It is without question that Rand Paul fumbled the Maddow interview after delivering a shocking, but expected, defeat to the Rockefeller Republican establishment. No one will debate that. What is of debate is Rand's position taken.
Conservatives have always been horrible at explaining our positions, Rand's fumble is evidence thereof. The socialists media is very well practiced at placing land mines and waiting for us conservatives to walk over and Rand walked right into that one.
From my perspective and for a little advise, it is always best to turn the question back on the individual attempting to set the trap. He should have came at it from a free market point of view saying something to the affect of:
Do you believe in free markets? Do you believe that boycotts can and do work, when the market reacts accordingly? Instead we often rely on the strong hand of government to do our bidding which in turn can and does lead to tyrannical oversight.
However, Judge Andrew Napolitano does perhaps make the best defensive argument (link to full blog):
...It is the latter prohibition that Rand Paul has argued puts the nose of the federal camel under the private property owners’ tent. The logic of his argument informs that if the feds can compel a restaurateur or bar owner to admit and serve those whom he prefers not to admit and serve on the basis of race, then the same feds can force lesbian bars to admit straight frat boys; can force a Jewish youth group on a state college to admit Holocaust deniers; can compel the Catholic Church to hire abortionists; and can force daycare centers to permit parents to carry guns in the presence of babies on the private property of the day care facility. It might even be able to compel the Congressional Black Caucus to admit white Members of Congress. The list of potential interferences with the right to use and enjoy private property and the right to associate is potentially endless once one grants the feds the power to enact any regulation not authorized by the Constitution.
No matter how noble the federal purpose, there will be no limit to the prohibitions the feds might impose--like the size of toilet bowls, the strength of water pressure in showers, the wattage of light bulbs, to name a few. Dr. Paul’s argument is based, as well, on the natural right to use and enjoy private property as one wishes, and the essence of that use and enjoyment is the right to exclude whomever one wishes--even the government--from one’s private property. This right is enshrined in the fabric of American values in the Declaration of Independence.
It is odd that Rand Paul should be singled out for his principled defense of property rights when the person who is currently third in line for the Presidency made vast racial arguments in his filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and still sits in the Senate. That is the 90 year old ex-KKK member who is currently Senate President Pro-Temp, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV).
