Rachel Maddow interviews Kentucky Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul about how he reconciles his views on small government with civil rights, racism and segregation.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Video: Day 2 reveals shocking scale of storm's destruction
Video: 'May 20' takes new meaning for Oklahoma
Video: Safe rooms prove effective defense against tornadoes
Video: Busy time for news beyond tornado tragedy
Video: Tea party seizes on IRS scandal as investigations, ineptitude perpetuate outrage
Video: Estimates give Moore sad distinction
Video: More from Moore
Leave a Comment:
This Interview was a waste with nothing but Rachael wanting to corner rand into something with just one mindset frame. It's quite clear at this point she had no clue on the subject and her only goal was to tip toe around everything rand said to keep on the same subject. Otherwise straying from this one piece I fear she would of fumbled even more off track..
You cannot ever agree to implement something that will compromise the constitution. There is public and private businesses.. If you where running a private business out of your home, are you going to allow the government to step in and tell you who to hire into your own home ? and if you do advocate for that government to do so, are you going to allow it to strip away your ability to voice out and protest, since then it would against a bill set in office ? which in turn contradicts and strips away your first amendment right ?
Theres a Vast Difference between public and private businesses, and no one bill can account for millions of differences that can seen around the nation.
Rand Paul as any other normal individual has his aligning to some of the civil rights bill but not all. but apparently Rachael thinks its either 100% or 0 .. as well as single minded track on problems, rather then seeing the real broad spectrum that is truly there.
Rand Paul probably isn't racist in the conventional sense though it looked nearly impossible to pin Mr. Paul down on a yes or no about private businesses being required by law not to refuse service to minorities. If Rand Paul doesn't win the race he may have a future in a Batman movie as 'The Wriggler' .
Mr Rand Paul left me confused.
not crazy about the interview with Ran Paul. This Private/Public issue as to restaurants is a tricky one. For example, i'm a smoker. there is nothing better then sitting at a bar, having a drink, talking with friends and in my case, smoking a small cigar. Of course you can't do this anymore, in any "civilized" city. Now, shouldn't the owner of that establishment determine if his/her place is smoking or non-smoking? The employees, when applying for the jobs, would know before had that it's a smoking establishment. In this case, why can't a business owner make that decision?
Um, smoking is not the same as race/gender. Er, yeah.
Because second-hand smoke is a Class A carcinogen that significantly increases the risk of several diseases when employees are exposed to it coupled to the fact that economists have found that the labor market is inelastic regarding wages for waitstaff.
Even employees who smoke see a significant increase in health risks if they work in an environment with second-hand smoke.
The fact you don't care that you are exposing others to a Class A carcinogen does not speak well of your character.
The libertarian argument to be made since these empirical findings in the in the 1990s/early-2000s is that employees' rights to a safe environment far exceeds the rights of owners and customers to expose them to this risk.
The science on second hand smoke is debateable. Modern air filters are available that remove much of the smoke. Government smoking bans in private businesses are wrong. Many bars and restaurants spent tens of thousands of dollars on smoking areas etc. and now have to take that loss. Smoking bans are more about ending cigarette and cigar use due to the health care costs associated with smokers who get cancer, have heart attacks and other smoking related diseases. Eventually cigarettes and cigars will become illegal once Phillip Morris figures out how to make dipping socially acceptable outside the South.
I enjoyed your interview with Rand Paul, however I'm confused. He seems to be dancing around one very important question. If I owned a restaurant, as a private (non government entity) I should be allowed to discriminate on the customers I would serve on the basis of skin color, ethnicity, religion, Kentucky accent, hair color, ( have I missed anything? I think that's what I heard him say, although he claims not to be a racist. I'm confused. Please have Mr Paul back so we can clarify this. I don't want to be unfair to him.
Thank you.
Rachel, should everyone be forced to have people they may not want in their establishment?
What about http://www.100blackmen.org/mission.aspx Should the 100 Black Men be forced to allow whites to join?
Should the Miss Black America contest be open to white women?
Should a smelly person who yells loudly and curses be allowed in a movie theater or library?
Should members of NAMBLA (men who like to have sex with boys) be allowed to hang out in the locker room of the elementary schools?
What about your home? What about your car? Where does the line get drawn for the nanny state of the government? Do you get to "own" anything without the government / nanny telling you HOW you can own it and what you can do with it, and who you have to share it with?
You can be against segregation, but still support private property rights. Do you REALLY believe that if a business put up a sign that said "no blacks served here", that they would stay in business long?
Do you really have such little faith in Americans? Not me. I believe we have a great country. I believe that Americans will vote with their wallets and put idiots out of business.
Let people make their own decisions.
I agree with your analysis, plus think of the benefits of knowing who the racists are and where they hang out. In the 20th century it was possible to get away with discriminatory business practices but in 2010 how long do you think it would be until a "no whatevers" business was publically exposed? Another way to handle such situations would be thru the IRS- impose a huge hospitality tax and then give an equivalent tax credit to zero discrimantion establishments. Money talks and even the most red neck hole in the wall will comply. Also, just because there is no longer a sign on the door doesnt mean segregation doesnt exist- its just more subtle particularly in the rural South.
Rob on the right---I give you a big thumbs up for your comment.
But public establishments DO legally discriminate against people they believe to be gay. it was just on ABC tonight. And these establishments are still in business. What if you're a gay couple and you don't know the establishment is homophobic. Why should a money paying customer be subjected to such humiliation? What happens if they are driving down a highway at night and they are the only nearby establishment open? So they should starve? Is this the tyoe of society you want to live in?
Strawman arguments. Not good ones, either.
Black Miss America does not provide a good or service to the public like a restaurant or swimming pool does. Adults having sex with minors is illegal, and public elementary schools are government property. Beligerent or violent customers are posing a risk to other customers and are nothing like black people wanting to peacefully have lunch in a public place.
And we're talking about businesses, not your house or car - though if you're selling crack from your house or crashing your car into things then yes, I want the government stepping in to stop you.
Oh I see: Anti-discrimination law is nothing but a slippery slope to lunch counter violence. Because nothing leads to gunfire like, you know, equality.
This has likely been said but I don't have time right now to read all the previous comments. I look forward to reading them later!
Paul argues that to have laws that ban segregation of private businesses means we would have to also allow people to carry guns into private businesses because the banning of segregation is based on public accommodation. Such bs.
With that 'logic' we should not be able to regulate any commerce conducted in a private business because it is private. We would not regulate the cleanliness of the food preparation or even require that private businesses not serve rotten food. We could not regulate a private medical practice, thus a private medical practice would not have to be limited to licensed physicians. Anyone could open a medical practice. Etc.
Very faulty reasoning.
Virtually every business in our country is private business so just imagine what Rand Paul is really suggesting. Say every plumbing business in town refused to serve African Americans? What if WalMart has run virtually every small business out of town and decides it won't allow Latinos in it's store? What if the only doctor's office in the area that serves low income people stopped seeing people over 25? Does he seriously think this sort of thing would be good for the rest of us, for the country? I couldn't believe what was coming out of his mouth. If he's so worried about conflicting rights, then that's what legislation is for.
"Say every plumbing business in town refused to serve African Americans?"
Then African Americans would start plumbing businesses.
"What if WalMart has run virtually every small business out of town and decides it won't allow Latinos in it's store?"
Then Latinos will start their own stores or swap meets. The most successful of them will one day buy out WalMart.
"What if the only doctor's office in the area that serves low income people stopped seeing people over 25?"
That will be a problem, but only because Government has meddled in the market for medicine so very much already that free market alternatives would not pop up.
Swap Meets? You're a RACIST!
This has likely been said but I don't have time right now to read all the previous comments. I look forward to reading them later!
Paul argues that to have laws that ban segregation of private businesses means we would have to also allow people to carry guns into private businesses because the banning of segregation is based on public accommodation. Such bs.
With that 'logic' we should not be able to regulate any commerce conducted in a private business because it is private. We would not regulate the cleanliness of the food preparation or even require that private businesses not serve rotten food. We could not regulate a private medical practice, thus a private medical practice would not have to be limited to licensed physicians. Anyone could open a medical practice. Etc.
Very faulty reasoning.
The issue is that while he is personally opposed to race-based discrimination, he does not support efforts by the government to prevent it. This means he is tolerant of society in which it exists. Or perhaps not. His argument could be that just because the government doesn't do anything to prevent it, it doesn't necessarily follow that other non-governmental means would not be successful at curtailing it. But if this is his argument he needs to be very explicit about what non-governmental mechanisms would actually work to ensure that racial discrimination in hiring, for example, is not widespread. Perhaps a market mechanism where people would not patronize establishments that do this or that those that did discriminate would have to operate wholly detached from all government aid. I think it's a big stretch to successfully argue for the effectiveness of such strategies.
And yet the conservatives and libertarians are complaining about the boycott of Arizona. HYPOCRITES!
Rand Paul's comparison of segregation and the right to bear arms is a false analogy. In the case of gun carry rights, every person has the ability and choice to go home and put their gun away and return to be served lunch. Minorities cannot shed their identity like a possession and return for service. Rand Paul's failure to understand this difference shows a failure of logical thought and an egregious insensitivity to the struggles of minorities.
My thoughts exactly. If 'public safety' can be used to circumvent Miranda, it can surely prevent guns in bars.
While I dislike both Paul's, I think I see his point. He is ideologically opposed to government intrusion/regulation of private property. Telling a restaurant it must serve black people is an infringement on the owner's control over his own property, akin to telling someone you must allow black guests in your home. The problem with many Libertarians is their rigid ideology drags them into absurd extremes. That restaurant is already complying with zillions of local, state and federal regulations on food & building safety, worker rules, taxes, alcohol license, etc. Where do you draw the line between acceptable gov't intrusion (food safety) and unacceptable (no-trans fats, IMO)? Extreme libertarians think in black & white, which is why Paul would not seek to prevent discrimination in restaurants. But he knows he can't say that, so he tried to run out the clock by babbling incoherently. Kudos to Rachel for hounding him for an answer. I wish more journalists were this persistent.
Your home, which accepts visitors on an invitation only basis, is not the same as your business which offers services and an implicit open invitation to the public.
WOW, arguing for a private institution's right to discriminate based on race, sexuality, or whatever characteristics the private owner deems adequate to refuse service on because they are a private institution. Nice! Maybe that helps to explain why the Tea Party Movement is completely comprised of Anglo-Saxons. For Whites, By Whites!
And if you disagree with that assessment, show me a Tea Party conglomerate that has a balanced demographic in concerns to not only race, but also to social class as well. Please! I would love to learn that there is a reasonable number of non-white members to go along with the totally white majority of the Tea Party movement that is sweeping the nation.
As someone who presently lives in Kentucky, I'm betting he answered the question the way he did because there are currently some establishments, mainly country clubs, that do not allow black members. I don't know much about Paul, (I support Jack Conway) but maybe he's a member at one or has friends who are. Or perhaps he hopes to get funding and support from the members of said country clubs?
Rachel - very helpful and timely for you to interview Dr. Paul tonight, on the heels of his primary run. I was astounded by Dr. Pau's unwavering position about (my words) the overreach of Civil Rights legislation.
While he is okay with the provisions that dealt with public facilities, he needs to draw the line about imposing rules (of human decency) on lunch counter owners, restaurateurs, et al.
My favorite part though is when he indicated that YOU were conflating the issue, and YOU were tossing the red herring into the discussion. Ironically that is exactly what he was doing by trying to equate the reasonableness of not preventing a business person to deny service to anyone because of race.
Of course this could then make it impossible to prevent the restaurant owner to prevent people from bringing in guns! And for that matter they could get drunk and drive their car right into the dining room, and throw anthrax around, and shoot off automatic weapons, and maybe use a little c4 while they were at it.
If the pure human decency of disallowing service to people because of their race isn't worthwhile enough to Dr. Paul - because that would make it difficult to legislate other things - like effective gun control, then maybe we could just let the discrimination return. And to anyone who discriminates they can be denied access to public roads, water, power grids, transportation, police, fire , and emt protection etc. If you don't serve the public you don't get public service.
Maybe the real conflation and red herring is that Dr. Paul doesn't want to talk about this anymore, because then we might also have to talk more about gun control....
Thanks Rachel
Public safety outweighs private rights. If 'public safety' can be used to circumvent Miranda, it can surely prevent guns in bars.
I have just witnessed one of the slimiest characters in politics. No honest yes or no to Rachel's questions...he just goes off on some rambling speech that pulls the listener off track. You never get a real answer, and he ends up getting more air time for his views. All these creeps are coming out of the woodwork because small subcultures of people, not interested in progress and hungering for simpler times, are electing them. A Libertarian philosophy ends up costing society more in the long run...the addict who is allowed legal drugs drains the medical system. The man going to a bar with a gun gets drunk and kills an innocent bystander. Rand Paul can stand there and say he objects to all of this personally, yet he's pandering to his constituency that ignores society's standards for decency. No thanks.
Great interview with Congressman Sestak. Also, watch the PA 6th race, Dr. Manan Trivedi will challenge incumbent (R) Jim Gerlach in November.
THANK YOU!!!
Thank you so much Rachael for shining a BRILLIANT bright light on a critical position that Rand Paul has taken and will could promote in the Senate if elected.
Excellent work by you and your team!
It is downright scary that he wouldn't comment on the lunch counter question about south carolina/greenville/bob jones.
I moved down here. It is downright freaky how the fundamentalist thing permeates all. What would be socially nuts up north, is common down here.
Lots of christian fundamentalist history you have to cite. The whole succession thing started with that crazy group in Texas and they had a convention in Greenville SC ironically. They subtly suggest violence if they don't get their way. Please google articles about fundamentalist's in the Air Force and only promoting their own. Scary.
I feel that this is the difference. Up north, when people dont't like blacks/african americans/minorities, it is because they disapprove of behavior, etc.
Down South, I believe that they think people of certain non-white cultures are "genetically inferior". There in lies the difference. it is almost like they believe that "other-than-white" people are genetically inferior.
That is downright scary. Especially when someone is covering their car with fish icons and jesus stickers, and part of the public social culture is to proclaim in public, your faith, and somehow doesn't count you if you are not white....horrifying.
Im a transplant too and its not "almost like", it IS JUST LIKE THAT. Not all, not even the majority particularly younger people, but I have seen totally overt rasicm in all its ugly glory down here. In my neighbors, in my town. Im 50 years old and the first time I heard an elderly white lady refer to a black man as a "@!$%#" in casual conversation- she laughed at the expression on my face. Ive overheard people call President Obama "that @!$%# president" in the grocery store. And yes they drive away in cars decorated with fish pictures, McCain/Palin bumper stickers and biblical quotes. There are 66 churches in an area that's 492 sq. miles with a pop. of 58,000. 13% of the populace have college degrees. The rural south is a very strange place.
Mr. Paul may go into the Guiness Book of World Records as the 'Longest Answer Without Answering the Question' . If Rand Paul loses this race he may have a future in a Batman movie as 'The Wriggler'. Apparently, being asked a question that you don't want to answer is an attack.
Rachel's idiotic argument would be like saying that if you support the 1st amendment, you support the klan's hate speech.
I was not a fan of how you interviewed the President of FAIR... a bit of bullying going on.... but your interview with Rand Paul was EXCEPTIONAL and more in line with what people want and appreciate.
Keep up the great work!!