Tweet
At no point did Paul give Maddow a straight answer, and when it was clear that he couldn’t spin his way out of Maddow’s questioning, he took to dismissing the whole issue on the basis of its “obscurity” and irrelevance to the Kentucky Senate race. By the end of the interview however, Paul had all but restated his original view: the Civil Rights Act was fine when it came to prevent public discrimination, but went off the rails in criminalizing discrimination by private businesses and establishments.
You can see part 2 of the interview, when he gets bitchy, here.
140 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Even Morning Joe knows Paul has 24 hours to find a better answer to Rachel’s question.
Showing again that this is all ABOUT the Base, and the voters they need are the ones that are carrying those signs showing Pres. O in weird variations of caricature.
Mornin’, BT, pups
The apple didn’t fall far from the tree in this case.
Just another reichwing asshole.
The Tea Baggers and Anti immigrant groups have been trying to claim they were not Racist. Lets see the square that with Rand saying business needs the freedom to not hire or serve people based on race.
Rand is a Doctor an ophthalmologist right tell me does he have any African American or Hispanic patients? Whats the racial break down of his neighborhood? Will he have any dark patients after today?
Rand is a Strict Constructionist and believes in Original Intent.
It’s just that the intent in question is that of Jefferson Davis.
Sounds more like the Democrats of the day:
Would Rand treat a African American, Hispanic, Gay or even a Lefty Straight Woman? Just how far does his idea of Business Freedom extend?
Would he treat a Muslim? Why does he still have a medical license?
Where Dr Kirk Murphy we need an expert opinion.
Would Rand has Rand treated a White Woman married to an African American or a mixed race child?
Is the Lake going to still work with his Dad?
I don’t think his bigotry prevents him from squeezing money out of those he disdains.
That interview was painful to watch. If Conway is smart, he’s going to keep that front and center, along with his desire to privatize or eliminate Social Security and add a $2,000 co-pay to Medicare. For all of his success in the Kentucky Republican primary, Rand Paul is just another teabagger and his appeal is limited to white racists. He won in Kentucky not simply because of his own appeal but because the Republican message about the evils of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi axis of evil is a massive FAIL that they seem determined to keep trying until it works.
But as we’ve been told time and time again, teabaggers aren’t racists.
No relevance to a U.S Senate Race is he high?
The people who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were what we call today “conservatives.” That’s why you had Barry Goldwater, Mr. Conservative, joining the Democrats in the South in opposition to the bill.
If it wasn’t for the liberal Democrats in the Northeast, and a Democratic President, the bill doesn’t pass.
I was watching this last night and it was so painful. I was just waiting for him to give the obvious answer and he couldnt do it. I couldnt believe it, even for a republican that is crazy!
Facts not in evidence I’d like some proof. If Rand supplies it his base might not be so happy especially if he treated a White Woman married to a Dark person, or a mixed race child.
Jerk built his own trap Rachel gave him a chance to reassure us Jbade will be so disappointed.
Meet the new Paul, same as the old Paul…
Actually, Rand looks to be a good deal more the demagogue than his father. He referred to Evo Morales and Cesar Chavez as “dictators,” which is old-style winger stuff.
The Mooning of America
I listened carefully to the exchange and found Paul’s rationale lacking in its basic assumptions.
Certainly a society must be free to impose conditions on an applicant’s license application. In this case, the application is for the PRIVILEGE of operating a BUSINESS “in the public interest” and the condition is that the operator conduct that business “for the best interests of ALL its citizens and in accordance of applicable laws”. (including the Civil Rights Act)
Sorry, Rand; CASE CLOSED!
Hidden agenda: GUNS anywhere, everywhere- terror
I wish Rachel and others would bring up the nitty gritty absurd and inhumane real-life issues of “private ownership/public customers” segregation like: African American, African Hispanics and American Indians who couldn’t use restrooms in the one store that sold socks in town or not being able to drink from a drinking fountain in a department store or purchasing a sandwich at a lunch counter but having to walk back to the street to eat it or having to enter a commercial building through a separate back door or…
Yes the ones in power before I was born. If Rand uses their racist example as cover…well the more he talks the higher the African American, Hispanic, Gay etc vote will be against him.
I predict that Paul just handed Conway a gift that will turn out large numbers of African Americans in Kentucky. Now the white Democratic establishment needs to condemn Paul’s racism in no uncertain terms–but will they?
Be interesting to see Michael Steele’s opinion of this.
Ron Paul has learned to carefully avoid questions of race but he is no less a racist. Rand Paul hasn’t learned the fine art of being able to change the subject with fluid ease, though he certainly tried over and over in that interview. I don’t believe that he’ll be appearing with Maddow again, though his pride may force him back. We can only hope.
If it wasn’t for the Republicans of the Northeast….folks like Javitts and Keating, for example
The Sunday bubblehead shows should be interesting this week. Wonder how many Paul will be on and which of our intrepid “jouralists” will question him about this.
Rand Racism is unfashionable in the burbs, its unfashionable when its obvious did you learn nothing from Reagan? How can a Tea Bagger or Minute Man talk to his neighbors about the Movement without being called a racist?
I just think it’s interesting that 80% of Republicans voted for it, and only 60% of Democrats, yet Democrats get all the credit.
Rand Paul also tried to frame the issue as a first amendment “speech” issue which clearly it is not. Maddow should have pointed out that the first amendment states in part: “The Congress shall pass no laws regarding speech or the free exercise thereof….” Excluding people from publicly available services due to what they are through no fault of their own isn’t “speech”. Those business owners are free to grab their soap box or write letters to the editor. Excluding people from publicly available goods and services, especially when they are the only act in a small town is intmidation and oppression, not speech.
Absolutely right. And those Republicans were what we call “liberals” today.
Rand will use Jane’s work with his dad as a shield. We need to get ahead of this before that happens.
Great Leaders are Great because they can change their minds.
Its more than denial of service even if you got the cash its hiring, its being able to rent an apartment or get a loan to buy a home.
Who was the President then? Who went to Congress and personally twisted arms to get it’s passage? It was Johnson. A DEMOCRAT. A SOUTHERN Democrat. In case you’ve been asleep since then, most of the southern Democrats who hated the civil rights act became southern REPUBLICANS and still are. Maybe that’s why.
The question is how many Republicans would vote for it today?
Absolutely. Sorry I wasn’t clear but I meant ALL services.
No hassle I just wanted all our readers to get the idea:)
Dixiecrats.
Here’s the thing (and somewhat random). My mom remembers the segregated South. She grew up in it. That’s why she left. She raises a valid point. Which is this: During the Civil Rights Act and integration, the government was offering businesses money and tax incentives to integrate their businesses. The chose to stay white and segregate than integrate and prosper. That is why there are so many poor towns in the South. So I would say that some of the South’s poverty is of their own making. Just something to think about.
It’s more accurate to say that Southerners , today’s conservatives, voted against it.
The labels “Republican” and “Democrat” — as I just pointed out — didn’t mean “conservative” and “liberal” in 1964.
And Democrats “get the credit” because they controlled the House and the Senate and the White House.
Any questions?
Yeah! Johnson did say he was giving the South to the GOP for a generation and he still did it.
That interview was great! Rachel ended by saying he would hear a LOT of questions about this. And, of course, she is right.
A few links so more details and this would make a great diary.
That has to sting. Good work!
Yep! He did it because it was the right thing to do, though many reviled him for it. No way any politician, liberal or conservative would have the guts to do the same thing today.
Johnson’s math was way off. It’s been 2 generations.
Every Corporation that gives Cash to Rand and Ron are now going to be labeled racist quite rightly I should add.
Agreed still dude had stones.
……….”along with his desire to privatize or eliminate Social Security and add a $2,000 co-pay to Medicare”.
Sounds like the likely recommendations of Obama’s Cat Food Commission.
No questions.
I’m just glad that’s all behind us now.
If the teabaggers have their way, it will become three at least. I don’t think the teabaggers have the chops though. They certainly appeal to the people who hate the civil rights act but most people DON’T hate it.
Big brass ones.
Riiiight.
Maybe but I think they are smarter than that. I’m not ready to speculate what will come out of that abominable panderfest or whether any of it will be implemented just yet.
Lets give this story a week and then look at the polls. MyDD and Fivethirtyeight are going to have to make some changes.
This is a Gold Plated Opportunity Obama should get on tv and rip Rand a new one! The Lizards like strength.
That was the day when some politicians had real principles they felt were worth fighting for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Green,_Kentucky#Demographics
Rand’s hometown’s demographic’s
Yep. Sadly those principles were replaced with money.
I would say Republican = conservative, but Democrat = liberal? I wish! We have a conservative party and a party with everyone else. A liberal party would be nice, though.
Cat Food Commission, that’s good. Another term I heard for the discrepancy between’s O’s campaign promises and his half-assed Republican lite governance, Rahmboozled but that probably gives too much credit to Rahm and not enough to O.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul
Will these guys admit on tape or even better on Camera they still support Rand? Isn’t Freedom Works buying air time on Glen Beck’s show?
Two words Rand will be hearing a lot from now on: “Lunch Counter.”
That and Macaca Moment
I agree. There are many centrist/corporatist/conservative Democrats today and there are a handful of liberals.
My point was that forty years ago, there were lots of liberal Republicans and (very) conservative Ds.
Good Morning Blue Texan and Firedogs -
wow – simply google his name, and
“rand paul civil rights act” is the 2nd entry
p.s. seem to recall Paul was cozying up to modern day equivalent of White Citizens Council (neiwert ? SPLC ?) will do some googling
Maybe Rand’s campaign song will be “Dixie.” I guess some Kentuckians have regrets about not joining the traitorous Confederacy.
Obama couldnt see a golden opportunity served on a platter right in front of him. Even if the opportunity took the platter and hit Obama up side the head he would still miss it!
Actually, the Republican Party didn’t come to mean the conservative Party until and because of the southern strategy which was an act of political opportunism in direct response to the civil rights act. But you know that, challenged on it as one or two others seem to be.
Went over to HP for a visit. It’s stunning the number of trolls that lurk at that site.
Guess what. Rand Paul,even if elected, will NOT bring back Jim Crow. He has said however that he would work to end foreign wars and the war on drugs. Things that Obama would NEVER do. Things that give the working class powerful incentive to vote for him. Y’all can stop clucking and pecking and move on to something relevant.
Given the way he mixes up civil rights, lunch counters, and guns — as in the TRMS interview — maybe we should call him Rand “Guns n Butter” Paul?
That and it’s ridiculous moderation system is why I refuse to even give them traffic anymore.
Or perhaps you can move on to a site that agrees with you that saying that he wants to end the war justifies supporting a bigoted asshole. The last time I looked, this was not your blog.
Rand wants the hypocritical convenience of condemning racism but promoting his libertarian ideal of “you or the government can’t tell me what to do.” The idea that his “voluntary compliance” would actually work with businesses is a laughable fraud and hoax—just like his candidacy.
I don’t bother to read comments there. Look at the headlines and read what’s relevant.
Yeah. Look how well voluntary compliance has worked out for Wall Street banks, BP, military contractors, the list goes on and on.
Little early in the morning for that kinda shit.
“clucking and pecking” That’s cute. Wouldn’t you be happier somewhere else then? Go join the Red State Trike Force.
did Rachel ask him about the Stormfront Moneybomb ?
Me likee.
Cluck and peck your way up to the new post up top…
Don’t you understand that “golden opportunities” are part and parcel of “the tired debates between right and left.”
It’s time for me to get going. Later firepups (and guests)
Damn, if we could only make racism an issue that would help the Dems this fall. What are some of OFA’s ideas on this front BT.
It’s not just the trolls but the Obama apologists.
Don’t forget to call the WH and ask them if they got the message from Tuesday’s election. The people want an FDR approach and not a corporatist sell out.
1-202-456-1111
Not to my knowledge. What was happening is that non-Southern businesses interested in locating in the South were hesitating to make investments in areas in which there was racial strife. Atlanta businessmen got the message and trumpeted Atlanta as “The city too busy to hate.” Attitudes in Alabama and Mississippi were so hardened that they chose rebellion instead.
And large portions of the South did prosper as a result of voluntary desegregation of a few institutions (like libraries) before the Civil Rights Act. Most businesses acquiesced in obeying the Civil Rights Act, not because they were paid by the government (except for the few who were government contractors) but because they saw themselves as law-abiding citizens. And a good number of business owners welcomed the change; it was something they had seen needing to be done for some time but could not say so out of fear. In the late 1960s and in the 1970s, attitudes were not as hardened as they are today–as illustrated by George Wallace’s repentance and service in his third term as governor of Alabama in 1983-1987.
And although the South is poor and has unemployment today, a lot of that is attributable to layoffs from some of those New South corporate investments — BMW, Michelin in South Carolina; Mercedes in Alabama and all their surrounding suppliers.
The part of the South that is intractably poor are the areas that remain rural with few other job opportunities. And businesses there indeed try to preserve the old ways; being small they are less likely to face penalties than a major corporation like BMW. And in these towns, it is the better off small businessmen, not the white poor who are most likely to be attracted to the Tea Party Movement. Their businesses are not growing; minimum wage laws keep them from lowering wages; taxes take proportionally more of their income than taxes of large corporations do of theirs. They see taking back the government as the way to deal with their business problems.
And it is well-to-do upper-middle-class suburbanites in Southern cities (who are not necessarily native Southerners–such as Bobby Jindal or Louisiana) who make up the bulk of the Gingrich wing of the Republican Party. But you never see these folks in the streets. Or wearing tea bags. Rand Paul and his dad Ron Paul are doctors (specialists) and are representative of these suburbanites. Segregation to states’ rights to professions of libertarianism to states’ rights back to racism. That has been the movement of Hell No folks in the South. And few of them are poor.
It worked great for the manipulative fraudsters that engineered the deals–for the rest of us—not so much.
Off to swim in the great capitalist cesspool.
US KIA Irak: 4,397
US KIA Afghanistan: 1,097
Iraki and Afghanistan casualties: estimates vary to over 1.5M
US MBS 2010: 17,236 and counting
Be good to yourselves, and all other living things.
Namaste
I would definitely vote for a bigoted ass hole if he would end the oil wars and the war on drugs and if I was quite certain that his bigoted ass hole views would not find expression in law.
I am somewhat amused by his conflation of exclusively private property (like a home) and private businesses (read public accommodations). The simple fact that a business is privately held does not make it in the same category as private property under any reading of the laws or constitution that I’m aware of.
As for his nonsense about firearms, the 2nd amendment:
It is a prohibition on Governments, not on public accommodations or private property.
Well, I’ll tell you what Rand Paul will never do—is tell the truth about what he really believes. He had that opportunity with Rachel last night and utterly failed, trying to avoid answering by changing the subject and boring us with irrelevent history lessons. This political dope’s libertarianism is a dangerous fraud. Obama is a genius compared to Rand Paul.
Except that Paul is no longer running in a primary seeking about 1/5th the vote that came out in the Democratic race.
He needed to shift into General Election mode quickly, and failed to obscure things enough to hide his real views. Of course, Maddow wasn’t going to be put off. Unlike most others in the News tody she did real follow-ups.
Rand Paul, the new standard bearer for the GOWPP (Grand Ol’ White People’s Party), most of whom are indeed old and white.
I can think of another Tea Bag cheerleader that Rachel’s question would be good for on the air.
Yeah he’ll end “foreign wars” and bring states back to secession…so we’ll have a good ol’ domestic war again.
Rand Paul continues his statements that he wasn’t named after Ayn Rand…true that may be…but he sure started using that name instead of his birth name or the more common “Randy”.
He should own up that he did so because he thinks “Going Galt” is not an alternative reality.
OT Isn’t what BP did on the Deepwater Rig an example of “Going Galt” on us?
Please. Rand is not a native of BG. He may have settled there but he sure didn’t grow up there (Note: I attended Western Kentucky U in Bowling Green and have a bit of love for the town)
Nice description. I would add the Southern habit (culture) of worship of personality over ideology, facts and action that is pervasive in our grassroots politics, religion, and family life is a major factor that has permitted the exploitation of the people. It endures today.
Rand Paul was a classic example of the tactics successful southern politician as he kept saying what an admirable and virtuous person he is while obscuring the consequences of his beliefs and actions. Like Big Daddy, wonderful warm, generous in his family, church and club life; it being impolite to ask a gentleman how he got his wealth.
I thought Rachel did a superb job of getting Ayn’s namesake to expose the insanity of his ideology. I hope next time this southern style hypocrisy can be more clearly pointed out.
Frankly I am delighted to see this nut get his day in the public spotlight. I hope and believe many will be able to extrapolate the shambles made of our economy as a result of such thinking.
I think your last line does not reflect the most recent 2nd Amend/SupCt case. Someone else may know more details.
He and Kentucky are a perfect match. He can take his teeth out when he is home. He can subjugate the negro as well. Maybe he will become a general in the CSA and start up trouble again.
Please tell me why the western states have to be a part of a nation that has gone insane east of the Rockies?
If you are referring to DC v Heller, then yes, it actually does apply to governments (specifically the Federal government, of which the DC city council is a part). That is, Government cannot prohibit the ownership of firearms to people based on lack of membership in a militia. That is, the 2nd Amendment does not require militia membership for its protections to apply. There’s more to it than that (e.g. – restrictions on government’s ability to craft broad legislation), but that is the gist of the decision as I understand it.
The only other 2nd Amendment case that I’m aware of is McDonald v Chicago, which is still pending decision. It will likely determine if the 2nd Amendment applies equally to state & local governments.
I don’t think that there is anything in either that will prevent public accommodations from banning the otherwise legal carry of firearms. It may prevent publicly owned venues (such as parks, City/County buildings etc.) from prohibiting, but privately owned public accommodations (e.g. – restaurants, hotels, etc.) will not.
Rand Paul is nothing more than a cracker racist in a suit – Today’s version of David Duke.
Any person that even thinks that businesses that are privately owned but open to the public have the right to refuse service to anyone “just because they want to” is blowing the dog whistle for the segregationists in the south.
As for the argument of carrying a firearm into a business that is open to the public and the private owner saying “No you can’t” that’s a PUBLIC SAFETY issue, NOT a 2nd ammendment or civil rights issue. After all, carrying a concealed weapon (or even open carry) into a singles club or sports bar – what could ever go wrong with mixing sex, sports, alcohol and guns?
I’ve noticed that a lot of people like to call themselves Libertarian these days. With respect to some who may have a more formulated definition of that political philosophy, in the main, the ones I know who have suddenly found the “libertarian” light… it mostly means: I’m a selfish racist, but I want to pretend I’m not.
Although I’ve always liked some of Ron Paul’s ideas, he’s always been a bigoted, racist sob. I can agree with Ron Paul’s anti-war stance, and some other issues, but I’ve never seen him as some shining light or a pol. that I could support.
Seems like sonny boy AynRand has not fallen far from the tree. Unsurprised. Typical of these days. The Tea Partiers will no doubt adore him, all the while loudly proclaiming that they are not racist… rather WE here at FDL are the racists bc… bc… well, just because Rush Limbaugh says so! So there!
The man is speaking in tongues, lying ones.
To all those who mentioned kicking people off this site who don’t agree with you, you really make me sick. You are truly pathetic.
That is precisely, absolutely, and concisely the point. You CAN kick someone off if you want to and I can refuse to come here if I want to. If you want the Cass Sunstein lifestyle then you will be forced to post my disagreement ON YOUR DIME, which you ARE NOT. Get a brain, idiots.
Freedom of speech is the issue here, not racism…
I heard him answer it over and over and he is absolutely right. He agreed with 9/10 of it but the part where the federal government dictates to a private business owner, who is not harming anyone, is up for debate. Look where that mentality has gotten us with the crooked health insurance mandate.
For those who want the depraved Obamas, Mafia-Ringer Rahm, and the crooked bank-casino-run government to dictate what you should do, and bad examples of morality they are, should listen up to this.
The constitution merely recognizes the rights that everyone already has. There never should have needed to be civil rights laws. Primarily the civil rights laws existed to overturn the Jim Crow laws, which were illegal and Paul agrees.
When the government is the one “granting rights” you know you are in trouble. Everyone has rights, recognized by the constitution, whether gay, black, sick, American Indian, young, old, annoying, or whatever. Rachel Maddow and the demothugs want you to be forced to be like them, UGH. They think we think they are “more normal”. And the hairless wonder, Cass Sunstein, Obama’s brownshirt.
What we have here Ladies and Germs is a pluperfect example of Postmodern Racism.
For more of the same see Andrew Breitbart and his little White Supremacist friend.
No he doesn’t agree. He merely motormouths that he isn’t racist — as he promotes racism.
Uh. not they don’t. When the constitution was written African-Americans like me were slaves. We were not considered to be men at all.
AND YOU KNOW IT !!!!!
So which is it. You contradict yourself on public accomodations. If you could explain your amusement above. Also the implications for the Civils Rights Act in your view. Thanks.
That’s true. What would you propose we do about the constitution.
He is racist and and uses the wink-and-the-nod when talking to his kind of folks.
No, freedom of speech is NOT the issue here.
Free speech allows me to stand on the street corner and shout that I believe blacks are inferior. It allows me to write books that state that blacks are inferior. It allows me to put a sign in my window stating that blacks are inferior. It allows me to teach my kids that blacks are inferior. It allows me to keep blacks out of my kitchen and away from my dinner table.
But it does not allow me to ban blacks from my lunch counter where I serve the public. Understand?
Imagine if this idiot became president.
Good lord…if he repealed the civil rights bill by executive order or something crazy like that and the south resegregated, would anyone else be willing to test how long Rand Paul would tolerate concealed carry with 50 or 60 guys holding their pistols out in his office?
Did his I’m not racist argument sound like:
I’m not a racist, I just think you shouldn’t be allowed to eat in this whites only restaurant…I’m not racist, it’s just a racially legal policy…now get moving darky…you too cripple!
Actually, I do NOT contradict myself. You are confusing arguments in regards to different issues. I am saying that DC v Heller doesn’t prevent private businesses that are public accommodations from banning firearms, it only prevents governments from banning ownership of firearms (it doesn’t even begin to consider the question of carrying firearms). I am also saying that McDonald v Chicago doesn’t address the question of carry either, only the question of if Heller applies to State/Local governments as well as to the Federal government. In neither case does the question of privately held public accommodation prohibitions even BEGIN to arise.
My amusement in this case is that Rand Paul is conflating the ability of privately owned public accommodations to prohibit carry of firearms (carrying which activity hasn’t been determined to be protected) with the government’s ability to prohibit the ownership of firearms. Not even close to the same thing. Then he tops it of with what appears to be an intentional misdirection of conflating equality of civil rights with property rights of businesses that are public accommodations. It’s sort of like him saying that since I cannot refuse service in my restaurant to people of color, I cannot refuse access to my bedroom to anyone.
We (the USA) have multiple classes of private property (private house vs. privately owned public accommodations – hotel, restaurant, department store, etc.), just as we have multiple classes of public property (parks and city/county buildings vs. jails, schools, courthouses, etc.). Saying that government limiting the ability of someone to do something on one limits it on all is silly.
For example, I can be drunk as I want on my own private property, but if I am in a public accommodation (e.g. – a hotel or a bar) there are legal limits to how intoxicated I can be and not be arrested. I don’t see how the Civil Rights Act is any different other than it being Federal law instead of State law.
The Southern Democrats of the day.
That is not the same thing as the government “protecting rights”.
Obama is a genius compared to Rand Paul.
That may be true. Obama is also a war monger a liar and a whore to the Oligarchy.
Who happen to be the Republicans of today.
As has been mentioned a thousand times, ALL businesses benefit from massive investments in infrastructure and subsidies by taxpayers. Roads, bridges, police and fire protection, to mention only a few. NO business could survive without these investments and services. None.
In a society based on the proposition that “all men are created equal,” to suggest that individual entrepreneurs should somehow be masters of their own realm and able to ban whomever they wish — minorities, handicapped, etc. — because “speech must be free” is absolutely ludicrous.
Your sentence from before threw me. Seems to say that public accomodations like hotels and restaurants can ban the carry of firearms, so they may be able to ban minorities at their discretion, as Rand Paul contends.
In part because the Democratic numbers were so large that the percentages don’t tell the whole story but also IMO because most of the 1960′s-era Dixiecrats that opposed the CRA left the party to join the R’s – the party that percntage-wise provided the most votes against passage.
[quote]
By party and region
Note: “Southern”, as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. “Northern” refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)
[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
I find it sad that he wont answer the question point blank….. This is a property rights issue….. are you for or agaist Them …. i wonder if Rachel Would Like those crazy God Hates Gays people chilling In front her Home …..
As Rachel observed in her closing comment, it is about an extremist view of property. It is the notion that it is property that endows rights and privileges. I hope someone will follow that line with Paul sometime. It really explains much of what we see in Wall Street and the culture of money and Laissez Faire. To get down to the core it is really pretty crazy and denies the existence of what we normally think of as human/humane qualities..
Well said, econobuzz. (Thanks for the tip, Blue Texan.)
It’s the neglect of the public interest! Kudos to other commenters, too, for sharply pointing out the Senator-elect’s glaring blind spot.
He really screwed the pooch when he brought up busing, pointing to the use of public roads. And where TF are restaurants, hotels, swimming pools, hospitals, law offices, etc., if not on or near public roads? Public electricity grids power them. Public police and firemen protect them (or not, another sore subject).
He’s dancing so fervently around the issue, it’s easy to see what he’s unwilling to say: a man’s business is his castle, in which private property rights trump any public interest. The gov’t can prevent itself from carrying out injurious discrimination, but not the almighty private property-owner.
What a compartmentalized, Escherian worldview! You can just hear the ante-bellum views: there’s gov’t, there’s private property owners, and then there’s the chattel they fight over, nothing in-between. You know, Cheney’s worldview: no middle ground.
Sure, the establishment’s owners own the real estate, the building, the equipment etc., AND they operate not in a vacuum, but in the public sphere, serving the public, using public currency, breathing public air.
Hey crypto-separatists and -supremacists: We share the world with our neighbors, right down to the molecules we breathe. Get used to it.
It may interest others to know a bit about argon. As a noble gas, present in the atmosphere, it gets re-breathed, but it doesn’t stick around in us. So all the argon in the atmosphere has been re-breathed (according to a David Suzuki lecture at UWashington about 10 years ago).
Suzuki said some statistician actually calculated the probability, going back in time, of having in our lungs right now, some of the same argon once breathed by, say, Jesus, quantifying it as about 10 argon atoms. I don’t remember the specific numbers for more recent figures, but you get the point. Even the most extreme supremacists (of any color) have within them atoms that once were breathed by their mortal enemies.
Having spent the last 20some years looking into the psychophysiology of empathic altruism, looking for the boundaries that divide one human from another, I can say one thing with absolute certainty: when it comes to the self-other divide, there is no such line. It’s an artifact, an imposition, a convenient, even somewhat necessary, illusion.
As far as psychology’s role in all this: as I’ve said before, IMO, reducing humanity to Newton’s dusty old balls in absolute vacuums has resulted in imploding our psyches into quantum singularities of egocentric pain. Or, more poetically, selves cellf-imprisoned in cellves of our own mistaken making.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 dissolved many of the worst of those self-imposed divides that had become reified and codified in law and in custom. Thanks to Maddow’s dogged questioning, Rand Paul himself showed how peculiar customs persist.
Yes. A quick description of the deep south up to the passage of the legislation would be. All the institutions in the deep south were universally racist, the governing bodies, law enforcement, churches, recreational, accommodations, schools and the Democratic Party. Educated African Americans voted Republican. Of course most AA were prohibited from voting at all.
I think Paul’s pathology is not so much confusion over self other as it is a denial of other which carried to its extreme brings the same conclusion you express.
which is in fact characteristic of pathologic narcissism.
Empathy and altruism stem from awareness of the other, not merging with it as Paul does. That is what the claim.”self-interest” as the highest virtue is about. There is no reason to seek or employ empathy for something that does not exist outside self.
I can’t believe I’m going to agree with you guys here, but Mr. Rand is way wrong. Though I won’t go so far as to say that he is a racist, he is simply misguided. His beliefs have merit; government control over the private sector destroys freedom and liberty, the founding principals of this great country. HOWEVER, the role of government is still to protect the rights of it’s people, and that includes punishing those that would infringe upon our rights, public or private.
A balance of government regulation is always a good thing.
TalkingStick, so good to hear from you. No, my dear sister, you’re wrong: empathy, by definition (take a close look at the word), is the dissolving of separation, out of which union flows altruism. Altruism, in this view, isn’t a special occasion, it’s only natural.
Looks to me like you’ve repeated the dogmatic assertion of the self-other divide (against which I’ve been struggling since the late 80s) without examining it down to its roots. May I suggest you do some more epistemological work on the terms you use?
For example, tell me, TS, what is an other? Where is the boundary between ‘you’ and ‘not-you’? Of what is it made, how does it function, how do you know when you’ve found it? What does it look like, what color is it?
Are you asserting the real existence of a real boundary? Do you know the properties of the boundary of every cell in your boundary, namely, the semi-permeable membrane? Every cell in your body is joined with every other cell across not an absolute, but a semi-permeable membrane. Consider the implications of that for your construct. Likewise, consider the fact that our skins join us with the external environment. Skins breathe, they’re translucent, and electromagnetic radiation doesn’t seem to encounter any self-other divide in passing right through us right now.
My dear TalkingStick, we’re not Newtonian billiard balls in an absolute vacuum. That’s so last millenium! The self-other divide is a artifact of “human, all too human” construction. Get over it.
@ knowBuddhau: do you Believe People should Think collectively Or Individually
My apologies. It is clear in my mind that banning of firearms is completely different than what is covered by the Civil Rights Act, and WHY it is different, but it often comes out garbled when I try to express it concisely.
The Paul’s are our allies on many of today’s key issues.
On the issues of foreign war, Treasury funded Wallstreet casino’s, war on drugs, police state overreach… the RP crowd are gonna be allies. Needed allies.
Sure, they aren’t progressive, nobody ever said they were. They are the extreme opposite on many other issues. Heck, they prolly get a lot of Bircher votes. So of course there’s not going to be an across the board alliance, it’s gonna be issue by issue.
Anyway, I think the biggest issue with race today is that so damn many minorities are out of a job. The Wallstreet generated economic crash didn’t fall evenly on the public. Minorities are by far the hardest hit. Geithner, Summers, Ortzag and thier long term plan for massive minority unemployment… that’s what needs to be urgently corrected.
I am talking science. You are talking religion.
“Anyway, I think the biggest issue with race today is that so damn many minorities are out of a job”.
That and so damn many are in prison. Rand Paul wants to end the war on drugs.
He needs to go back on Maddow’s show and answer her question honestly. Then maybe she will agree to talk about something else.
RP on Laura Ingraham this am:
He thinks her issue is with folks getting beat up for wanting a seat at the table. He doesn’t condone violence; those folks should just stay out, preferably across town, his folks will be happy and nobody gets hurt.
Talk about tone-deaf…or is this the talking-point spin?
Tone deaf AND brave – you need some stones to take this position:
That’s because it was a Democratic President who pushed it through. It’s also because those Democrats who opposed it were basically representing Southern Democrats who left the Party afterwords, even some of those elected left the party. First the Southern Democrats went for Wallace in 68 by so much he won a number of states in the South. Then Nixon’s Southern Strategy got them to vote Republican and by 2009 Sandra Bullock’s Southern character in “The Blind Side” can react funny when she finally meets in person someone who’s a Democrat.
But he also would work to cut Social Security, Medicare, & Medicaid, to end regulation of Wall Street and Banks (yes, he’d stop subsidies too) and let private businesses do whatever the hell they want.
But I guess we could deal with this corporatist dystopia by being constantly stoned and knowing that at least we won’t get drafted to fight in foreign wars by the government. Of course the only job opportunities might be going to fight in the foreign wars now totally fought by the corporations.
Meanwhile the 1% of the John Galts will live in their libertarian paradise hidden somewhere in the Rockies.
Oh well.
He’s pro-choice on the issue of racism. He personally doesn’t believe in racism but he more importantly believes its a private choice of a business and the government shouldn’t impose his private morality on them.
What he believes is there should be no institution that represents and protects the interests of the public as a whole. Even children on the sandlot know there needs to be an umpire to prevent a game degenerating into utter chaos. Paul’s libertarian fundamentalism is insane.
To paraphrase Kieth Olbermann, That man is an idiot.