Rand Paul On 'Maddow' Defends Criticism Of Civil Rights Act, Says He Would Have Worked To Change Bill (VIDEO)

MAJOR UPDATES: Rand Paul has responded to the controversy over his appearance on Maddow's show. Click here for the latest.

Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul believes that the federal government blurred the lines between public and private property when it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and made it illegal for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race.

Paul explained his views on "The Rachel Maddow Show" Wednesday, just one day after walloping his opponent in Kentucky's Republican primary.

Maddow focused on the Tea Party-backed candidate's civil rights stance after he publicly criticized parts of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Paul told Maddow that he agrees with most parts of the Civil Rights Act, except for one (Title II), that made it a crime for private businesses to discriminate against customers on the basis of race. Paul explained that had he been in office during debate of bill, he would have tried to change the legislation. He said that it stifled first amendment rights:

Maddow: Do you think that a private business has a right to say that 'We don't serve black people?'

Paul: I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race.

But I think what's important in this debate is not getting into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question 'What about freedom of speech?' Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it...

Paul argued that Maddow's questions weren't practical, but were instead abstract. She asked Paul to tell that to protesters who were beaten in their struggle for equal rights:

Maddow:... How about desegregating lunch counters?
Paul: Well what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says 'well no, we don't want to have guns in here' the bar says 'we don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each-other.' Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion...

Maddow: Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen's lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership. This is not a hypothetical Dr. Paul.

Paul will face Democratic Senate candidate and Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway in the general election to replace Republican Sen. Jim Bunning on November 2, 2010.

WATCH: Maddow interviews Paul

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Comments

[ThinkLiberalOrDie]

09:30 PM on 05/27/2010

Stefan Molyneux hits the nail in Rand Pauls head! LOL!

Fast forward to 1:01:34

youtube.com/watch?v=UD_1nbahAts

[SheikhNY]

04:05 PM on 05/24/2010

Rand Paul, libertarians, and teapartiers are infantile and weak minded. You cannot be against racism and at the same time support someone's right to commit racist acts.

[DrLawrence]

03:53 PM on 05/24/2010

Get Real.
If Rand Paul want to have private property which does not for any purpose use the public roads (which we all pay for) or the public sidewalk to get there (which we all pay for) or the water (wwapf) power, sewer, transportation services, public safety services, agricultural services or our US Military (wwapf) to defend his him in the event somebody crosses into our country to take his “private business” away. And runs his private business on his own private property which someone can somehow get to without touching any publicly owned service or space then he is welcome to his little island of crazy. You would have to be very wealthy to travel to his business

He would also not be able use the services of anyone who is a US citizen or green card holder (depending on the kind of discrimination) as they will need to get Social Security and unemployment (a huge discrimination problem here – has anyone noticed?) services so he will have to import all his labor and maintenance and repair and construction and supply services. Everything will have to be flown in to his business. How he will be able to comply with federal inspections and air space is beyond me because to do business people and the supplies have to be in the common space we all pay for.

How about the North Pole? iIt is certainly a nice color for him.

[hwjone]

10:32 AM on 05/29/2010

Perfect place for Dr. Paul, from the Wikipedia article on the North Pole (Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pole) "...the North Pole is located in the middle of the Arctic Ocean amidst waters that are almost permanently covered with constantly shifting sea ice." All wet and constantly shifting ideas.

[ToeChopper]

09:48 PM on 05/23/2010

Maddow has shown her lunacy. In her interview with Rand Paul , Paul was clear that he abhors racism. Maddow badgers his stance that privately owned and funded business's and organization's should be able to make racist fools of themselves at their own peril. This is based on Libertarian foundation of less government.

Maddow, in her zeal to label Paul a racist, get her "gotcha" moment, fails to realize the description she gives for a racist private org fits the Congressional Black Caucus to a tee! The net sum of her thesis is condemnation of the CBC and condemnation of Paul 's statement that they DO have a right to do as they please at their own peril.

From Politico, practices of the CBC. The exact practices Maddow is against.

~ Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who is white, tried (to join the CBC) in1975 when he was a sophomore representative and the group was only six years old.

"Half my Democratic constituents were African American. I felt we had interests in common as far as helping people in poverty," Stark said. "They (the CBC) had a vote, and I lost. They said the issue was that I was white, and they felt it was important that the group be limited to African Americans." ~

Maddow proves Paul's point that the encroachment via over "lawing" can have a unintended affect Paul argues. Will Maddow now lead the charge to close the, according to HER, Racist CBC?

[SmoothMineral]

09:04 PM on 05/24/2010

Interesting you would bring up the Congressional Black Caucus, when they have nothing to do with this. Using the old "defend racism by calling the victims racist" ploy, eh? Speaking out against the dreaded "reverse racism"?

When did Maddow "label Rand Paul a racist"? All she did was ask him what his views on the Civil Rights Act were, and let viewers draw their own conclusions. She never stated a "thesis." In fact, the most that she said on this point was that she strongly disagrees with his views.

Rand Paul's policies which would allow racism to flourish under the guise of free market principles speak louder than his repeated statements that he is against racism. That is the conclusion that all of us have drawn from this interview. This is so obvious that you inferred it, and then put it into Rachel Maddow's mouth.

[Lorianne]

08:13 PM on 05/25/2010

Racism 'flourishes' when it is hidden.
Private businesses who have racist policies would not flourish, they would be scorned.

[ToeChopper]

09:07 PM on 05/23/2010

Maddow has shown her lunacy. In the highly touted interview with Rand Paul (r Kentucky), she claims a victory via a “gotcha” moment, in that Paul had issues with the civil rights act of 64. Paul was clear that he abhors racism. Maddow badgers his stance that privately owned and funded business's and organization's should be able to make racist fools of themselves at their own peril. His foundation for this is his own Libertarian foundation of less government in our lives.

Maddow fails to realize the description she gives for a private organization fits the Congressional Black Caucus to a tee! Although not specifically mentioned other than very specific description, the net sum of her thesis is condemnation of the Congressional Black Caucus and condemnation of Paul 's statement that they have a right to do as they please at their own social peril.

Here is an article describing the practices of the Congressional Black Caucus. The exact practices Maddow is against.
http://www.politico.com/news/s…../2389.html

[mon24seti]

06:29 PM on 05/23/2010

In order to open a private business, zoning laws have to be adhered to. In a Rand Paul world those would be gone too?

[dogisgreat]

07:00 PM on 05/23/2010

Only a feudal world with an enslaved labor class would be adequately "free" for corporate totalitarians like Rand Paul. There is no liberty with laissez-faire corporatism.

[Lorianne]

08:14 PM on 05/25/2010

Zoning laws are local laws, not Federal
Paul was asked about, and resonded to, questions about a Federal law.

[FACTISFACT]

02:31 PM on 05/23/2010

The article speaks out clearly what is right to follow and what is wrong. Any person with average intelligence would be able to come to the conclusion that in Twenty First Century hatred based on Race, Religion and color is considered to be a stupid mania that is in itself is a destructive source for oneself, for a group, and for the Nation.

US A is not a country belonging to any person's father or father in law's property. It is a country of immigrants populated by people coming from all over the world. All these people are not black, yellow, brown, or white. They all for years, decade, and centuries lived together, sweated together, and spilled their blood together for the country USA. Can anyone deny this fact?

None to interfere with Individual Rights, and Human Rights, but Government has the Right to trim or enlarge the Civil Rights so long ias it serves to maintain civility within the citizens for amiable social harmonious living condition.

Therefore, the argument should be there and also all matters may have difference of opinion but to agree ultimately on the issue for a better harmonious living environment and not to fight and spill blood.

The Intelligentsia strongly opined that every individual has the right to give his opinion to better the Civil Rights but not to Destroy, Anyone who does opine such points to destabilize the prevailing social harmony; the appropriate agency should immediately take action.

,

[PR one]

01:12 PM on 05/23/2010

This is my own definition of a Republican/Teabagger/Libertarian.
Government overeach when they are Democrat and the laws are against
their point of views.

[RustNeverSleeps]

11:56 AM on 05/23/2010

Excellent interview Rachel!

[AZ BONEZ]

05:00 AM on 05/23/2010

You anti-teabagger anti-GOP loudmouths are pack of hypocrites.

~~

The 1964 Civil Rights Act wouldn't even exist if Republicans hadn't gone against Democrat opposition to it in order to get it pushed through Congress.

Lyndon B. Johnson [Republican] had to out maneuver the chairman of the Rules Committee [Howard Smith, a Democrat] who tried bury it indefinitely in Committee.

When the bill went before the full Senate it was the "Southern Bloc" of 18 Democratic and 1 Republican that launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. - Said they: ""We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our states."

When it finally did pass the Republicans voted 82%[Senate] and 80% [House] *YES* where as Democrats yes votes were only 69% and 63%.

~~

Not to mention it was a DEMOCRAT [FDR] that instituted the Japanese-Americn Internment camps during WWII.

~~

Historically DEMOCRATS are the worst racists and the most avid hate-mongers in the US.

From what I can see it hasn't changed much.
.

[Parallax M86]

09:35 AM on 05/23/2010

What in the world are you talking about? The Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act more than the Republicans did. 94% of Northern Democrat Representatives and 98% of Northern Democrat Senators supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as opposed to only 85% of Northern Republican Representatives and 84% of Northern Republican Senators. 7% of Southern Democrat Representatives and 5% of Southern Democrat Senators supported it as opposed to 0% of Southern Republicans from both houses of Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party_and_region

Might I remind you the Southern Democrats/Dixiecrats were a states' rights conservative party. After 1964 the Dixiecrats promptly switched to the Republican Party which welcomed them in when Richard Nixon ran for president and played the Southern Strategy to appeal to former Dixiecrats. That's how the traditionally Democratic South went Republican.

[AmeriGus]

11:11 AM on 05/23/2010

Do you really think LBJ was Republican? We await your correction.

[Robert Gutleben]

01:37 AM on 05/23/2010

How about hospitals, public transportation, food markets, and housing, Mr. Paul? What if a Texas Baptist hospital decides it won't provide emergency services for Jews, gays, prostitutes? Realators in Kentucky decide not to sell to blacks in white neighborhoods, a major airline won't allow muslems to fly on their airplanes, etc.etc.. I suggest that the southern states, and others, would take us back socially and morally a 100 years or more.

[AZ BONEZ]

05:08 AM on 05/23/2010

What if a Psychiatrist want to specialize in Gay/Lesbian issues.

Should the shrink be required by Law to accept Hetero clients?

ALL HE WAS TRYING TO SAY IS THESE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN 1964 AND AS THEY STILL HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED PERHAPS THEY SHOULD BE.

Then this WITCH HUNTER journalist twisted it into racism.
.

[AmeriGus]

11:26 AM on 05/23/2010

ERs are legally bound to help anyone that comes through the door. The Hippocratic Oath is a moral vow doctors make to help those that need it. A hetero insisting he be treated by a doctor who specializes in gays is a poor hypothetical. The gun question by Paul was great though.

Please explain how Maddow made any racist comment. She was trying to get Paul to admit his stance on government interference includes the right to discriminate (indeed it does). Paul was so unprepared he couldn't even say this was in fact his belief - he should merely have said he would be the first to boycott and protest outside a luncheonette that bans blacks, but that he felt even racial profiling is protected under his view on private commerce.

If Paul cannot "handle" Rachel Maddow trying to box him in to a corner as a test for what will likely become a heated campaign with extremely negative ads, he is not fit for elected office. Do you think he handled things well or that he needs more training?

Did you note how Maddow simply eluded his counter-inquiry on the gun issue? Why didn't he badger and persist until SHE answered that question? She deflected it like a master debater, taking advantage of Paul. He couldn't insist she answer that first? It would have been the perfect ju-jitsu on Maddow, but no. Paul is not ready for primetime, but I'm sure he learned a lot this week.

[PR one]

01:26 PM on 05/23/2010

He did say that he wasn't in favor of Title 2 of the Civil Right Act.
that if he had had a chance back them he would have change it.
that is already discussed and settle. It's the law. Unless Congress
wants to go back to this issue and repeal it. Rand Paul says that
if he were a member of Congress he wouldn't repeal it. But then I
ask myself, why is he running on this issue?

[mmonarch]

11:42 PM on 05/22/2010

Just a small point about Republicans and the Civil Rights Act of 1964: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/feature/2000/07/17/rights/

" "It was Republicans who voted overwhelmingly for the Civil Rights Act of 1964" as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, she says. "That kind of thing is easily researchable."

She's right: According to Congressional Quarterly, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the House 290-130, and Republican support for the bill was much stronger than Democratic: 61 percent (152-96) of the Democrats supported the legislation while 80 percent (138-34) of the Republicans backed it. These numbers were similar in the Senate -- 69 percent of Democrats (46-21), backed the bill along with 82 percent of Republicans (27-6).

Gore's father, Sen. Al Gore Sr., D-Tenn., was one of the 21 Democrats who voted against it. So was Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., himself a former member of the Ku Klux Klan " Read some more of a very interesting article by Jake Tapper.

[JudgeMoonbox]

11:53 PM on 05/22/2010

" "It was Republicans who voted overwhelmingly for the Civil Rights Act of 1964" as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, she says. "That kind of thing is easily researchable."

You're painting a false picture by omitting the fact that the parties have changed since 1964. The Southern Conservative faction has almost entireley left the Democratic Party after being welcomed by Nixon's Southern Strategy. You're letting the last party of Strom Thurmond criticize the Democrats for once having been the party of Strom Thurmond.

[LawrenceL]

12:00 AM on 05/23/2010

And back in '64, the GOP included both a few Liberals like Nelson Rockefeller, and principled Conservatives like Barry Goldwater. There is no place in the GOP nowadays for anyone liberal or mainstream, Maine being the happy exception.

[mmonarch]

12:15 AM on 05/23/2010

No I am not. I am reporting the facts. What happened and how they voted. Sen. Byrd is still alive and a voting Dem. He voted no. It doesn't matter what it is now. This is what it was then. And the GOP voted yes and the Dems voted no.

[JudgeMoonbox]

11:17 PM on 05/22/2010

"But I think what's important in this debate is not getting into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question 'What about freedom of speech?' Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. "

This is absurd. It's like saying that if we outlaw murder, then we have to ask ourselves if boxing should be permitted.

[PR one]

09:46 AM on 05/26/2010

Did you have any problems with the "teabaggers" denying people
their freedom of speech during the Town Hall Meetings?

[JudgeMoonbox]

09:09 PM on 05/26/2010

Me: " 'But I think what's important in this debate is not getting into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question 'What about freedom of speech?' Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. '

This is absurd. It's like saying that if we outlaw murder, then we have to ask ourselves if boxing should be permitted."

PR one: "Did you have any problems with the "teabaggers" denying people
their freedom of speech during the Town Hall Meetings?"

I'm perplexed by the intent of your question. Are you saying that supporting freedom of speech includes supporting the freedom to shout down opponents' speech?

Ponder the old saying, "Your freedom to swing your arm stops where my nose starts." Speaking your mind is like swinging your arm. Shouting down opposition is like punching me in the nose. If I understood your question accurately, that is my answer.

[sjcarl]

10:39 PM on 05/22/2010

Go Conway!

[LawrenceL]

10:33 PM on 05/22/2010

It's unfortunate Hunter Thompson didn't live long enough to discredit opportunists like Palin and Paul.

[petuniafish]

11:23 PM on 05/22/2010

So true!
Hunter Thompson could slice thru political weavers and dodgers like those two as a knife thru butter. He nailed Nixon to the cross. Somewhere in the sky where HST's remains were sent, he's ranting about not being able to take these people out with the trash.