Rand Paul last night and why his Libertarian views and what they mean to how he would govern if elected, matters. As she noted, those very same arguments were used to justify opposition to the Civil Rights movement and even if the intellectuals of the day like William F. Buckley weren't actually the ones with the clubs, and the firearms and the hoses aimed at the protesters, their ideas were used to defend that violence.

Rachel quoted Ezra Klein on this over at The Maddow Blog.

Why Rand Paul's muddle matters:

From perpetual smarty Ezra Klein:

What's gotten Paul in trouble, however, is that he's so skeptical of government power that he's not even comfortable with the public sector telling private businesses that they can't discriminate based on race. That, I fear, does have public policy implications.

For instance: Can the federal government set the private sector's minimum wage? Can it tell private businesses not to hire illegal immigrants? Can it tell oil companies what safety systems to build into an offshore drilling platform? Can it tell toy companies to test for lead? Can it tell liquor stores not to sell to minors? These are the sort of questions that Paul needs to be asked now, because the issue is not "area politician believes kooky but harmless thing." It's "area politician espouses extremist philosophy on issue he will be voting on constantly."