Michael Steel, thus, cannot condemn abortion.

He's not going to condemn it?! Please dems jump on this.

Vote for the Senate candidate who puts philosophy ahead of reality.

I think Steve took that from the Libertarian Party's official letterhead.

To conservatve Republicans/Libertarians Steele himself is exhibit "A" that blacks are inferior and the CRA and affirmative action are wrong.

If it were not for these socilaist liberal notions, they could have told Steele "we don't allow negroes to run for chairman of our pary but, here a shoeshine rag and brush, boy. Make yourself useful."

At par for the GOP. For example, all that GHWB could say about David Duke during the latter's campaign for Congressional election in the late 80s/early 90s was that Duke was a charlatan.

Even then, quite jarring coming from an African American, a Republican or not.

There's something really sad about black Republicans. They remind me of porn stars, in a way, like they've compromised some essential part of their humanity, and are now desperately trying to figure out how to live with it.

DelCapslock, what do you mean? I think porn stars are examples of the least hypocritical people on the planet. They are exactly what evidently most GOP members of congress secretly envy given their recent track record :-)

Compared to the GOP, porn stars are pillars of moral rectitude.

Not to defend Steele, who is obviously tap-dancing around the question, but let's pretend -- for just a minute -- that he was on the level. Wouldn't it be refreshing if we didn't, generally, "condemn" points of view? We could just go about our business, outvoting the people we disagreed with when we could, doing business when we had to, and generally lowering the temperature and permitting working compromises.
And we wouldn't make the all-too-common mistake that we are actually doing something when we "condemn" a point of view.

"Not to defend Steele, who is obviously tap-dancing"

This is where the sentence should have ended.

Blackface is to entertainment as Michael Steele is to the GOP. The joke is on Steele.

A black man who can't state that opinions against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are blatantly wrong and should be condemned.

Say, Mr. Steele, how much, exactly, did they give you for your soul?

Mo Rage
The blog

Steele looked like a fool, but Kane couldn't put him away. Couldn't even correct him (still waiting for this one), and say "Excuse me Michael, but I don't mispronouce the name of YOUR party. We're the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party, now about you support of this racist ...."

Bring back Howard Dean!

Once again you state that Rand Paul "opposes the Civil Right Act" [sic]. That isn't true. To this point, I figured you needed a short phrase, a quick restatement of the case, but this is inaccurate and misleading. He has, specifically, voiced an extreme libertarian view with respect to Title II -- he does not oppose the Act in its entirety and you are continually claiming that he does.

The fact that you repeat this over and over is very disappointing. I've been reading your blog every day for a long time and this really bugs me.

Astounding how much of the MSM has given Paul a sort-of pass on his postion on the basis that he is acting out of 'prinicple." Saying a position is 'principled' has somehow been transmuted into saying it is right. And a WashPost blogger had a great comment, which no one brought up to Paul, that discrimination by private businesses could only exist if the government enforces it (basically like any other private property right) so he really can't condem any government involvement with discriminatory activities while at the same time advocating that they be preserved for private businesses. Would be nice to see someone confront him with this, but he says he's going to refuse to answer any more questions about the Civil Rights act, and I am sure the media will cave to his righteous indignation when they try. He really has learned the key Tea Party act, the premise that they are somehow victims.

We might have said the same thing about democracy in 1750.

Gay marriage in 1980.

A black president in 1960.

Philosophy gets ahead of reality all the time.

Often it's a good thing. It describes where we want reality to be.

Perhaps Paul's nutty idea is that we will see a day where the occasional racist loser will be allowed to exclude others from their store and they'll be scorned, boycotted, and destroyed.

Currently we seem to fear that irrational racism could reverse the gains we have made.

Maybe, but if it's crazy to think Paul could be right, is it also an optimistic outlook that we can aspire to?

We might have said the same thing about democracy in 1750.

Gay marriage in 1980.

A black president in 1960.

Philosophy gets ahead of reality all the time.

Often it's a good thing. It describes where we want reality to be.

Perhaps Paul's nutty idea is that we will see a day where the occasional racist loser will be allowed to exclude others from their store and they'll be scorned, boycotted, and destroyed.

Currently we seem to fear that irrational racism could reverse the gains we have made.

Maybe, but if it's crazy to think Paul could be right, is it also an optimistic outlook that we can aspire to?

The fact that you repeat this over and over is very disappointing. I've been reading your blog every day for a long time and this really bugs me.
Posted by: Algernon on May 23, 2010 at 3:43 PM

You have made it quite clear. Over and over again.

Something tells me that the GOP will soon Rue Paul.

this eternal game of forcing people to renounce and condemn is stupid gotcha bullshit. I disagree with Paul 100%, but you don't "condemn" people. If someone wants Steele to answer if Paul's position belongs in the Republican party, that's fine, but the game of condemnation just perpetuates neverending hostility between people, instead of encouraging discussions of positions or philosophy.

I think that Michael Steel and the Republicans should come out and say "Rand Paul either doesn't understand the past legislation regarding ADA, etc. or is just ignoring the "facts". In other words, the GOP is desperate for a win in the Senate.

Algernon nailed it.

I'm wasn't acquainted with the name Steve Benen before, but I am now. You're going in my Liar File because I know I can't depend on anything you say.

Hay ::: Michael Steel

Racism is not like a pillow that can be made "Comfortable" somehow.

What would you suggest?,,,
That Randy somehow Fluff his Racism a bit to make it Comfy?

I'm wasn't acquainted with the name Steve Benen before, but I am now. You're going in my Liar File because I know I can't depend on anything you say.

So...you stumbled onto this blog, apparently looked through the comments of one (or more?) of the posts, found that a commenter disagreed with one of Benen's characterizations, and concluded Benen must therefore be a "Liar", and you can't depend on anything he says? Is that how you go about engaging opposing points of view?

"You're going in my Liar File because I know I can't depend on anything you say."

And we should care . . . why?

Michael Steele is an idiot. I know I lived in Maryland when he was State Attorney General. He should just be ignored and forgotten.

They have liar files ?
About time .
Now about those addlehead files ...

re: "And we should care . . . why?"

Well, if you want to be misinformed and be caught out making as many mistakes as the director of homeland security, the attorney general, or the 'president' of the united states, than, well, you should not.

However, if you'd rather not look like a pandering idiot sheep, you should.

'president' of the united states

You apparently don't think that Barack Obama is really and truly the President of the United States. And you're calling other people "idiot sheep?"

Isn't the GOP the party that creates its own reality?

I see the Ron Paul crowd is scouring the intertubes trying to accomplish some damage control. My advice to those Randians who find themselves here for the first time: Don't go away mad. Just go away.

Wow. It would have been so easy to provide a more reasoned non-answer, like:

"Look, Rand Paul is a Libertarian. I'm a conservative Republican. The two are not the same. He has a Libertarian view of the CRA that I, as a Republican, cannot agree with. Whether or not that makes my stance on his ideology a "condemnation" is for you to decide.

"Meanwhile, he was duly nominated to be the GOP candidate in Kentucky and ultimately it's the GOP's job — and my job — to support our candidates."

Now that the GOP is rallying around Paul, does that mean they will officially change their name to the tea bag party?

We might have said the same thing about democracy in 1750.

Gay marriage in 1980.

A black president in 1960.

Philosophy gets ahead of reality all the time.

Often it's a good thing. It describes where we want reality to be.

Perhaps Paul's nutty idea is that we will see a day where the occasional racist loser will be allowed to exclude others from their store and they'll be scorned, boycotted, and destroyed.

Currently we seem to fear that irrational racism could reverse the gains we have made.

Maybe, but if it's crazy to think Paul could be right, is it also an optimistic outlook that we can aspire to?

Reality kind of sucks doesn't it Rand and Michael?

I mean, why shouldn't a private business have the right to refuse to serve Michael?

Brilliant.

RNC. Really Not Competent.

I see what Paul as doing as fairly straightforward GOP politics. Southern conservatives have long maintained the Federal government has no right to override state and local policies of racial segregation ("state's rights"). Paul, like many GOP politicians, is signaling to those conservatives that he's on their side.

Algernon is technically correct that Paul did say that he favors most of the Civil Rights Act, the parts that apply to the Federal government. But Paul did, on Rachel Maddow's show, strongly imply that private businesses have a right to discriminate on the basis and that if discrimination is bad, the free market will take care of it. After being heavily criticized for this stand, he has walked back his position somewhat. Politically, this makes sense: he has signaled to voters who want to discriminate that he's on their side, and that's all he needs to do. In addition, by not defending his position, he allows segregationists to feel their views are being suppressed.

What Paul and Algernon haven't done is straightforwardly and honestly debate the issue: can states and localities allow private discrimination? Should they be allowed to? Will the free market take care of the problem?