The country is well served to have Rand Paul elected as the GOP nominee for the open Senate seat in Kentucky. The more it learns about this nutbag, and the nutbags who support him, the better.
It's one thing to harness the anger over deficits, unemployment, and the incompetent and corrupt behavior of some members of the government. It's quite another to discuss the details of the beliefs these nutbags hold.
"Or perhaps you just don't like it when the messiah's true beliefs are made public..."
I have no problem with Obama's remarks being accurately reported. And though you and other right wing nitwits tried to make a big deal out of what Obama said, it should be noted that, while given the opportunity, Brooks did not. Likely because though he is wrong on many issues, he isn't a flaming nutbag trolling the internet for moronic right wing spewage to include in message board posts.........like you.
Rand Paul's views on the Civil Rights legislation covering "private" public accomodations like restaurants and restrooms are not some quirk, even as he "walks it back" (in an act of profound disingenuity.)
He doesn't believe in OSHA, the EPA, the Department of Education, the Americans With Disabilities Act, minimum wage, Social Security and on and on. He may not be planning on trying to repeal each and every law or regulatory agency he disagrees with because he knows he can't, but he wants to weaken as much of this network of social solidarity, equal protection and public safety that he possibly can. It also happens that his economic philosophy is ridiculously primitive and would drive us into deep depression if enacted.
And, unlike most libertarians, he believes the federal government SHOULD outlaw abortions, even in cases of rape and incest. He's not a "fresh face." He's a reactionary crank and the oldest face in the book. George Stephanopoulos did a pretty good job - following on Rachel - of treating Paul like grown-ups and asking him about stuff he actually believes, has peddled for a long time and that defines who Paul actually is.
Meanwhile, Joe Scarborough's advice is "campaign in Kentucky but stay away from the national media", which is revealing more of Scarborough's apparent belief that Kentuckians are stupid and will buy snake oil off the back of a pick-up truck. This is the "best hope" of contemporary conservatism - that people are idiots and like to be told what they like to be told, without even a limited capacity for examining the bill of goods.
Maybe Scarborough's right - but it's a display of elitism that actually does reek and demeans the intended audience as total suckers. "Paul's too stupid to go on national television, but I'm sure the good folks of Kentucky will buy what he's selling!" There's some insight there into what the GOP elite thinks of their "base."
Paul and his followers make a really basic error in their understanding of "property rights".
Commercial property exists at the intersection of private and public zones. It's not entirely private and its not entirely public either.
While a person can be the biggest racist in his own home and keep anyone for pretty much any reason from entering -- something that was untouched by the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- if you open a business that relies on publicly funded sewers, publicly funded roads, and publicly funded services, and the public itself to support your livelihood, well your "property rights" are not entirely absolute at your business.
You are still subject to local, state, and federal restrictions and regulation.
You want to open up a commercial property in a an area zoned residential? Good luck.
Your so-called sacrosanct commercial activity is given a lower precedence than the quiet enjoyment that others in the community have of their own private property.
In much of the country at the time of the Founding if you wanted to operate a business on Sunday, good luck. Commercial activity is not sacrosanct.
It's one thing to say this or that regulation is counter-productive; it's another thing to think that there is no Constitutional right on the part of the duly elected government to regulate private commercial activity.
You pretty much have to be ignorant of American history -- and American law -- even as understood by the Framers, to believe that kind of thing.
The Framers may not have seen a right to be protected against racial discrimination -- they also couldn't have envisioned the Reconstruction amendments (although they knew the Constitution would be modified by future generations and provided a method for modification). But they sure did recognize a role of government in Commerce. And it wasn't just to sit on the side lines as individuals acting in a private capacity did whatever they wanted.
There are always competing interests at stake in the "public sphere" broadly defined -- government exists to mediate those disputes.