[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
United States News Title: Rand Paul Admits Political Slip In Civil Rights Remarks In the wake of Rand Paul’s comments on MSNBC’s "Rachel Maddow Show" Wednesday night questioning provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Kentucky Republican Senate nominee said Thursday he supported the law and would not favor its repeal. Paul also said that appearing on Maddow’s show "was a poor political decision.” In an interview with radio talk show host Laura Ingraham, Paul implicitly acknowledged that he’d given his opponents ammunition to assail him. It was a turnabout from Wednesday night, when Paul told Maddow, “You’re an intelligent person; I like being on your show." In a statement released by his campaign Thursday Paul said, “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.” Voices support for 1964 law In his 15-minute interview with Maddow, Paul repeatedly declined or sidestepped opportunities to endorse the provisions of the 1964 law which require hotels, restaurants, and other businesses to accept all customers without discriminating on the basis of race or ethnicity. He repeated several times that he opposes racial discrimination. “I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form, I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race,” he said. At the end of the interview, Paul added, “I don’t believe that any private property (owner) should discriminate either.” But he did not say whether he supported using federal law to enforce non-discrimination in privately owned businesses. He said “had I been around” in 1964 “I would have tried to modify that.” He also said the debate over the civil right law’s limits on rights of private property owners “is still a valid discussion.” Parallel with gun owners Referring to his foes, Paul told Maddow, “They’ll try to run on this entire issue and it’s being brought up as a political issue.” The Kentucky ophthalmologist easily won Tuesday’s GOP primary, defeating Secretary of State Trey Grayson, the candidate supported by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the state's senior senator. Paul will face Democrat Jack Conway in the November election. Conway said in a statement Thursday that Paul has a "narrow political philosophy that has dangerous consequences for working families, veterans, students, the disabled and those without a voice in the halls of power." Paul's comments seem likely to spur fund raising for Conway and may increase Democratic turnout in the November election. In 2008, Republican John McCain won the state with 57 percent of the vote. Exit poll interviews indicated that 11 percent of the 2008 electorate in Kentucky was black and that 90 percent of African-American voters in Kentucky cast their ballots for Democrat Barack Obama. Complaining about 'an abstract, obscure' issue Goldwater voted against the law, arguing that its provisions dealing with public accommodations and employment were unconstitutional. He lost the 1964 election in a landslide to Democratic President Lyndon Johnson. Paul complained Wednesday to Maddow that the question of private property owners' rights under the law was “an abstract, obscure conversation from 1964 that you bring up … You bring up something that really is not an issue,” — but this came after he'd already engaged in an extensive discussion of the topic for 15 minutes on national television. Although Kentucky is a Republican-leaning state and has not elected a Democratic senator since 1992, it’s not impossible for a Democrat to win there: in 2004, Democratic Senate candidate Daniel Mongiardo came within one percentage point of defeating Sen. Jim Bunning, who is retiring this year. Democrat Bill Clinton carried the state in the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
Actually, he didn't 'sidestep'. He expressed the classic libertarian viewpoint on such things. Not saying that was 'good' its the problem with being a libertarian as most of us know. But he did not 'sidestep'.
Rand Paul is right. If someone owns something, a business for example. They can choose to exclude anyone they want to. Or an employer can choose to hire anyone they want to based on anything they want to base it on. Including Race, Sex, Religion, or even if you're a faggot.
The theory is sound, the politics of how he handled the question however demonstrated he's a first time candidate. 'unforced error' as Krauthammer put it.
There are no replies to Comment # 3. End Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|