I think Josh Marshall's commentary pretty much nails it on this:

Political philosophy can never be free of history. And there is no denying that similar states rights or libertarian arguments have been the arguments of choice for those who want to defend racial discrimination since avowed defenses of racial prejudice and subordination became publicly unacceptable outside some parts of the South in the early second half of the last century. That's simply a fact. In principle, it doesn't delegitimize libertarian political philosophy. But we don't live in classrooms or treatises. We live in an actual world where history and experience can't be separated from philosophy.

(emphasis in the original)

Yglesias is also good, but he's comes at this from a more partisan "libertarians are always apologists for evil" angle:

It seems that yesterday US Senate candidate Rand Paul let the cat out of the bag and admitted that under his brand of libertarian conservatism he can’t support the 1964 Civil Rights Act or other non-discrimination legislation as applied to private businesses. He goes out of his way to explain that he doesn’t actually favor segregated lunch counters, he just thinks it would be wrong to do anything about them. Similarly, I suppose the Cato Institute’s Dan Mitchell would tell you he doesn’t actually want poor children to suffer from starvation or malnourishment he just thinks it’s folly to try to do anything about it collectively. Maybe private charity will feed kids, or maybe not. Maybe voluntary action will undue Jim Crow, or maybe not.

I find myself in complete agreement with both of them.

We'll see if this is going to get picked up by the mainstream media or not. I'm excited by the prospect of this becoming a big public spectacle. Normally, Republicans just fold when the spotlight hits them and they walk back stuff like this, but I don't think Rand will.

I hope he doesn't.

Dupe: http://politics.videosift.com/video/Sarah-Palin-Maverick-to-Nowhere

(The embed is the version with Josh Marshall's intro)

I was yelling "moron" at the screen while watching this.

Josh Marshal from TPM has it just about right:

It's like a comic parody of the mentality I described a few days ago. Don't get in McCain's face because it'll just be so much worse for you if you. By God, just keep your head down and try to muddle through! If you're nice maybe he won't hit you.

Is the Limbaugh, Drudge, McCain IV really so deep in Halperin's arm that he thinks the McCain camp feels like it needs an opening to get into the Obama/Terrrorist/Scary Black Man menagerie? They were holding back on Rezko? Really?

*news

I'm getting somewhat tired of the "out of context" cry, especially if context doesn't change the meaning.

He somehow thinks comparing wartime in Iraq with peacetime in Korea is exculpatory of the attitude that it's "not important" when the troops come home.

If you insist they can't leave until they've won, and that after they've won, it doesn't matter when they come home, aren't you saying that you aren't going to try to bring them home at all for God knows how long?

I think Josh Marshall at TPM sums it up nicely:

Their other point [aside from saying they were quoted out of context] is that McCain isn't saying that bringing the troops home isn't that important, he's saying that precisely when they come home isn't that important and that reducing the number of casualties is more important than the precise date when they come home. But this highly strained argument seems premised on the assumption that journalists should report not what you say but your own highly generous after-the-fact interpretation of what you said.

I would say that in the context of Iraq when they come home and whether they come home are actually inextricably combined. Presumably US military personnel won't be in Iraq 20,000 years from now. At some point they'll come home. But staying for many decades is, in the context of most of our lives, the same as staying forever. On the latter point McCain doesn't say that reducing casualties is more important than getting people home. He's saying one is his focus and the other isn't very important.

Josh Marshall (the host, from the "Talking Points Memo" blog) is all class. Love that guy.

Yeah, Stewart nails it. The Moyers site says the whole episode will be streaming after it airs tonight. Link is now in the description.

They also talk to Josh Marshall at TPM, the hardworking muckraker who spotted the pattern in the US attorney firings.

Bill Moyers is the man!