Rand Paul, already being harrassed with loaded questions

[Lord T Hawkeye]

http://www.aolnews.com/the-point/article/rand-paul-under-fire-for-remarks-about-civil-rights-act/19485308?icid=main|aim|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fthe-point%2Farticle%2Frand-paul-under-fire-for-remarks-about-civil-rights-act%2F19485308

They don't waste a second.

[Travis Retriever]

"What's most troubling about this interview is not that Paul opposes a portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it's that it's clear Paul hasn't thought much about his position," Coates said. "Lacking a rigorous intellectual framework for his opposition, Paul is wobbly on defense."

The projection in that bit sends a shiver down my spine.

Trying to turn a question about racism into a philosophical discussion about federal power "may work well in the classroom, but it's a tricky position to take as a political candidate on national television," noted Susan Davis on the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire blog.

Ah, yes, the old psychoanalyze the opponent.
"You're too academic.  You're too naive.  You're too this, etc, etc, etc..."

[MrBogosity]

Yes, because obviously if you have ANY criticisms at all about ANY piece of legislation, then you're obviously against everything the legislation was intending to do, right?