Rand Paul Under Fire for Remarks on Civil Rights Act
Updated: 5 hours 46 minutes ago
Print Text Size
EmailMore
Steve Pendlebury

Steve Pendlebury Editor
AOL News
(May 20) -- Rand Paul, the new face of the tea party movement, is in hot water because of his comments about anti-discrimination laws.

The political newcomer knocked off the GOP establishment's candidate, Trey Grayson, in Kentucky's Republican Senate primary on Tuesday and called it a "mandate" for the tea party's drive to limit Washington's power.

During a victory lap of interview programs the next day, Paul was asked about his belief that the Americans With Disabilities Act gave government too much authority over private business. NPR's Robert Siegel wanted to know whether Paul felt the same way about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as his Democratic opponent in the Senate race, Jack Conway, has claimed.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
"What I've always said is, I'm opposed to institutional racism," Paul responded, adding that he would have marched with Dr. Martin Luther King if he'd been alive at the time. Although Paul said he supports nearly everything in the Civil Rights Act, he took issue with the part that outlaws discrimination by private businesses except for clubs.

Rachel Maddow pressed Paul on the question during a lengthy interview on her MSNBC program Wednesday night. She tried to get a clear answer on whether he thought the lunch counter at the Woolworth's in Greensboro, N.C. -- a flash point in the struggle for racial integration -- should have been allowed to remain segregated.

Paul said he didn't believe "any private property should discriminate" and insisted he would never patronize such a place. But he asked Maddow, "Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant or does the government own his restaurant?"

Paul accused Maddow of bringing up "something that really is not an issue ... sort of a red herring." But he faced the same question a month ago in an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal's editorial board. (Click here to watch the video. Skip ahead to the one-hour mark.)

"Under your philosophy it would be OK for Dr. King to not be served at the counter at Woolworth's?" Paul was asked. He replied that he would have boycotted the store and denounced it, but added, "This is the hard part about believing in freedom."



He continued, "In a free society we will tolerate boorish people who have abhorrent behavior. But if we're civilized people, we publicly criticize that and don't belong to those groups or associate with those people."

A week later, the newspaper published an editorial saying Paul has "an unacceptable view of civil rights, saying that while the federal government can enforce integration of government jobs and facilities, private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people, or gays, or any other minority group."

Because Paul has consistently expressed his personal opposition to discrimination, "there's really no wound inflicted here," argued Hot Air's Allapundit.

"His reservations about the law have to do not with the ends but with the means of federal compulsion; he wants business owners to serve everyone but clearly prefers using boycotts and local laws to pressure them. It's not a question of being pro- or anti-discrimination, in other words; it's a question of how federalism and civil rights enforcement mesh," the blogger wrote.

Trying to turn a question about racism into a philosophical discussion about federal power "may work well in the classroom, but it's a tricky position to take as a political candidate on national television," noted Susan Davis on the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire blog.

"Rand Paul should have been better prepared to answer this question. This isn't the first time he has encountered it," said Clifton B, who blogs at Another Black Conservative. He said Paul is caught in a "Catch-22."

"If Paul says he fully supports how the feds forced the private sector to end segregation he loses libertarian street cred, but by only supporting the results of the Civil Rights Act and not the actual legislation, Paul gives the left room to paint him as a racist," Clifton B wrote.

The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates also criticized Paul for responding to Maddow "with a series of feints and dodges."

"What's most troubling about this interview is not that Paul opposes a portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it's that it's clear Paul hasn't thought much about his position," Coates said. "Lacking a rigorous intellectual framework for his opposition, Paul is wobbly on defense."

Similar, if snarkier, criticism came from Gawker's Adrian Chen, who decoded Paul's remarks this way: "But it's simple: Rand Paul hates racism, but wants to allow businesses to be racist. He would definitely support a segregated Applebee's as long as it instantly went bankrupt because no one liked its racist food. He basically loves the idea of the possibility that somewhere in America someone could open up a racist business, but as soon as that business becomes a reality he hates it."

Paul issued a statement this morning that still didn't answer the lunch counter question directly but backed the current law.

"Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964," Paul declared.

Did You Miss The Point?
Check Out Past Columns

Will Vietnam Flap Doom Blumenthal?
What Message Are Voters Sending?
Alabama Candidate's Ad Goes Viral
Citizenship Bill Raises Questions
Both Sides Politicize Oil Spill
Miranda Rights for Bomb Suspect?
More: The Point Archive
Some commentators were irked not just by what Paul did or didn't say, but what he sounded like when he said it.

"What a disappointment. Rand Paul is just another politician who won't give a straight answer to a simple question," lamented Kansas City Star reader George Harris.

Even Paul's tea party supporters "won't enjoy watching him look like a slippery politician as he fails, over and over, to answer Maddow's questions directly," added Salon's Joan Walsh.

"He turned into a politician before our very eyes. This champion of the truth-telling Tea Partiers waffled and dodged like the most seasoned of pols," Michael Sean Winters charged in America magazine. He said there's no reason to doubt Paul is against discrimination, but that's not the question.

"The question is about the role of government in society and whether or not the federal government was right to insist that it be against the law to discriminate on the basis of race in private businesses that serve the public," Winters argued.

"He would not answer. His career as a non-politician politician lasted less than 24 hours."
Filed under: Nation, Politics, The Point

http://www.aolnews.com/the-point/article/rand-paul-under-fire-for-remarks-about-civil-rights-act/19485308?icid=main|aim|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fthe-point%2Farticle%2Frand-paul-under-fire-for-remarks-about-civil-rights-act%2F19485308


What is up with the racism or willingness to allow racism in this country???

I guess some folks just don't grow intellectually as they should

I was holding my opinion of Rand Paul but I have now learned pretty much all I need.

I believe what I heard him state was that he did not believe it was agood business decision to discrimnate,but did not believe the government should interfere with private industry. I do not believe he condoned discrimination at all, in my opinion.

It is an unfortunate side effect of having the freedoms we do have. idiots will spew all the crap in the world and yet with so many people things fall on deaf ears. there is no easy road to equality. There never will be. You cannot make people want to feel good will towards another until they open their own eyes.

Grimly the problem is there are just WAY too many people on this planet. the more you cram together the more problems and attitude you will have. Desegregation does not work in prisons. The population for the most part segregates itself. What did they get when they did force desegregation on the prisons? A massive death toll. This problem is far deeper than simple racism! We have bred these politicians. They all have answers and they are all smiles on the camera. Behind the scenes they are being spoon fed money by big business.

The democratic party is full of racists and famous Democrats with a notorious past of racial bigotry include the reverends Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton. Those are just the two more visual players. Everyone like to say Bush is a Racist. What color is Condoleza Rice? What gender? Bush had more "Minorities" in his cabinet than Clinton and if I remember correctly even Hussein er uh, Obama!

Oddly I know this is a tool to keep America in a state of division and divisiveness. The way we as Americans conduct politics make me so sick because of the immaturity and mud slinging. I am not saying this of anyone specifically, I am ashamed at the people who choose to be our leaders and then run everything so haphazardly. I am ashamed at how these people climb to power. I am ashamed at the abuses of power in the name of government authority! I am ashamed at how people refuse to look for the global (as in ALL OF America's interests) of America before taking on all the problems of the rest of the world.

So many people go to Congress with personal agendas to make themselves feel good about themselves like trying to save starving Somalian Children but hell, we can't afford to feed our own! We need to be broken free of the shackles of big business. We need to go back to when America was about innovations and new tech! We need to overhaul our infrastructure starting with our leadership and then we need to redo the legal system to be more "Average user friendly!"

We need to reward people who DON'T bleed the system most of all instead of propping up social policies on their backs!

Man, I got to let my fingers breath!

You could have saved your fingers since most of it ain't the truth anyway.

AND the that is the just the way it is, doesn't work either.

AND the throw in the last thrust against poor people, just really sets the tone to the false rhetoric.

I wouldn't put much stock in what Rachel Madcow or MegaSuckNoBrainCowpile report. They twist dem' words and shout those lies like they's back in da' fities!

It sure is a too close to condoning discrimination for me, I know that.

I will be making sure that he doesn't get voted into anything more important.

I have to agree. Having grown up in a home with an EEO investigator,, I learned a little bit regarding civil rights and Affirmative Action over my lifetime. I could be mistaken, but actually, the civil rights act of 1964 did NOT extend to private business,, ,,that was done much later

so I think the author of the piece misspoke in a few spots

"What's most troubling about this interview is not that Paul opposes a portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it's that it's clear Paul hasn't thought much about his position," Coates said. "Lacking a rigorous intellectual framework for his opposition, Paul is wobbly on defense."



and Rand went on to say he would not repeal the civil rights act of 1964, so he was consistent actually. His opposition appeard to only be in regulating peoples private business practices,,,

Woolworth is also a bad example, because I think it is publicly owned, which means it wouldnt be considered privater business...

I like Rand Paul and if he can remain true to himself amidst all of the crap people throw at him and criticize him for, I will continue to like him. They will probably destroy a good man because they fear him.

You can make laws and try to force policy on people and businesses about "racism," and hiring minorities, but you cannot "allow racism" or "forbid racism." Racism is an individual thing. It involves how people feel and the personal choices they make.

Its like "intent." Its not so easy to prove what is in a person's heart or mind. Even if a person is a racist, he has a right to be as long as he does not commit a crime against another person. How he feels is his own business.

How much will you allow your government to regulate your life and your business?

If you had a business how would you like the government to tell you that you had to hire a certain percentage of 'minority' people? What if these people aren't qualified? There are both pros and cons about that kind of government control, and it can go against our personal freedom.

You can't force people to like each other, or not fear each other.

That same government will still go to great lengths to incite Americans to hate the enemy with whom they want us to go to war. They do this by manipulating the media and scaring the hell out of everyone about "terrorists."

It is a fact that Mossad and the CIA have dressed up like 'terrorists' and committed terrorist actions for the soul purpose of inciting public opinion against certain groups. Its all about teaching us who to hate this time.

2nd world war, it was the Germans and the Japanese, then there was a witch hunt for communists and anyone who even knew a communist.

That same government once fought to keep slaves, did not want to give black people the right to vote and were even slower giving women the right to vote.

It has always been a battle between freedom and trying to force people to do what someone thinks is right. Racism aside, I think people should just treat a crime as a crime and go after the real criminals no matter who they are.

Their are criminals in high places too. They think they are above the law.

Yep he's a racist. He was backed by the teabaggers aren't they all racist's

I dont know from this piece that he is racist. I am still trying to research his policies and views and experience though. Sadly, I really dont know much about him at all except who his Father is.

I never base my opinion on the opinions of others. I prefer to listen to Rand Paul myself and interpret his words myself. Any writer can put a spin on things that other people say. These writers have an agenda.

No matter what's said in his defense or how correct his statement is, there are always those who have their own vested interests in their own private agendas who refuse to acknowledge that anyone else could possibly have a valid point of view ... they're best ignored ...

lolololol...

There is no gray where racism and discrimination is concerned. Either discrimination and racism is wrong or it ain't.

If I have a business I will be following the laws to hire a percentage of people that represents what the government thinks it should.

Freedom in this country is a false premise anyway. People only fight for faux freedoms that represent what they want to do in their lives. Not freedom for everyone. Because freedom actually is responsibility and noone wants it. Or freedom is nothing left to lose and in that scenerio there isn't anything to fight over.

The gray area is in how a person chooses to FEEL.

To PRACTICE discrimination should be clearly proven and obvious. It should not be assumed that a person is racist.

But people discriminate all the time. Class, sex, race, financial status, the way people dress, look, speak, etc. It would be impossible to try to control all of that.

On the one hand, 'freedom' is a 'false premise.' But its not, really. Each and every person is a sovereign and free person and if you are born in America you are an American citizen.

But a citizen of "THE UNITED STATES" makes you a participating member of the corporation and subject to its rules and regulations which they call "laws."

When and if the UNITED STATES fails as a corporation, (It has already gone bankrupt) and ceases to exist, we Americans will still be free sovereign citizens of this country. However, if we have no army to protect our rights, we are screwed. If we have no guns to protect our rights we are screwed.

Need help with that, dial this number;
46 3825 96877353
They will transfer you to Helen Waight

Again the freedoms are not real true freedoms for all. They fight for "freedoms" they want for themselves.

The army and the guns would be of no use either if America fails. Anarchy has no rights to defend.

I am not talking about "America" failing. I'm talking about the corporation.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a corporation. It is not America. America is the people.

What good has come of privatization? Higher prices? Run away economy? Industries setting state policies?


And now for those POOR PEOPLE you keep defending dragoness. Please correct me if I am reading your cynicism wrong.

Why do most on unemployment milk it to the very end? Getting any job is not impossible if you really just want work. Even in this economy there is work out there.

Why is it that more than half the people who receive disability do not retrain for different jobs they can fulfill easily? I can believe about a 1/4 of the people receiving disability really do need it ad infinitum. The rest? MILKERS!

Why is it so many people find a way to get a free hand out and they milk it for everything?

Hurricane Katrina... All that FEMA supplied temporary housing was used more than two years more than it was intended and 90% of the people in it HAD TO BE EVICTED? MILKERS!

Now come on. There is poor people who life did indeed spit on but the rest? LAZY, SHIFTLESS, WASTES OF HUMAN FLESH! They need to get off their ***** and stop breeding!

Oh but personal responsibility means nothing to you.

"Oh but those poor drug addicts..." YEAH! If they wanted help they can get it for free but the problem is they like their drugs too much and the government handouts encourage substance abusers to not change!

But then I am willing to bet YOU believe that humans are innately good at heart.

You are so wearing the best rose colored glasses I have ever heard of! Where can I get a set! Mine do not work!