from the press.

Posted by: Amy on May 21, 2010 at 8:41 AM | PERMALINK

George Stephanoplois is trying ...surprisingly...to pin the jackass down but rand is slick....he will not answer the questions....just whining and crying about how he is being picked on by the mean ole left!

Posted by: Ltc on May 21, 2010 at 8:41 AM | PERMALINK

George ended the interview abruptly...almost showing he was PO'd at poor picked-on rand....

Posted by: Ltc on May 21, 2010 at 8:43 AM | PERMALINK

Hey! He hasn't abandoned his principles, he's just lying about them.

Posted by: hells littlest angel on May 21, 2010 at 8:46 AM | PERMALINK

Yet another clumsy example of a Republican hiding his deeply held beliefs long enough to get elected, after which out pops the weasel. It's like watching the wolf put on the sheep's clothing.

Posted by: Keeping Track on May 21, 2010 at 8:48 AM | PERMALINK

At the same time that I would like to see Rand Paul be straight-up and honest about his extreme libertarian philosophy, and stop whining that he has somehow been shanghai'd, I keep seeing overstatements about what he actually said. The summary in this post is fair, but the comment that he "defended segregation" is an overstatement. (It's like saying that people who are pro-choice favor abortion -- his statement is that segregation in a business is bad, but he would allow owners to make a bad choice.)

I believe him when he says he abhors racism; I just think he's very naive about what would happen if Title II of the Civil Rights Act disappeared. He's up against a problematic consequence of the libertarian philosophy.

Posted by: Algernon on May 21, 2010 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK

Rand Paul is an example of, "Just smart enough to be dangerous."

He's familiar with all the polemics- probably started with The Fountainhead as a bedtime story from Daddy Ron- but none of the critiques.

If you're brought up on Dogma of any sort, it's hard to let the scales fall from you eyes- even if your an ophthalmologist.

As the newest darling of the Teabaggers, he's the personification of "In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king."

Posted by: DAY on May 21, 2010 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK

The gift that keeps on giving:

(AP) WASHINGTON - Kentucky's Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul is criticizing President Barack Obama's handling of the gulf oil debacle as putting "his boot heel on the throat of BP."
Paul says Obama's criticism of the oil company sounds like an attack on business and "really un-American."

In an interview Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America," Paul says the president's response is part of the "blame game" that's played in the U.S. Paul said that leads to the thinking that tragic incidents are "always someone's fault" and added, sometimes accidents just happen.

Posted by: SteveT on May 21, 2010 at 8:55 AM | PERMALINK

If he really weren't trying to appeal to the racists that the Republicans stole from the Democrats with the Southern Strategy, he could have said, "I would have supported any law that completely stopped the states from imposing segregation. Jim Crow is the kind of state action that led me to distrust the government."

He did not because he did want those folks to vote for him. Remember, his dad is a cafeteria libertarian, too.

Posted by: freelunch on May 21, 2010 at 8:55 AM | PERMALINK

Would love to see an ad showing Lester Maddox with pistol in hand, and his son holding an axe handle, while chasing an African-American customer from Maddox's private business. With a photo of Rand, saying, "Well, I, personally, wouldn't have eaten there, but..."

Posted by: berttheclock on May 21, 2010 at 8:55 AM | PERMALINK

It will be interesting to see how he answers the abortion question. I mean, how does government have the right to tell a private individual what to do with her body?

Posted by: Jack Lindahl on May 21, 2010 at 8:55 AM | PERMALINK

He reminds me of my friends growing up in Texas in the '60s. They used the Bible to justify their racism. They didn't hate black folks, see, it was the Bible that made them do it. It's the same with Rand's regard for property rights.

Posted by: jimbo on May 21, 2010 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know Rand Paul very well, myself, Algernon. What sort of bona-fides are there that he abhors racism besides his recent protestations? It's easy to say, "I'm not a racist." Can he offer a shred of evidence to support that statement?

Posted by: beejeez on May 21, 2010 at 8:58 AM | PERMALINK

"There was an overriding problem in the South that was so big that it did require federal intervention in the Sixties," he said. "The Southern states weren't correcting it, and there was a need for federal intervention."

Perhaps our lazy, somnolent so-called "liberal media" will recognize one of its favorite instant narratives, the flip-flop.

The problem here isn't just the flip-flop, or course, or the fact that, yes, Paul is probably just lying now, but the fact that by admitting that there are problems too big for states to solve that require Federal intervention, he's undermined his entire loony libertarian philosophy.

Jackasses like Paul like to pretend that problems like civil rights, mine safety, pollution, Social Security, Medicare and so many other things that the Federal Government eventually took on had already failed to be addressed by the states. Unfortunately for him, he can't pretend any more.

Posted by: Gregory on May 21, 2010 at 8:59 AM | PERMALINK

john galt fail. bhahahahaha.

Posted by: lloydcarroll on May 21, 2010 at 8:59 AM | PERMALINK

He didn't merely sprint, he set a political 'land speed record!'
Right now, Paul's got a bad case of athlete's tongue, or hoof-in-mouth disease. Don't let him off. My advice to his opponent, AG Conway, is to keep Rand talking.
If I were Conway, I'd remind people that he is a lawyer and Paul an Opthomologist, and say, 'I know the law better, but why is it that I see more clearly Dr. Pauls vision is not what the people of KY want in their Senator?'
I'd then run TV ad's on this. The commercial would look like the view of the alphabet chart that one looks through to see which lens gives a better view - Show a clip of Paul talking about civil rights and ask, "Is this better?" Then show a clip of Conway and ask, "Or this?"

Posted by: c u n d gulag on May 21, 2010 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK

I see these hard-core libertarians as essentially lazy thinkers. Instead of doing the heavy lifting to deal with the complexities of a modern society, they want to just throw up their hands and say "Whatever."

Posted by: Virginia on May 21, 2010 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINK

How apt that Paul is an opthamologist, as he continues to view our Constitution with a severe case of retinitis pigmatosa.

Posted by: berttheclock on May 21, 2010 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINK

You would think these people would have worked out the codewords/dog whistles by now, like Republicans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater#Atwater_on_the_Southern_Strategy

Posted by: r_m on May 21, 2010 at 9:10 AM | PERMALINK

Another amazing example of changing tunes after the big money political handlers step in. Now that Paul's the Republican nominee in Kentucky, and no matter how much the establishment Republicans disliked him, he's now their guy, so they send in the handlers to make him sing electable tunes.

Principles are for primaries. Even though I abhor his stances, if he'd stuck to them at least he'd be honest. But it cannot be clearer what he's now doing as he steps up from the bluegrass fields to the football field of national spotlight and politics. One would think that such a transparent reversal would sink a candidate, but I've learned that there are simply a wide swathe of people in this country who agree with Paul, and want him in power.

Posted by: terraformer on May 21, 2010 at 9:11 AM | PERMALINK

Gregory makes an excellent point. Rand Paul trusts the invisible hand of the market to correct abhorrent behavior, like discriminating against some of our citizens, but admits that it was not happening in the south of the '60s.

Posted by: sceptic on May 21, 2010 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

There's an excellent reason why libertarianism, unlike other utopian systems like communism, has never even been tried. It's utterly unworkable. It takes about thirty seconds for libertarian ideals to bump up against the hard facts of human nature, to paraphrase Orwell, and then libertarianism goes pffffft!

Posted by: T-Rex on May 21, 2010 at 9:16 AM | PERMALINK

When Paul and his Tea partying cohorts fully embrace our wondrous diverse citizenship, he and they will, hopefully, more fully understand the true genius of the founding Framers of our Constitution - a document he and his cohorts proclaim to cherish!

The Framers had just been through nine years of States' sovereignty serving no one in particular any good.

Paul and his ilk would have us return to the Anti-Federalist argument and bring us up through the Gag Rule and the South's particular institution, into the Compromise of 1876 and the rushing in of Jim Crow and Joe Turner, and now wants us to forget he doesn't like the legislation of '64, '65, and '68 - WTF Paul!

This tack of our past is what lost at crucial junctures that have helped define us as a society striving to be lawful and just as opposed to authoritarian and lawless!

The compact produced in 1787 is capable of being amended, and as such, the Tea Baggers would do well to bone up on its true value to a free and liberty-minded people! -Kevo

Posted by: kevo on May 21, 2010 at 9:19 AM | PERMALINK

It's important to remember that the real issue here is not libertarianism, it's racism. And no, I'm not accusing Rand Paul-- for what it's worth, his statements on the subject are vehement and unambiguous, as they ought to be.

But I've believed, ever since around Election Day 2008, that the Republican Party is going to have to face up to the racism in its ranks. Maybe this is where it starts-- we shall see.

Posted by: MattF on May 21, 2010 at 9:20 AM | PERMALINK

but when asked about the ADA by Wolf Blitzer yesterday, the Senate hopeful said, "I'd have to look at it and see."

Ah, I see he picked up a few rhetorical pointers from his Republican colleagues. Pretend you no nothing about the law you constantly rail against that's been around for 20 years.

Posted by: oh my on May 21, 2010 at 9:29 AM | PERMALINK

I'm from Louisville and today's Courier-Journal reprinted 2 editorials from 1964 after the Civil Rights Act was signed. Well worth reading. Much is made of Kentucky's 2 senators voting for the Act.

McConnell likes to compare himself to the great Republican John Sherman Cooper.

Mitch couldn't carry his shoes.

Posted by: Charlie on May 21, 2010 at 9:34 AM | PERMALINK

He's never been challenged on his positions-clearly he has only spoke to those who agree with him. First time he runs up against someone that actually asks him pointed questions about the implications of his position, he looks like a fool. He clearly hadn't thought them through. But, at least he's no Palin. He obviously is smart, just unchallenged.

Posted by: Flounder on May 21, 2010 at 9:35 AM | PERMALINK

Indeed, Rachel specifically asked Paul if a private business should be able to refuse service to black people. The Republican candidate replied, "Yes."

Well, not quite. At 8:00 we have:

MADDOW: But what about private businesses? I mean, I hate to -- I don`t want to be badgering you on this, but I do want an answer.
PAUL: I'm not -- I'm not --
MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?
PAUL: Yes. I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form...

Paul's "I'm not -- I'm not --" comes at 8:08, and Maddow continues her question, talking over him. The "yes" in Paul's answer comes at 8:11, and it's really not "yes" but halfway between "ya" and "uh-huh," and then he goes into a long answer about freedom of speech and allowing "uncivilized behavior," clearly trying (as he does several times) to distract Maddow from her simple yes-or-no question. He does not say "yes" as in the transcript, and I don't think he meant to answer the question "yes" (or "yeah" or whatever), because he's right in the middle of ducking, bobbing and weaving, and the last thing he wants to do is give Maddow's straight question a straight answer. It's more like a "yeah, I see where you're going with this."

It's a shame, because the true answer is obviously yes, and he tiptoes up to it several times but never quite gets there.

Posted by: Lucia on May 21, 2010 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

I believe him when he says he abhors racism; I just think he's very naive about what would happen if Title II of the Civil Rights Act disappeared.

Okay, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's not purposely whistling up the base. The best that can then be said about him is not that he's naive about the actual results of his philosophy, but completely indifferent. He and his buds really don't even consider how their beliefs play out, because the "hard part" of "freedom" is always something some other (not coincidentally unfree) person has to bear.

It's bombing from 15,000 feet. You never have to see the bodies. Libertarians have perfected the art of also never thinking about them.

Posted by: shortstop on May 21, 2010 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

"Paul says he's opposed to discrimination..."
In much the same way that I'm opposed to peeing in the shower. I don't do it myself, but I don't really care if other people do it. After all, it's not *me* they're peeing on...

Posted by: Govt Skeptic on May 21, 2010 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

Obviously the guy is a nut and it's reasonable to be suspicious of this kind of instant conversion. But there's a really good side of this. This guy has lived in a bubble where his bizarre theories aren't challenged and he can delude himself into thinking that they're perfectly normal, reasonable, mainstream beliefs. He just discovered that that's very far from the case.

Posted by: larry birnbaum on May 21, 2010 at 9:53 AM | PERMALINK

Short Paul: The Civil Rights Act? You see, I was against it before I was for it. Hell, I have nigg...negr...African American friends who come inside my house.


What a tool.

Posted by: Winkandanod on May 21, 2010 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

Okay, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's not purposely whistling up the base.

Having considered myself a Libertarian at times in the past, I really don't think he's whistling up the base. Like everyone else in that movement, he's no doubt worked himself into a frenzy that the worst assault on freedom imaginable is government interference.

It's not that he thinks racism is good; he just thinks government telling people they can't act in a racist way is worse. That it has dog-whistle implications to the Republican base is just an added benefit.

Posted by: Equal Opportunity Cynic on May 21, 2010 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

To be fair, I did not hear Paul reply "Yes" to whether a business should be able to discriminate in Rachel Maddow's interview; he repeatedly ignored the question (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/).

It is quite reasonable, however, to ask far-right candidates if they would repeal or reform laws that regulate private businesses: health codes, child labor, environmental resource protection, worker safety, ADA, worker's comp, non-discrimination in hiring, etc.

Posted by: crispinpierce on May 21, 2010 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

Rand Paul is also quite OK with taking government money as part of his DO practice.
See http://www.frumforum.com/rand-pauls-personal-special-interest

Time Mag note further ironies:
Paul has lately said he would not leave abortion to the states, he doesn't believe in legalizing drugs like marijuana and cocaine, he'd support federal drug laws, he'd vote to support Kentucky's coal interests and he'd be tough on national security.

Not a somewhat admirable man of near-principle like his dad, but just another Rebaglickin hack and flunky who uses libertarianism as a selective tool to screw the average person. Just what his Party wanted, of course.

Also, don't let him confuse actual discriminatory laws like Jim Crow, with what private businesses should be allowed to do (nor confuse with disapproval as such.)

Posted by: Neil B on May 21, 2010 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

Also, try to get employees thinking: what if 40-hour week laws were repealed, how much would we be asked to work? That's a prime hypocrisy of the Right and their tough rabble enablers: like to pick on minimum wage (because it doesn't affect them much, directly) but evade issue of overtime rules etc.

Posted by: Neil B on May 21, 2010 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

It's not that he thinks racism is good; he just thinks government telling people they can't act in a racist way is worse.

Yes. Like I said, he's indifferent to the actual implications of not telling people they can't choose who to publicly accommodate. Yeah, racism isn't nice, but it doesn't affect him, and the people it does affect are necessary collateral damage in the "hard part of freedom."

I'm not convinced, though, that he hasn't considered and actually calculated the base's reaction as part of the package rather than a side benefit (though I agree that's not his primary, or perhaps just not his original, motivation). He saw what his father's newsletters' racist screeds and personal quotes did for Ron Paul's support and donations from white supremacist groups and random racists. It's not possible that Rand Paul is unaware of the kinds of voters his positions strongly attract. Will they be enough to outnumber the people his positions turn off -- and get him elected?

Posted by: shortstop on May 21, 2010 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

Steve Benen wrote: "... defend his deeply held principles ..."

If there is one thing that libertarianism emphatically is NOT, it's "deep".

So Rand Paul would be defending his deeply held shallowness.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on May 21, 2010 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

What pisses me off about this is WHAT ARE YOUR BELIEFS??? Was he telling the truth THEN or NOW? It doesn't matter what he SAYS it's how he'll act if elected. Geeezzzz can you spell McDonnell of VA???

Posted by: SYSPROG on May 21, 2010 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

Andrew Sullivan has a lot of really interesting reading on this topic yesterday and today. Neil B highlighted some elements of Paul's buffet approach to libertarianism. In adA reader points out that Paul supports abortion restrictions*, coal subsidies and drug prohibition. Government intervention for me but not for thee.

Also, this piece reminds us that Jim Crow laws were an example of government intervention: http://raggedthots.blogspot.com/2010/05/a-pauling-view-on-civil-rights.html

One hopes that Jim Crow laws haven't come up just because condemning them isn't controversial, but it's worth remembering that state governments were acting to institutionalize racism.


---
*I don't believe there's a clear libertarian view on abortion, but many libertarians disagree with me.

Posted by: Equal Opportunity Cynic on May 21, 2010 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

Someone should ask this man - who is against government healthcare - why he defends the fact that he makes a comfortable living off medicare!

Posted by: jJS on May 21, 2010 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

To be fair, I did not hear Paul reply "Yes"

If his answer is "No", then he would be supporting the Civil Rights Act.

Posted by: qwerty on May 21, 2010 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

Rank, like so many Rethugs, has signaled, in his own code, the southern whites of Kentucky exactly how he feels about race. And they'll love him for it even though he's being forced to walk back his true feelings for PC's sake. He's trying to say that while he doesn't support discrimination, other people have a right discriminate, businesses have a right to discriminate, and that's the way it should be. What he probably doesn't realize is that in the absence of an equal distribution of power, that creates 2nd class citizenship. And maybe he thinks that's OK too.

If everyone were indeed equally powerful, and could equally discriminate if they chose to then I suppose there would be some basis for a moral discussion, if nothing else. Blacks could discriminate against whites using the same rules Paul seems to think are a good idea on an equal footing with whites, browns, yellows and reds. Since power is not equally distributed, and subjugation of the weak by the strong is generally the rule, then the concept of 'all men are created equal' that our country claims is the basis for its existence becomes hollow and meaningless. We either are all equal or we're not. That is a binary condition. Paul should be asked if he thinks all men (and women) are created equal.

But Rand has tried to nuance the question of what constitutes a racist, and does it in the context of personal and private liberty. Is racism also a binary condition like being pregnant or dead? Or Is there a continuum from hard-bitten bigot to color-blind acceptance, with everyone somewhere on the scale? What does he think about that, and how would he characterize himself? I'd like to see the credulous, brain dead, corporate MSM ask him, especially since he's already said that he won't let Maddow 'get him' again. The man may turn out to be a real idiot, but there are those who will love him for it.

Posted by: rrk1 on May 21, 2010 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

If there is one thing that libertarianism emphatically is NOT, it's "deep".

I don't think of it in terms of deep and shallow, but rather theoretical and practical.

Libertarians never govern anything, so they can sit around discussing theory and valuing each other's intellectual consistency. That's really the biggest value the movement holds dear.

Of course, if a Libertarian somehow got elected without compromising on a host of issues ahead of time, they would find very quickly that governing is a lot more nuanced than just asserting that your principles are the best principles.

Posted by: Equal Opportunity Cynic on May 21, 2010 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

We really need a thread on Pauls attack on Obama for making tough comments about BP after the oil spill. He has a really bad case of foot in mouth disease. My fear is that the press is going to be bored by Paul's nuttery in a couple of weeks.

To say what he just said this morning in defense of BP is far worse than the Civil Rights flap. Essentially he told Barack Obama to leave BP alone. Accidents happen. Don't pick on BP Obama, it's unAmerican. Don't pick on BP for the worst oil spill every. Just don't pick on them. I am reminded of a YouTube video from the last campaign.

Posted by: Ron Byers on May 21, 2010 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

I wonder instead, if Obama really said and did enough tough things after the oil spill. BTW, it was fault and not just a random accident. See Oil Drum:
What caused the Deepwater Horizon disaster?

Posted by: Neil B on May 21, 2010 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

Also re BP per this article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_on_bi_ge/us_rand_paul
"On the oil spill, Paul, a libertarian and tea party darling, said he had heard nothing from BP indicating it wouldn't pay for the spill that threatens devastating environmental damage along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico.

""And I think it's part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it's always got to be somebody's fault instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen," Paul said."

~~~
He seriously thinks that BP will pay for all of the damage? BP will just happily fork over billions? Really? And he thinks it's just an "accident"? No one is to blame? Wow, he's not only naive or deluded, but dangerous for America. Keep on talking, Dr. Paul. Make 100% sure that Kentucky elects Conway.

Posted by: Hannah on May 21, 2010 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

Would love to see an ad showing Lester Maddox with pistol in hand, and his son holding an axe handle, while chasing an African-American customer from Maddox's private business. With a photo of Rand, saying, "Well, I, personally, wouldn't have eaten there, but..."

Remember, Lester Maddox was elected governor of Georgia, right after Jimmy Carter using that image. He was considered an education friendly governor during his term.

But Rand Paul may be right about one thing, the market can correct abhorrent behavior - although it might be his in this case.

Posted by: mikeyes on May 21, 2010 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

I have, for many years, believed in the idea that Republicans are capable of matching the incoherent stupidity of a pole-cat caught in the cross-hairs of an oncoming truck's headlights. Today, I openly admit that I was wrong in my assumptions; the pole-cat's intelligence is by far the superior, on an unquestionably-quantum level of measure....

Posted by: S. Waybright on May 21, 2010 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

His support of BP is just a call to big business to get money for his campaign.

I am finally understanding that politics in US isn't liberal v. conservative its inclusive v exclusive. Here's another "I can't see past the end of my nose" libertarian with the morals of a dog turd.

Posted by: just guessing on May 21, 2010 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly