Jackson, Mississippi, 1963
Greg Sargent asks a reasonable question about the Rand Paul interview amaze-matron. Paul objected to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banning discrimination by private businesses. Sargent writes, "What do Paul's highest profile patrons think of this? Where's Jim DeMint? How about Dick Armey of Freedomworks?"
How about this, from Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)? From Politico:
"I think the two of them were having a bit of good time having a debate like you had at 2 a.m. in the morning when you're going to college, but it doesn't have a lot to do with anything," Kyl said.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) tells Think Progress, "I'm going to talk to Rand about his positions." (With video.)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who endorsed Paul's opponent in the primary, is "glad to hear Dr. Paul supports" the Civil Rights Act.
Leave a Comment:
Keep digging Rachel we need to more about this. What is the history of this "private club" Rand held his victory party at?....What are his views on mining regulation? Wall Street reform? Social Security and Medicare entitlements? I want to hear more about his Civil Rights beliefs...And which Republicans support his beliefs they need to be on record too.
Totally agree with MS Bryant! We need to find out all of his views that are important and pressing on our society right now!! He about made me sick when he stated that private business should now be bound by the Civil Rights act!!! I remember when the marches happened and it was, I had hoped, a lesson learned that no man is better than another, period!!!
Go get him, Rachel!!!
"...but it doesn't have a lot to do with anything"....Kyl (R-AZ)
Unless, of course, your 2 a.m. conversation/AZ SB1070 gets your city boycotted. Then it may just have a little sumthin' to do with sumthin', like revenue, lawsuits and a huge controversial national debate... no biggie. Much ado about nothin'.
I am so embarrassed to live in AZ right now!
Amen, brother. Or sister.
And yet the GOP still doesn't understand why blacks, women, and other minorities just don't like them.
Pretty sure they understand. Also pretty sure they don't give a hoot.
Let them continue to not give a hoot. The latino voting block is the fastest growing block of voters. If they do continue on the road they're headed down...they're going to hoot themselves all right outta office.
It makes a former Republican like myself quite happy. Somehow ironic that they aren't just shooting themselves in the foot...they're using Uzi's on the whole damn party.
Wow, this photo is worth a thousand words. How would Dr. Paul explain this?
No real connection to the "intellectual" issue in his mind.
Abstract art.
Sad4Az is right, i'm embarrassed to live in AZ. Of course I never liked it here, but now I have even more of a reason to hate this God forsaken state.
Senator DeMint is going to "talk to Rand" about his positions? Oh, quick, somebody...where's the duct tape? Rand wouldn't be any fun to cut down to size if he just parrotted the standard talking points.
I'm so glad that someone is finally going to get a response from Jim DeMint. I'm a constituent of his and have written to him about probably 5 issues in the last year. Not even the consideration of an email or a letter telling me that they had received my email. At least Lindsey Graham sends an note saying he got my letter and I actually get a return letter on topic sometimes even though we almost never agree. Though on climate change, we did have some common ground.
There are good repliers and bad ones. North Carolina Senators Hagan and Burr are both good responders, although I get GOP partyline drivel in lieu of thoughtful answers from Burr. I'm sorry you haven't gotten anything out of Senator DeMint. I was, of course, being facetious about duct taping his mouth closed so he wouldn't adulterate the purely Paulian wingnuttery that we enjoyed last night.
Heh, I remember when I used to write letters to my senators (ok, I've only written one to each). McCain gave me a warm reply, but Kyl didn't reply at all :P
This off Twitter:
Bobblespeak Rand Paul is concerned about the distinction between private and public property. For example, a uterus is public property.
*smirk*
YES!!! Fake libertarian, obviously. Libertarian when it makes money for rich people, but nowhere else.
Rand Paul has mastered the art of dodging the question, which definitely makes him ready for D.C. The only question is: will his anal libertarianism let him be a human being with a conscience?
I don't think he has quite "mastered" it yet. He said today he regrets going on Rachel last night. Busted him up pretty good.
Anal libertarianism does not lend itself to being human beings with a conscience.
Otherwise, we wouldn't hear such asinine statements as "If only we stop feeding the poor, the poor will learn to feed themselves" from libertarians. It's as if someone extracted their capacity for empathy and replaced it with Glenn Beck's chalkboard.
Agreed that it's stupid, incoherent and illogical...
Here's the thing though: if the definition of 'gaffe' is when a politician inadvertently tells the truth, perhaps we all owe Dr. Paul thanks for being an honest man, albeit a lousy politician!
I can't wait 'til the day I can vote Kyl out of office.
I don't know why, if he supports the Civil Rights Act, he wouldn't just come out and say it. I understand that supporting federal legislation of private interests comes across as anti-Libertarian, but seriously. Rand looked like a fool; his less-than-elegant side-stepping last night was absurd.
"...a 2am college debate" ? pass the dube!
AZ SB1070 + another pile of something for the GOP to step over:
Rand Paul Gently Rebuked By GOP Senators Over Civil Rights Act Opposition
Excerpt: "Senate Republicans are cautiously distancing themselves from the controversial comments about civil rights legislation made by the GOP candidate who wants to join their caucus.... If anything, the episode surround[ing] Paul's comments show that there are, in fact, limitations to small-government conservative movement of the modern-day Republican Party."
Ahhhhh, the "GOPification" of Rand Paul is underway....
Stay tuned for his appearances on Hannity.
Rand Paul is an idiot. Ron Paul is an idiot. It's easy to say "Well, they have some good ideas." Just like you can say "At least a broken watch is right twice a day." Here's the thing, their other ideas, like the broken watch, are useless the rest of the time and flat out dangerous if you rely on them to help keep things in your life working the way they should. As for Kyl, DeMint and McConnell...what can we say that hasn't already been said?
Agree. Also the whole Paul family is racist.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/27155
Welcome to the Rand Paul Lunch Counter.
http://seasidepost.wordpress.com/
You know, everyone has a right to dissent and when you are in the running for public office and your goal is to be a public servant you should be able to just speak your mind and let people decide whether they would vote for you or not. Politicians on the other hand always need to parse their words, adjust their feelings, opinons and beliefs in order to ensure they are elected because a majority of the electorate like what they say.
So let's take a look at Dr. Paul's website, and I quote, "
Rand Paul is a career doctor, not a politician."
Maybe that's not really what he meant by this statement.
I mean after all, an atheist can get elected to public office in America right, just like a career doctor?
But the requirement is to say what you mean! Be honest and show that you did not go to the Sarah Palin School of public "word salad," speaking.
Things I would have liked to hear Rachel say at some points in the interview:
1. "That really is a 'yes or no' question, Dr. Paul."
2. "The argument you put forward about the right of store owners to ban firearms from their property is totally specious and non-sequitur. That is a matter of private property owners regulating access based on the behavior of their patrons, not on their genetic heritage."
At one point, Rachel did tell him to answer just 'yes' or 'no'. Paul continued *not* to answer the question.
Rachel, great work!
So, he does not like the ADA..it should be up to local jurisdiction? That was the way it was and because of people who think like he does it continues to be a problem. Unless it is enforced by the Federal govt, and over the last 8 years there was little Federal enforcement, which led to increased unemployment, lack of accessible housing along with medical and transportation inequities. At least 50 million Americans are very grateful for the Americans with Disabilities Act.
I love you Rachel !!! You are just brilliant ! :)
Senator Kyl, this is an issue that didn't just end and go away in the 60s. It is a living, breathing issue that looms large and resonates soundly in today's legislature and electorate. Gay's right to marry, searches of brown people in AZ, and medical marijuana are all modern issues that impinge on this basic right and yes, Kyl, it is a biggie.
Finally, I think this is a very important issue to bring up today.
America is struggling right now, today with issues of pure equality for it's citizens, the LGBT community is engaged in that struggle right now.
Dr. Paul's, and frankly all public servants feelings about issues such as this are important points for Americans to know in order that they may vote for the person who is going to do what they feel is right for America.
The unfortunate downside of this is that, there may be enough Americans who will get out and vote for Dr. Paul specifically because they believe he does not support the Civil rights act or equality for LGBT citizens.
I'm not sure this speaks to Rand Paul's shortcomings as a person as much as it speaks to his shortcomings as a politician. I was frankly a bit surprised at how hard it was for him to enunciate a cogent Libertarian philosophy. Maybe the apple fell further from the tree than most thought.
http://bit.ly/baBtbx
Senator Mitch McConnell is "glad to hear Dr. Paul supports" the Civil Rights Act? Wasn't that a lovely spin? In the 60's, there was "Sing Along With Mitch", and now we have "Spin Along With Mitch"! Dr. Paul makes no sense! He claims he personally opposes discrimination, and violence, but supports free speech, and so the right of other people and even businesses to express racist views and policies. Our government should have equal hiring practices, but businesses should be free to discriminate. You're right, Rachel! That man holds radical views! Dr. Paul can try to hide it, but that man supports and encourages racism!
In the heat of the debate I felt Rand Paul got away with making some bogus arguments.
First was Paul’s attempt to hide behind the straw man defense that he personally opposes racism. His personal feelings about race were not the issue nor was the right of people to voice boorish, stupid or racist opinions. The issue was that Paul’s position on the law would allow those who do harbor racist attitudes an opportunity to return America to one of the ugliest chapters in its history. As Rachel did point out, there was nothing abstract about the one hundred plus years of Jim Crow that was routinely and legally practiced in large parts of the country. Perhaps, given Paul’s calls for greater liberty a revealing question would have been,
“Do you think The United States is a freer society today where racial segregation has been banned, or was it freer when individual business owners could and did discriminate against African-Americans?“
Point two – Paul repeatedly said banning discrimination in privately owned establishments infringed on personal freedom and several times equated the government ban on racial discrimination in private businesses with government ownership of those businesses. Hogwash.
In what way does the imposition of laws and regulations banning racial discrimination in private enterprise make government an owner? Did Woolworth’s, the owner of that famous desegregated lunch counter suddenly have to start sharing it’s profits with the government? Did it suddenly have to seek government approval for how to invest it’s earnings, whether to issue stock, start a retirement fund, or who to put on its board of directors? No, what it did have to do was obey the law and stop refusing to serve a group of human beings based on their race. And on that point, government regulates many areas of private enterprise. If it is Paul’s contention, which it may well be, that government imposed food inspection, fire codes, child labor laws and the like are all unjust violations of individual freedom then by all means, he should come right out and say it!
This is a very well-composed response, and encompasses my thoughts exactly. The idea of "small government" may sound liberating but in reality, it would restrict the freedoms of many.
For a politian to not agree with the Americans with disabilities act is ridiculous. How many soldiers, sailors, Marines and Airmen have come home from the wars missing limbs? How many does he want to simply stay home and hide rather than be able to go to a job, cross a street, enter a store? With the number of handicapped military members this issue is an important one and being against the provisions that were put in place because private companies REFUSED to help the handicapped is not a good position to be in. He needs to educate himself and come out for these important laws. There is NO way in the climate of today these laws are going to be overturned.
I also think that Mr Paul, or Dr Paul, needs a course in the US Constitution before the election so he doesn't sound like the ass he is.