Anti-Civil Rights Act ≠ Anti-Civil Rights

This article has the Washpost trying to make a mountain out of a river. Rand Paul dared to suggest that the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 might not have been a good idea.

Never mind that, despite the headline saying his statement "confuses supporters," the author apparently couldn't find a single confused supporter to quote. This issue appears painfully simple to all of Paul's supporters, but the inability of the author to catch the point is telling.

Paul could oppose the 1964 Civil Rights act for one of three reasons.

1. He could be in favor of discrimination (no one is suggesting that this is the case)
2. He could be opposed to discrimination, but believe that it was not the place of the government to enact anti-discrimination laws
3. He could be opposed to discrimination, and in favor of some anti-discrimination laws, but opposed to a federal anti-discrimination law

What separates a politician like Rand Paul from your ordinary Republican or Democrat is his ability, when confronted with a social problem, to react with the knee-jerk response "Golly, there oughta be a law." This is reflected in his approach here, and that's precisely what his constituents like about him.