Can Rand Paul break past controversy over Civil Rights Act comments?

[jct74]

Can Rand Paul break past controversy over Civil Rights Act comments?

By Ashley Killough
Wed July 2, 2014

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Rand Paul marked the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act at a ceremony this week honoring the late Maurice Rabb, a renowned ophthalmologist and civil rights leader.

It was part of his aggressive outreach to African-Americans and other nontraditional GOP voters as he works to expand the Republican Party and as he crisscrosses the country laying groundwork for a potential presidential campaign.

It's a community in which he has some fences to mend.

While campaigning for the Senate four years ago, Paul sparked a firestorm for questioning parts of the historic law, especially its underpinnings that place restrictions on private property.

The law gave the federal government too much power in telling business owners what they could and could not do, he argued. While he expressed strong abhorrence for racism, he said it was the job of communities, not the government, to fix discrimination in private places by boycotting such businesses.

His argument lined up ideologically with his libertarian, limited-government leanings, but Democrats have used his comments to try to define him as a civil rights opponent.

...

read more:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/02/politics/rand-paul-civil-rights-act/

 

[Matt Collins]

It's only an issue because opposition makes it an issue. And the media is either on their side, or complacent (stupid) enough to keep bringing it up. Hard to tell.

 

[William Tell]

It's only an issue because opposition makes it an issue. And the media is either on their side, or complacent (stupid) enough to keep bringing it up. Hard to tell.

In other words, It IS an issue, we shall see how it plays out.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Burying it won't work IMO. I'm not saying Rand should run on it (!), but when asked he should defend his views forcefully. No backpeddling or evasion, that'll only make him look like he has something to hide.

 

[Vanguard101]

Reagan did it and he was much more vocal.

 

[anaconda]

Rand should simply phrase it as a constitutional issue that protects people of all colors. Without apology. Like his dad. And keep working with his minority outreach. He should have the debate now and put it to rest before the 2015 T.V. debates.

 

[Vanguard101]

No matter how some of you feel about Goldwater, I think it's safe to say we have to respect how he was able to handle this so damn well

 

[Brett85]

I think he should've just kept his original position and explained that it had nothing to do with race, that his position would also allow a black restaurant owner the right to refuse service to a KKK member.

 

[Crashland]

I think he should've just kept his original position and explained that it had nothing to do with race, that his position would also allow a black restaurant owner the right to refuse service to a KKK member.

True, but how many blacks in that era when oppression was rampant, are going to take that trade? Oh great so we can discriminate against KKK members in the tiny fraction of restaurants that we own, while in exchange we will probably be denied service from the vast majority of restaurants which are owned by racist whites.

This is a matter of protecting minorities from an oppressive majority..

 

[William Tell]

I think he should've just kept his original position and explained that it had nothing to do with race, that his position would also allow a black restaurant owner the right to refuse service to a KKK member.

I agree that that is the correct position, but this is politics.

 

[William Tell]

The Civil Rights Act was blatantly UnConstitutional.

 

[klamath]

Just leave it alone. The CRA is far to emotional for logical debate on it. Add his Fathers newsletter, association with David duke, anti CRA stand and anti civil war stand it would blow up into full blown racism in the political theater.

 

[LibertyEsq]

Just leave it alone. The CRA is far to emotional for logical debate on it. Add his Fathers newsletter, association with David duke, anti CRA stand and anti civil war stand it would blow up into full blown racism in the political theater.

This is right, if Rand makes this an issue he will be spending all of his time talking about the CRA, in interviews and debates, when he should be talking about foreign policy and the economy.

 

[CaptUSA]

Rand will use it as a pivot. When it is brought up, he will talk about the work he's done to restore voting rights. He'll talk about the racial disparities in the drug war.

You will see a Judo master in a debate.

It will look something like this: "The federal government discriminates against you more than any single business could. THIS is where I've placed my efforts."

 

[Constitutional Paulicy]

MSNBC’s Maddow, CNN’s King Call Out Rand Paul’s Civil Rights Flip-Flop

​

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has been making a point this week of celebrating the 50th anniversary of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, in the process championing his own efforts to fight racial prejudice and discrimination. But given some statements he’s made in the past, both MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow last night and CNN’s John King this morning, drew attention to the inherent contradictions between what Paul was saying a few years ago and what he’s saying now.

In a statement on his website Tuesday, Paul wrote, “It is simply unimaginable to think what modern America would be like if not for the brave men and women who stood up for the rights of all Americans.” During the final segment of her show Wednesday night, Maddow latched on to those words.

In that 2010 appearance on MSNBC, Paul said he would have tried to “modify” the section of Civil Rights Act relating to private institutions had he been around during that era. He said he was not entirely comfortable with the idea of the government preventing restaurants, as an example, from banning black people.

“Today he says, ‘It is simply unimaginable to think what modern America would be like if not for’ that law to which he used to admit he was opposed,” Maddow said, in reference to an interview she conducted with then candidate Paul back in 2010. “Now he’s its biggest champion. The word ‘unimaginable’ is exactly the right word here.”

CNN’s John King picked up where Maddow left off this morning on Inside Politics, this time focusing on piece of video from Wednesday of Paul speaking to constituents in his home state of Kentucky. “I think you’ll find no one in Congress doing more for minority rights than me right now, Republican or Democrat,” Paul said.

To some degree, King gave Paul the benefit of the doubt, noting that he has spoken about reaching out to minority groups more than many of his GOP colleagues have. But, speaking on behalf of Democrats, King asked, “How does this new Rand Paul mesh with [the old] Rand Paul?”

From there, King played another clip from 2010, in which Paul said, “I think it’s a bad business decision to ever exclude anyone from your restaurant, but at the same time, I do believe in private ownership.”

King’s guests, The Atlantic’s Molly Ball and POLITICO’s Maggie Haberman, both agreed that these contradictions demonstrate what a difficult line Paul would need to walk were he to run for president in 2016, portraying himself as a libertarian-leaning Republican while also trying to appeal to traditionally liberal voters.

“His statement about being the only person in Congress right now doing as much for minority rights is maybe a bit of an overstatement,” Haberman said, “but he certainly is the only person you’re seeing on the Republican side who is doing this much of an effort.”

watch Maddow's MSNBC video here....http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-maddow-cnns-king-call-out-rand-pauls-civil-rights-flip-flop/

 

[Brett85]

Just leave it alone. The CRA is far to emotional for logical debate on it. Add his Fathers newsletter, association with David duke, anti CRA stand and anti civil war stand it would blow up into full blown racism in the political theater.

Most voters are reasonable enough not to blame Rand for mistakes made by Ron. Rand shouldn't have to defend the newsletters or Ron's views on the Civil War. It doesn't have anything at all to do with Rand.

 

[Brett85]

I agree that that is the correct position, but this is politics.

Right, but it's also not good politics to just flip flop on an issue, or not take a clear position.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

I don't know if Rand can win if he vocally opposes the CRA of 1964.

 

[anaconda]

Maddow is at it again being intellectually dishonest. She cannot fathom how someone could be passionately apposed to racism and also opposed to the CRA. And Lawrence O'Donnell is now sporting a beard (near the end of the segment).

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-maddow-cnns-king-call-out-rand-pauls-civil-rights-flip-flop/

 

[William Tell]

I don't know if Rand can win if he vocally opposes the CRA of 1964.

He can't, he is making the right move politically.