Oftentimes, it becomes reflexive for people just to use the "he's crazy" line on an outsider candidate as the beginning and end of a politically strategy in order to weaken and ultimately defeat them.
The fact is, sometimes it works, but sometimes it backfires (like for neocon toadie Trey Grayson), as it legitimately takes a bit more effort to beat the candidate in question than just saying one thing and walking away.
That's why I appreciated Rachel Maddow's long and in-depth interview with Rand Paul, allowing the issues to be discussed. It makes for a better environment generally, which is most important of all, but it also is much smarter politically than just airing a segment about how crazy Paul is.
This is an outsider year, and relying entirely argument that any candidate is "too outside" is not a winning strategy for anyone; we have to do more, and that means listening to theories like those of Paul's long enough to find the faults.
The silver bullet counterargument that no one has been making is below the fold:
Rand Paul made the case that calling a restaurant a public place means that public laws would overcome private rules, preventing not just discrimination but allowing for people to bring in guns to restaurants whose owners object.
The problem? Public laws ALREADY overcome private rules. For instance, if one commits a crime or civil offense in a restaurant, whether the restaurant is considered public or private makes no difference; those who violate equal protection under the law by restricting market access based on born traits are clearly violating the Constitution. It doesn't matter whether you use the word public or private - and there certainly doesn't exist some magical world of private rules where public laws fail to apply, so it's hard to see the scenario that Rand Paul somehow feels the need to protect. Aside from KBR's failed attempt to screw over rape victims and deny them due process, I can't think of a place where private rules would OVERRULE public law, and therefore where such a situation would need protection.
This is how to actually attack Paul's argument.