Wednesday on "Hardball," Jack Conway charged that Rand Paul wanted to do away with the Civil Rights Act. In fact, Rand Paul's words to the Courier-Journal, in their editorial board interview, were even more extreme than the paper's editorial reveal.
The interview that reveals Rand Paul's views on civil rights was done in April. People have linked to the editorial, but the transcript has not been circulated.
Conway's charge today on "Hardball" sent me searching. Below is a transcript (the piece below is at the very end of the interview):
Question: Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Rand Paul: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains and I'm all in favor of that.
Questioner: But...?
Rand Paul: (nervous laugh) You had to ask me the "but." um.. I don't like the idea of telling private business owners - I abhor racism - I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time I do believe in private ownership. But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination on anything that gets any public funding and that's most of what the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind.
Questioner: And then it was extended by most to most localities to include all... Would you be in favor of just local--
Rand Paul: On a local basis it might be a little different. The thing is I would speak out in favor of it. (pause) I mean, I look at the speeches of Martin Luther King, and I tell you I become emotional watching the speeches of Martin Luther King. I love it because he was a transformational figure... [...] (goes on to talk about Martin Luther King for a few moments)
Questioner: But under your philosophy it would be okay for Dr. King to not be served at the counter at Woolworths?
Rand Paul: I would not go to that Woolworth's, and I would stand up in my community and say it's abhorrent. um... But the hard part, and this is the hard part about believing in freedom is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example, you to, for example-- most good defenders will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things, and we're here at the bastion of newspaperdom (sic) and I'm sure you believe in the First Amendment, so I'm sure you understand people can say bad things. It's the same way with other behaviors. 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.
Questioner: But it's different with race, certainly a hundred years, discrimination based on race was codified under federal law.
Rand Paul: Exactly, it was institutionalize and that's why we had to end all of the institutional racism in um.. I was in favor of completely of that ...
It's just stunning.
The current playbook being used by Rand Paul was first used in Virginia by Bob McDonnell, regardless of whether they know each other or not. It's simply how ultra conservative candidates are running their races, focusing on economic issues, while hiding their extreme views on social issues, including women's rights, but also on civil rights where Rand Paul is concerned.
There is an undercurrent of opinion dogging the Tea Party that posits they are racist. It has also dogged the Republican Party since their Southern strategy was implemented, of which the Tea Party is an extreme element.
From the Louisville Courier-Journal editorial board, after their interview with Rand Paul, an article entitled "In Republican Senate race, a dismal choice" was an indictment on the Republicans in the race. That was an understatement where Rand Paul is concerned.
The trouble with Dr. Paul is that despite his independent thinking, much of what he stands for is repulsive to people in the mainstream. For instance, he holds 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.He quickly emphasizes that he personally would not agree with any form of discrimination, but he just doesn't think it should be legislated.
His perspectives -- like Mr. Grayson's -- are repellent to those who believe in a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. Indeed, Dr. Paul wouldn't even permit exceptions in the case of rape or incest. He says the mother and the unborn zygote have equal rights.
If you still care, considering Paul's civil rights views, on Sarah Palin being qualified to be president he says "absolutely," also saying he feels "a kinship with her," because of her Alaska outsider status that catapulted her to power. "She also has something you can't buy and that's likability," he said of Palin.
However, nothing matters after Rand Paul's views on women's rights, but especially on civil rights, which is hair raising.
It's the nakedness and naïveté of Mr. Paul's views on civil rights laws, that legislation should not impact businesses, that is not only evidence that he's unfit for Congress, but that he's actually dangerous. To think that the United States would no longer require laws to protect minorities is just ignorant and lacking in experience in the real world.
As for his anti-women's rights views, especially on individual freedoms, it's absolutely discriminatory against women. It's appalling in this day and age that a doctor would believe that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will. The editorial board found his views "repellent" and they are correct. To say that the unborn has "equal" rights to the woman is simply wrong.
As for DADT, Mr. Paul danced around it, but came down on a "non-fraternization" policy for everyone.
Oh, but Rand Paul doesn't think Barack Obama is the anti-Christ. He just doesn't believe a private business should have to serve the President of the United States if they don't want to.
Taylor Marsh is a political analyst out of Washington, D.C.
Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh
Eddie Glaude, Jr., Ph.D.: The Souls of Some White Folks
Some will argue, as many have, that Rand Paul's comments about Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were consistent with his libertarian principles. However, freedom-talk without justice-talk is empty and, potentially, dangerous.
AUDIO: Rand Paul Tells NPR That Civil Rights Should Have Been ...
Think Progress » Rand Paul: 'The Hard Part Of Believing In Freedom ...
Rand Paul | Civil Rights Act | Video | Mediaite
He made it very clear he abhored racism. He believed that although bad private bisinesses have a right to discriminate if they chose to. The government passed the unconsitutional JIm Crow Laws. These laws insitutionalised segregation. Laws are made to rescrict behavoir. The laws were made to KEEP PEOPLE FROM INTEGRATING so if the Jim Crow Laws were never passed blacks and whites would have able to integrate a lot easier and it would have greatly lessened the problems that the Civil Rights Act had to address. Even in the south many whites did not want to segregate but were forced to.
Libertarians are against discrimination, they were against the Jim Crow laws.
If you say that Paul a racist and wants to return the country to segregation because he disagrees with a part of the Civil Rights Act.
Is like someone saying that you approved of Saadams leadership and you wanted him to kill more of his own people because you were against the Iraq War.
He made it very clear he abhored racism. He believed that although bad private bisinesses have a right to discriminate if they chose to. The government passed the unconsitutional JIm Crow Laws. These laws insitutionalised segregation. Laws are made to rescrict behavoir. The laws were made to KEEP PEOPLE FROM INTEGRATING so if the Jim Crow Laws were never passed blacks and whites would have able to integrate a lot easier and it would have greatly lessened the problems that the Civil Rights Act had to address. Even in the south many whites did not want to segregate but were forced to.
Libertarians are against discrimination, they were against the Jim Crow laws.
If you say that Paul a racist and wants to return the country to segregation because he disagrees with a part of the Civil Rights Act.
Is like someone saying that you approve of Saadams leadership and you want him to kill more of his own people because you were against the Iraq War.
Taylor Marsh's comment, "Oh, but Rand Paul doesn't think Barack Obama is the anti-Christ. He just doesn't believe a private business should have to serve the President of the United States if they don't want to," is obviously intended as sarcasm.
It sounds as if you're also unaware that as soon as the Democratic primary was over, and Hillary had graciously conceded, Marsh immediately swung her complete support to Obama.
"It is therefore a cruel irony that the President of the United States has only yesterday signed into law the most monstrous piece of legislation ever enacted by the United States Congress.
"It is a fraud, a sham, and a hoax.
"This bill will live in infamy. To sign it into law at any time is tragic. To do so upon the eve of the celebration of our independence insults the intelligence of the American people.
"It dishonors the memory of countless thousands of our dead who offered up their very lives in defense of principles which this bill destroys.
"Never before in the history of this nation have so many human and property rights been destroyed by a single enactment of the Congress. It is an act of tyranny. It is the assassin's knife stuck in the back of liberty."
"Today, this tyranny is imposed by the central government which claims the right to rule over our lives under sanction of the omnipotent black-robed despots who sit on the bench of the United States Supreme Court."
Wallace. Paul. Feel the love, and the wisdom of "local control."
This is fun. Who else can we associate with Paul? As long as we don't actually consider what he says in any depth (http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/05/rand-paul-sets-the-record-straight/), the field is wide open. :)
Imagine a grocery store owner has a vacancy at his store. The first applicant to apply is of a race that the community discriminates against. A federal law forces the grocery store owner to hire this applicant . Due to the preference of the community, the grocery store owner's customers now shop at another store because of their discrimination against this race. Why should the grocery store owner suffer for the beliefs of others? It should be his right to decide who he hires. There is no reason to believe the grocery store owner is racist. He may or may not be. It is wrong that the law forced the owner to hire an applicant that brought harm to his business. Credit Milton Friedman for this example.
The argument remains baseless and pathetic.
Who do you do business with since everyone has to comply with the law. They don't have to like it, they just have to comply with it.
As I understand it, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires specific jurisdictions to get preauthorization at a federal level to make changes in polling places, etc. This was added oversight during the civil rights years to target problem areas. The regulation remains to this day and adds costs and constraints to districts nearly a half century later.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act#Preclearance
None of this, of course, has much to do with the essence of Paul's objection to federal intrusion into free association on private property and explicit rejection of discrimination in governmental spheres.
But this practice went beyond just food services, nightClubs and bowling alleys.
This practice was extended to hospitals and other medical services, ambulances, private schools and universities, cabs and taxis etc.
It effects not just ethnicities, but gender, religion and national origin...
So you being Latino.... being refused treatment in a local private hospital having a critical illness,, simply for the fact that you are Latino doesn't bother then you are como un tonto
- Jonathan Swift
----
Rand Paul is probably not a Racist/Bigot.... don't know what's in his heart and I'll take his word for that...
But what I do know is that he honestly believes that outdated and ancient Right of Racist/Bigotry is a Constitutional Right in the 21st Century simply because the Founding Fathers had those ancient beliefs in the 18th Century..
This is NOT the type of person I want to be a part of the Senate and have any influence on Laws and Protections that effect us all.
Advanced Studies in High School I presume ?
Rand Paul's take on a pure liberty that frees mankind of all restraints on even the worse of human character is a prescription for anarchy. We have already borne the burden of what unfettered greed on Wall Street can do to almost bring down the greatest economy on earth and destroy the best laid plans of the citizens of this country.
Wrong
The owner has every right to refuse business to anyone they choose to. I do it all the time as a business owner.
If doing what's evil/wrong, is what you have to do to get elected, you are correct. Your denigration of those who do right, instead of doing anything necessary to win(lying, cheating, stealing, murder, betrayal), is an excellent example of psychopathy (being free of a conscience).
Exactly how old are you? And, if you are less than 50, what sort of claptrap have you been reading? Goldwater was easily the most conservative presidential candidate (Major party nominee) in the last 70 years. There was nothing moderate about his positions whatsoever.
If your sense of what is Right and Wrong is as astute as your assessment of Goldwater, you really need to go get a real education somewhere...
"In your guts, you know he's nuts."
Ah, fun times. 1964
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba2kfIc4Ttg&feature=player_embedded#