Rand Paul On Civil Rights Controversy: I Shouldn't Have Talked To Rachel Maddow [UPDATED]

See new updates below.

The morning after he declined to endorse the totality of the Civil Rights Act in his much-discussed appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show, Dr. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) copped to feeling regret -- not over his comments, but rather his decision to be interviewed by Maddow in the first place.

"It was a poor political decision and probably won't be happening anytime in the near future," the Tea Party endorsed Senate candidate said on the Laura Ingraham show on Thursday morning. "Because, yeah, they can play things and want to say, 'Oh you believed in beating up people that were trying to sit in restaurants in the 1960s.' And that is such a ridiculous notion and something that no rational person is in favor of. [But] she went on and on about that."

Blaming the messenger is a tactic often used by politicians when the message itself is to blame. And Paul's appearance on the Maddow show on Wednesday night was anything but bland. For 15 minutes, he and the host went back and forth in debating where there should be limits to government efforts to desegregate private institutions (Paul was skeptical that the government should play any role at all). But the notion that the MSNBC host was somehow unloading liberal hostilities on him doesn't jibe with the fact that Paul got the same type of treatment during an NPR interview earlier that morning -- or, for that matter, that a conservative voice on MSNBC, Joe Scarborough, seemed aghast at his answers. "He needs to come up with an answer today, or Kentucky will be Arizona: a battleground for ugly, racial politics," Scarborough said. "He has 24 hours."

(Paul, in fact, chose Maddow's show to initially launch his Senate candidacy a year prior to last night's appearance.)

Paul did seem to draw back (or tighten) his discussion of the Civil Rights Act during his interview with Ingraham.

"These are settled issues in the Civil Rights Act," he said. "I have no intention of bringing up anything related to the Civil Rights Act... I think [segregation] is sort of a stain and blight on our history -- so, no, I have never really favored any change in the Civil Rights Act or any of that. But they have seemed to unleash the loony left on me."

UPDATE I: Rand Paul's campaign has now issued a lengthy statement about his views on the Civil Rights Act. The key quote: "I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. 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."

"Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws."

"As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years."

"My opponent's statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false. I hope he will correct the record and retract his claims."

"The issue of civil rights is one with a tortured history in this country. We have made great strides, but there is still work to be done to ensure the great promise of Liberty is granted to all Americans."

"This much is clear: The federal government has far overreached in its power grabs. Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which my opponent supports. The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state's rights must stand up to it."

"These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign."

UPDATE II: TPM highlights another potentially problematic view of Paul's that came up during the same NPR interview during which Paul discussed the Civil Rights Act.

Rand Paul's interview with NPR's All Things Considered last night was the first sign the the freshly-minted Kentucky Republican Senate nominee might have some explaining to do today. The blogosphere is already alight with Paul's interview with Rachel Maddow, but his interview on NPR shows that his libertarian views go deeper than just his take on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Speaking with NPR's Robert Siegel, Paul made the case for less federal involvement in workplace and environmental regulation, including his opposition to some components of the Americans With Disabilities Act. [...]

Here's the interview in a nutshell, from Paul's response to a question about whether or not he thinks the ADA is an example of federal "overreach":

"I think a lot of things could be handled locally," Paul told Siegel. "For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps...I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who's handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions."

Comments

[NorthsideRasta Rogers]

11:56 PM on 07/16/2010

This Rand Paul fella is quite perplexing is he in a time warp of good ol' Joe McCarthy-John Wayne
values tour era? Rand just be true to your values when conservatives like Will & Scarborough
point out you would do away with " human rights acts" plus your disdain for access for disabled people shows that you are a "special person".

[Dunkleberger Karl]

07:54 PM on 05/29/2010

Biggest problem peaple can have wth Rand, is name recognition, wasthe same for W. and it propelled him to the WH. (allong with drug crazed Supream court justices!) If you love Ron P. and you go to a fun raiser, yellout when you see rand, Hey your not Ron Paul.Bad ass!

[AMF8567]

06:16 AM on 05/23/2010

Rand Paul's comments are unfortunate I'm upset the Civil Rights Act is even being questioned without it an African-American in Chicago my hometown would go through what they went through before

Desegregation wasn't enough there had to be a law making it clear that restaurants had to be required to serve Black people If a Black person showed up at a restaurant in Alabama the restaurant could be shutdown if they didn’t put the person in a segregated section.In Chicago any restaurant owner who wanted to could seat a Black person next to a White person but that also meant any restaurant owner could deny a Black person a table so there had to be an additional law requiring restaurants to serve African-Americans unless there was no empty table

I’m happy we have a Federal Law that requires serving Black people During the Bush years I didn't know everything about Rand’s dad Ron Paul I was thrilled to hear he opposed Mandatory Service(I am sopposed to forcing Americans who haven't been drafted by the military to do labor),I heard he was a Republican who disliked Bush.

What stopped me from supporting Paul I voted for my favorite Democrat in the 2008 primary was his opposition to the Voting Rights Act it is also considered by him to be a “property right”, to decide who to serve in a restaurant what about the "Human Right" of a Black person?

[Ben Cohn]

04:19 PM on 05/30/2010

Your ASSUMPTION that the "same as before" would happen, is just ludicris especially in Chicago. Business's that actually did discriminate would be constantly protested, and would only serve a very niche market. Most would die very quickly and the few that survived...so what you probably not want to be eating there anyways if that's the attitude of the owners.

AND WHY DO WE PERSIST IN ONLY LOOKING AT THIS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A WHITE BUISNESS OWNER AND BLACK CUSTOMER?...ITS 2010 people, Blacks own buisness's too, so do Hispanics and Asians, OH MY! If a Black business owner didn't want to serve Whites is he a racist, maybe, but should he have that right...I think so. Its a bad business decision, but that's not really my place.

Here's a hypothetical that a law professor (a black one) gave to me to show the absurdity of this equation of "discrimination" with "racism"....

"If a white Jew opened a restaurant and let in everyone except whites Christians, is he a racist? He lets in black christians and asians of various religions, he lets in muslims, atheists, ect ect. Ok now also take the religion part out. White businessman serves everyone but whites....racist?"

[seventhrama]

12:46 AM on 05/23/2010

There are several kinds of movement, e.g., ship’s movement, rhythmic movement, mechanical movement, and of course a political movement. But there is also movement of waste from the human body. That is to say: No movement can be divorced of its end result. Life in a practical sense is a movement, which cannot be sliced and diced to fit nicely into any one philosophical or political frame of reference. Nor can it be void of its consequences, intended or non-intended, no matter how hard we try. America is a great society because we dared to do what no other has dared do. We seek to form a more preface Union.

[jimmy3feet]

08:21 PM on 05/22/2010

"
I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress.
Frederick Douglass

I recognize the Republican party as the sheet anchor of the colored man's political hopes and the ark of his safety.
Frederick Douglass "

[interlude]

08:58 PM on 05/22/2010

"The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes" --William F. Buckley

"It was a mistake for National Review not to have supported the civil rights legislation of 1964-65" --William F. Buckley

[jimmy3feet]

09:13 PM on 05/22/2010

I will assume, for the sake of argument, that Frederick Douglass has (had) more direct and violent experience with slavery and racism than anyone else here in this debate today.

He was a slave, he freed himself, educated himself, and went on to become one of the great historical figures in the U.S.A.

While doing so, he made these quotes.

It is expedient that we (or many of us) describe ourselves as "republicans, democrats, greens, independents, etc", because to do otherwise.... would require the explication of our opinions on everything. So, we generally refer to ourselves as a "member" of a "party", as an expedient manner by which to generalize our philosophies.

Frederick Douglass, by referring to himself as a "Republican" was not speaking of the "party", but of the ideology or philosophy.

That philosophy which espouses the individual's liberties and powers above that of govt. or centralized powers.

Mr. Douglass, as he so eloquently stated... felt that these principles and not the latter, were the "the sheet anchor of the colored man's political hopes and the ark of his safety."

Therefore, his comments are as relevant today as they where then, because the real Tea Party represents the ideals of classical liberalism, which founded and made this country great.

Any notion to the contrary is simply wrong and any racism within the "Tea Party" is in no way indicative of the aims and beliefs of the true movement

[liberalOrgonian]

04:27 PM on 05/22/2010

It was interesting how Rand accused Maddow of calling him a racist.
I don't remember hearing that during the interview.
He again said it to George on GMA.
Blaming MSNBC for a poor performance looks foolishly Palin-ish.
We all want to understand the philosophy of his and the Tea Party.
Excitingly eager to hear more from Mr. Paul.
Is he for big/small business, small government, less/more regulations? Unions or non unions, worker rights and safety, human right ? Energy? Economy? War spending? Foreign policy? Wall St? Housing and foreclosures?
Does he believe in Climate change or risk humans on the planet? How would he keep us safe?
Who are his buds he hangs with, does he have a legal birth certificate? You know all the normal questions. How would he have stopped the next depression, what programs would he cut,Medicare, Medicaid, SS, USDA food program, Dep of Ag, OSHA, what would he do with BP and the oil?

[beninabox1]

12:57 PM on 05/22/2010

"I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who's handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator."

He's actually got a point here, but it's not with the idea of government regulations. It's with the inability to use intelligence in implementing them. If Republicans/conservatives would focus on that, without trashing the whole idea of regulation, maybe they and the Democrats could actually improve something. Ahh, just a dream.

[jimtron]

07:46 PM on 05/22/2010

That sounds like a bit of a straw man argument to me...I doubt that anyone is suggesting that a business build a $100k elevator for one employee when there's an office available on the first floor.

[LawrenceL]

09:51 PM on 05/22/2010

It's a complete strawman argument, because as he himself said, the business is required to **make an accomodation** to the handicapped person, and of course, giving that person an office on the first floor is perfectly reasonable accomodation and alternative to building an elevator.

It sounds like he destroyed his own argument.

[Ben Cohn]

04:09 PM on 05/30/2010

it is a straw man argument, but actually no that is correct, they would have to build the elevator. Say you own an apartment building (assume it was built after the American's with Disabilities Act was written), it would not be enough to say well we have an open room on the first floor, you have to build the elevator.

Not saying its wrong, just that is the correct statement of the law. A building must be handicap accessible and must have an elevator if built after the Americans with Disabilities Act.

[musolinilampost]

11:37 AM on 05/22/2010

I work at an airport where thousands of us must bend over like Obama kowtowing to the Saudi King just to scan our employee access numbers to walk down external STAIRS to the ramp area. No one in a wheel chair is ever going down those stairs. The cookie-cutter non nuanced approach setting the height of these readers is dictated in all new construction by the American With Disabilities Act. I don't want to sound mean or unfeeling toward our valued physically challenged folks, but is the solution to potentially give us all back problems?
Oh and let's not forget that grand scam the Help America Vote Act! Under the guise of helping the physically challenged to vote, a whole era of electronic voting theft and fraud gave us the likes of BushCo/Cheney ( A War Corporation) and other choice crooked politicians with their ruinous policies. The crooked politician Robert Nye (R-Ohio) who shepparded HAVA into law is doing time in a Federal Prison. Great!
Our Federal government as all governments certainly has nefarious operatives that work angles on perfectly well intentioned laws to enrich themselves or to further erode our Constitutional rights and control us.
To paint Liberty candidates as mean and unfeeling towards minorities or the physically challenged is a desperate and quite frankly scurilous attempt for the status quo powers that be to keep a monkey grip on power in this country.
We'd like to send a lot of them to join Bob Nye!

[bintalshamsa]

03:05 PM on 05/22/2010

Oh yes, why should you be forced to use those joints in your body just because other people might need to access a particular area? I mean, it's not like backs were actually MEANT to be used that way, right?

And why should we care about whether disabled people have access to voting facilities? Taxation without representation isn't all that big a deal, right? I mean, it's not like people with disabilities have as much of a right to vote as non-disabled people, right?

[LawrenceL]

09:53 PM on 05/22/2010

I guess you didn't see the video of Bush kissing the Saudi King, or holding the sword and dancing with it.

[RAND P]

10:37 AM on 05/22/2010

I'm hoping we don't have to have that unity breakfast someplace public, like a Woolworth's lunch counter. I simply hate going somewhere that allows just anyone in. Not that I'm one to discriminate, but I'm just so much more comfortable at my country club.

[houseofglass]

10:11 AM on 05/22/2010

Can you say maccaca? Nothing else this tea-joke says should matter.

[justobserve]

07:12 AM on 05/22/2010

Paul's view about the Civil Rights Act had been published one month before in a local newspaper. Yet he was elected! Luckily the big USA is not of the same mind so when the news is out, Paul is in the spotlight. In a big democratic country there will always be some extremists. Let's hope their numbers are disminished with time.

[RAND P]

10:38 AM on 05/22/2010

People that vote for me, like Sarah P. and her groupies, aren't big readers of newspapers. I'm real lucky in that respect.

[Toddler]

12:45 AM on 05/22/2010

Wathc this guy - great analysis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyBOSL6njFM&feature=player_embedded

[musolinilampost]

11:51 AM on 05/22/2010

No, no, no! Watch the original interview yourself and make up your own mind. Someone else's spin is BS!
Part of being and educated person is to be a descriminating observer, reader and studier of what comes before you-wait, I used the word 'descriminating'! Didn't that become a 'loaded' word back in the Civil Rights era '60's, and a code for bigotry. Tyrany from the right-tyrany from the left. If your agenda isn't Liberty and adherance to the US Constitution, you are the enemy. Period.

[Toddler]

04:27 PM on 05/22/2010

Whew....I did watch the original. I like listening to other viewpoints so I can be discriminating and make up my own mind. We don't live in a vacuum.

[interlude]

03:05 AM on 05/23/2010

"Atlas ducked."

Nice, thanks for the link. This rigid libertarian needed to be revealed. If his worldview can't stand up to scrutiny, it needs to be buried.

[Chris1962]

06:21 PM on 05/21/2010

>>>a conservative voice on MSNBC, Joe Scarborough>>>

Conservative???? Hahahahaha! Not quite.

[jt1980]

06:22 PM on 06/24/2010

The Tea Party movement has been so much to the right that even a center-right Reaganite like Scarborough seems a left-wing talking-head.

[merrimac10]

05:39 PM on 05/21/2010

Watching this interview, I was reminded of the Charles Durning character in the movie "Best Little W-house in Texas"; dancing, singing and doing a little sidestep.

[FluffyMagic]

04:47 PM on 05/21/2010

...Is it just me, or does the ding-bat procession just keep flowing like BP oil around here?