It appears to be the topic du jour.
I have to say that I agree with Ta-Nehisi Coates on this. I understand Rand Paul's case on this issue--it's one that I've heard before, and while I disagree with it, I do understand it. But the incredible thing about the clip is how awful at explaining and defending his position Rand Paul is. He keeps bringing up free speech (?) as though it makes sense in the context, he's evasive and meandering and clearly would just rather be anywhere else. I think this makes it that much worse because it basically validates the worst reading of the story. If he can't clearly explain his thinking on something as elemental as civil rights, people are going to assume that he's either ignorant or deceptive, or both. There's some ignorance there, but mostly what I see is a guy who, like his father, is pretty comfortable on the fringes and holding fringe views. He's not used to being held accountable for those views. Some of those views are wholly unobjectionable, by the way. If noninterventionism were more mainstream, America would be much better off! But with Rand Paul you're going to see more things like this crop up, just as with Ron Paul, though the elder Paul wasn't subjected to near as much scrutiny since he wasn't really that close to power. Which is why the GOP would have been better off nominating Grayson, ultimately.
