So now we all know that Kentucky GOP Senate nominee Rand Paul doesn’t like portions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Some GOP candidates for Georgia governor don’t like the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Both seem to have escaped the attention of the media for a long time, as it focuses upon the “horse race” and the “Tea Party phenomenon.” And it is depriving us of a good debate.

Fresh off of his insurgent victory over the Secretary of State Trey Grayson (the “establishment candidate”), Rand Paul was ready for primetime. So now everyone knows that he takes a rather dim view of the ability of the national government to keep private businesses from discrimination. He evidently has similar views of fhe Fair Housing Act, according to The Newsroom’s article “How Rand Paul’s Civil Rights Views Escaped Media Scrutiny.” It’s like Debra Medina (the Texas gubernatorial candidate) giving her interview about 9/11 conspiracies after the primary, rather than before it.

According to this article from The Newsroom, Paul’s views have been out there for all to see and read, but nobody was paying attention at the national level … until that controversial pair of interviews with NPR’s Robert Siegel and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. Now more than one member of the Kentucky Republican population is experiencing “buyer’s remorse.”

“The Newsroom’s” not the only one to highlight Paul’s views. Jim Galloway’s Political Insider column in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution got in the act.

The premise of these stories is that, in their pursuit of the Tea Party angle and the focus on the polls and “horse race” element and campaign strategy, the national media didn’t bother asking questions about the candidate views.

The biggest irony is that these articles are falling into the same trap themselves. For example, note the maddening obsession with the Georgia gubernatorial race polls. While there’s nothing wrong with reporting InsiderAdvantage’s poll numbers, shouldn’t some of these critics and the mainstream media itself focus on a little more than just that?

After all, at Georgia GOP gubernatorial forums, the candidates have been talking about the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act for quite some time. They are concerned that elements of the bill are applying unfairly to the South. And it’s not just Ray McBerry bringing up the topic. “Either have it apply to the whole country or scrap it, but don’t single out the South,” said Georgia gubernatorial candidate Eric Johnson, the former state Senate leader at a talk at my college, when asked about the Voting Rights Act. And anyone who knows about discrimination in voting up North would welcome such a discussion.

The sad thing is that by ignoring the issues (as the national media did in Kentucky), we’re being deprived of a great debate on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Asking a politician whether they would go back in time and sign the bill is less useful than asking whether the bill is still needed today, and (if so) what parts are relevant. Does the civil rights legislation need to be expanded, scaled back, or left intact? That’s a debate that’s plenty relevant. If only the media was interested in that, as opposed to what the leaders of the Tea Party, Republicans and Democrats are strategizing.