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

I'm not saying that he should oppose the Civil Rights Act. 90% of the law is just fine, and Rand has never said that he opposes the law as a whole. He's always said that he would've voted in favor of it. I'm just talking about the 10% of the law that has to do with private property rights. When Rand is asked about that, he should just say something about how he has reservations over that particular provision, even though he supports the bill as a whole and would've voted for it.
 
Nothing to "break past". The Left has no interest whatsoever in intelligent debate about the Civil Rights Act, so there is no point in engaging. Rand should simply use any such question as an opportunity to talk about his position on voter rights restoration or sentencing reform.
 
klamath said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're 100% correct. It wouldn't matter if Rand's defended his comments on Maddow's show all those years ago with the most irrefutable argument known to man. The Progressives in the media would frame him as a racist and could potentially destroy any progress he's made with African-Americans over the years.

Rand should have never said anything about it, honestly. I understand we all have our principals but seeing as this is politics, Rand should have just kept his mouth shut about his opposition to any portion of the CRA. This will be brought up by the Progressive media, and you won't see it framed as "Rand Paul opposes private-property section in Civil Right Act," or w/e his stance really is. They'll frame it as "Rand Paul opposes Civil Rights Act." Seeing as Rand will be a big target as it is, I wish he wouldn't have given the Progressives such ammo.
 
He evolved on the issue.

Well, isn't that what the Left claimed when Obama came out in support of gay marriage in 2012, even though he opposed it in 2008? I mean, if they could use it, we should be able as well, right?
 
But he has to address his previous comments when he's asked about it. Even as recently as 2012, he was defending Ron's position on the Civil Rights Act. And I don't think he's just going to come out and say that he fully supports that provision of the Civil Rights Act. I think that he'll just do what he did at Howard University and give some vague answer, saying something like he had concerns about the impact of that particular provision of the Civil Rights Act "beyond race," that that particular provision of the law has led to smoking bans and other infringements on private property rights.
 
RonPaulMall said:
Nothing to "break past". The Left has no interest whatsoever in intelligent debate about the Civil Rights Act, so there is no point in engaging. Rand should simply use any such question as an opportunity to talk about his position on voter rights restoration or sentencing reform.
Click to expand...

It's just something for the left to demagogue. Rand will say what he has to, and that will be that.
 
anaconda said:
And here's another politician that wouldn't allow himself to be intimidated on the issue:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ron...ave-voted-for-the-1964-civil-rights-act-video
Click to expand...
I get what you are saying but there are various differences that make the situations completely different.






I'm pretty sure he can win if he just explains his position. If Goldwater got the nomination and so did Reagan, there is no way Rand can't. It's ridiculous how they spin it. As if every1 agrees with every aspect of a bill. I like how the left winged media is able to say blacks generally love government but if the right does it they are racist. That's how ridiculous the system is.
 
Last edited:
Traditional Conservative said:
But he has to address his previous comments when he's asked about it. Even as recently as 2012, he was defending Ron's position on the Civil Rights Act. And I don't think he's just going to come out and say that he fully supports that provision of the Civil Rights Act. I think that he'll just do what he did at Howard University and give some vague answer, saying something like he had concerns about the impact of that particular provision of the Civil Rights Act "beyond race," that that particular provision of the law has led to smoking bans and other infringements on private property rights.
Click to expand...

He could argue that but it won't win over anyone that is not already libertarian. I think most blacks would gladly accept the risk of having smoking bans if it means, you know, being protected from a majority oppression via mass denial of service.
 
Crashland said:
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..
Click to expand...

^This. And we aren't just talking about freaking restaurants. Imagine being in a wreck and having a life threatening injuring and being forced to bypass a hospital 15 minutes away and having to go to an inferior one an hour away because the closest one didn't allow blacks in? Would any sane person accept a situation like that just so that he could keep some goofball klansman out of his restaurant? And the civil rights act does not apply to social club membership! A white restaurant owner can keep members of the Black Panthers or even the NAACP out of his restaurant without triggering an NAACP challenge as long as it is clear that membership in the private group, and not race, is the reason for the discrimination. That John Stossel argument was retarded. I don't know why so many libertarians thought it was "sooooo cool!"

The constitutional argument, that the federal government doesn't have authority under the interstate commerce clause to regulate a local private business, is the only one that's even possibly palatable to most people. But the problem is, most people don't have a clue about the interstate commerce clause and what it means. So...the easiest smartest thing Rand can do politically is to just "celebrate" the CRA. If/when people bring up his earlier criticism, he can just say "I was attempting to make a legal point about the commerce clause that many people apparently didn't understand, but I fully support the results of the CRA." If someone asks about the commerce clause he can expound on that then. If not, then move on with the rest of the interview.
 
Traditional Conservative said:
But he has to address his previous comments when he's asked about it. Even as recently as 2012, he was defending Ron's position on the Civil Rights Act. And I don't think he's just going to come out and say that he fully supports that provision of the Civil Rights Act. I think that he'll just do what he did at Howard University and give some vague answer, saying something like he had concerns about the impact of that particular provision of the Civil Rights Act "beyond race," that that particular provision of the law has led to smoking bans and other infringements on private property rights.
Click to expand...

Except the Civil Rights Act didn't lead to smoking bans. The Wickard v. Filburn ruling and the FDR New Deal is what did that. Wickard v. Filburn paved the way both for the CRA provisions Rand was criticizing, drug laws, gun laws and all sorts of other federal government involvement in private business. I've tried to explain this multiple times, but people on this forum just don't seem to want to listen. *heavy sigh*
 
Tywysog Cymru said:
I don't know if Rand can win if he vocally opposes the CRA of 1964.
Click to expand...

Traditional Conservative said:
I'm not saying that he should oppose the Civil Rights Act. 90% of the law is just fine, and Rand has never said that he opposes the law as a whole. He's always said that he would've voted in favor of it. I'm just talking about the 10% of the law that has to do with private property rights. When Rand is asked about that, he should just say something about how he has reservations over that particular provision, even though he supports the bill as a whole and would've voted for it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have voted for the bill.

A spoonful of crap in a gallon of ice cream ruins the whole gallon.
 
jmdrake said:
^This. And we aren't just talking about freaking restaurants. Imagine being in a wreck and having a life threatening injuring and being forced to bypass a hospital 15 minutes away and having to go to an inferior one an hour away because the closest one didn't allow blacks in? Would any sane person accept a situation like that just so that he could keep some goofball klansman out of his restaurant? And the civil rights act does not apply to social club membership! A white restaurant owner can keep members of the Black Panthers or even the NAACP out of his restaurant without triggering an NAACP challenge as long as it is clear that membership in the private group, and not race, is the reason for the discrimination. That John Stossel argument was retarded. I don't know why so many libertarians thought it was "sooooo cool!"

The constitutional argument, that the federal government doesn't have authority under the interstate commerce clause to regulate a local private business, is the only one that's even possibly palatable to most people. But the problem is, most people don't have a clue about the interstate commerce clause and what it means. So...the easiest smartest thing Rand can do politically is to just "celebrate" the CRA. If/when people bring up his earlier criticism, he can just say "I was attempting to make a legal point about the commerce clause that many people apparently didn't understand, but I fully support the results of the CRA." If someone asks about the commerce clause he can expound on that then. If not, then move on with the rest of the interview.
Click to expand...
If I were in a wreck, the last place I'd wish to be taken, especially unable to properly defend myself, is to a place that despised me vehemently on such irrational grounds as skin pigmentation. They'd be more liable to give you a few 'drops' more than needed on a Morphine IV than provide proper care. At the very least, regardless, you'd be waiting until every other person suffering of any ailment was treated before being seen. And then still, they'd be liable to poison you, or simply not adequately treat you. It's a shameful topic, actually.

In any case, your advice for Rand Paul is politically intelligent. I would say he needs to go the property rights route with a touch on the bastardization of the Interstate Commerce Clause while acknowledging and expounding upon the ridiculousness that is racism, collectivism, and stressing the rights of the individual as well as mentioning that in spirit he supports what was set out to be done by the CRA, but that infringing on property rights to accomplish those ends is not wise. Public opinion has changed, largely, and will continue to do so, yet those infringements will still be there. Regardless, for the low information voter it will not matter. And the propagandists aren't paid what they're paid simply for repeating a narrative. I have no doubts they are rather versed in the works of Bernays.

In any case, welcome back. Wickard v. Filburn is a case all should be familiar with.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Matt Collins
Rand Introduces Free Speech Protection Act
Replies
2
Views
630
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
Rand and Booker introduce anti-asset forfeiture bill
Replies
0
Views
820
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
jmdrake
Rand Paul introduces "REINS" act to rein in the administrative state
Replies
13
Views
2K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Matt Collins
Rand and Rep. Kat Cammack Introduce REINS Act to Put Power Back in the People's Hands
Replies
0
Views
1K
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
Rand Joins Efforts to Retake Legislative Authority from Unaccountable Administrative State
Replies
0
Views
1K
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
Back
Top