Ronald Reagan opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964

He was also vastly more vocal in opposing it then Rand Paul dancing around the issue. It didn't stop him winning Kentucky, and 49 total states in 1984. Let's find another issue to attack Rand Paul on, because it obviously won't make much of a dent with the majority of voters.

Thanks
:)

The media still wrote editorials on whether a black quarterback could win a Super Bowl, or a black head coach could earn the respect of white voters. Reagan was a piece of shit racist even by those standards, but even so, the standards now have changed. I like to imagine Reagan weeping in his grave that a black man he would have despised is sleeping in his former bedroom and is way better looking, too.

the more things change,
the more the GOP wants to go back to 1860

mouth, (about anything), the more people are convinced he is a bona fide idiot.

The backdrop he used for the Rachel Maddow show seems incredibly appropriate, a brick wall...he fit right in...:D

Very few people knew much about any candidate beyond the sound bites in that given time. Besides the information given to us by the media, what means were there to research any candidate's voting record?

but nice try.

:eyes:

And I agree that especially in a state like Kentucky, this racist thing isn't going to fly. In fact it might backfire. Yes, it's 2010, not 1980. But racism is still alive and well and that's one reason why the GOP continues to be so popular in the South.

I'm sure Kentucky has changed in the last 30 years for the better. Not where it should be but still better.

The underlying issue that Rand is tying this with is private business. He is wrong to suggest that private businesses should be allowed to do as they please. As it is, they are regulated by various laws pertaining to labor, consumer, health, and other areas. Does he suggest that if the Civil Rights Act should not had been passed that the other laws regulating business should not had either? By showing the folly of his arguments in a simple and clear manner would be more effective.

to not talk about it.

besides, people are going to talk about it.

I mean, the first part is accurate, except that you are conflating events and attitudes alternately 26 and 46 years apart.

And then you say because Reagan won in 1984 despite taking a position on something in 1964, that the issue won't work against Rand Paul in 2010.

How on earth do those things follow?

is because most of them were Dixiecrats who revolted and left the Democratic Party and became Republicans precisely because they opposed civil rights.

Remember this is the same guy who announced his run for the presidency in Philadelphia, Mississippi where the legendary civil rights workers were killed.

Then, he touted his Welfare Queen caricature who he depicted as a black woman who constantly has babies in order to get more welfare money.

The Republican Party is incredibly racist. I'm sure they secretly agree with Rand Paul and his father, hence, their allegiance to 'states rights' and such.

I'm not saying that there are no racists in the Democratic Party. We all learned that during the 2008 primary season. But what I'm saying is that the Republican Party is loathed to address its own history of racism such that when it is confronted with the Rand Pauls of the world and other racially insensitive events, its members deny the charges rather than deal with reality.

The problem with Rand Paul is not necessarily that he is racist; the problem with him and people who think as he does is that they are so out of touch with reality, so wedded to their abstract ideology that it makes them not be able to think rationally.