Rand Press Release on Civil Rights Act

[TheState]

http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/05/20/paul-i-support-the-civil-rights-act/

“I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. 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.”

This came across on Twitter from "Breaking News.com"

 

[MRoCkEd]

Good.

 

[rp08orbust]

I, too, would oppose repeal of the entire Act. But would he oppose efforts to repeal the parts that apply to private businesses? I hope not.

 

[jmdrake]

I, too, would oppose repeal of the entire Act. But would he oppose efforts to repeal the parts that apply to private businesses? I hope not.

Whether he would or not, he shouldn't make this an issue in the campaign. No votes to gain by it, and possible votes to lose. Run on repealing the health care bill.

 

[jabf2006]

I, too, would oppose repeal of the entire Act. But would he oppose efforts to repeal the parts that apply to private businesses? I hope not.

Who cares. Its a great statement that should put it to rest.

 

[Bergie Bergeron]

Playing on the words once again, guess that worked with Grayson...

 

[Cowlesy]

Great statement.

MOVING ON.

 

[rp08orbust]

Whether he would or not, he shouldn't make this an issue in the campaign.

I agree. If he secretly believes in repealing parts of the CRA 1964, he shouldn't have made any press release at all.

 

[Bruno]

Great statement.

MOVING ON.

+ 1

 

[BenIsForRon]

Great statement.

MOVING ON.

I wish we could move on too. But MSNBC just did an interview with Jesse Jackson, I don't think moving on is an option.

 

[TruthisTreason]

Great statement.

MOVING ON.

Put it on the website, so when voters have questions they can find the truth ... not just liberal blogs stating their version!

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I wish we could move on too. But MSNBC just did an interview with Jesse Jackson, I don't think moving on is an option.

MSNBC again.

It'd matter if anyone watched them.

 

[0zzy]

Put it on the website, so when voters have questions they can find the truth ... not just liberal blogs stating their version!

indeed! Great response btw though. He doesn't want to repeal it it's a lie, and so therefore it is indeed just a moot point the left is trying to use to smear him.

 

[obijuan]

I wish we could move on too. But MSNBC just did an interview with Jesse Jackson, I don't think moving on is an option.

Who cares what MSNBC does? Seriously? Anybody in Kentucky who watches that network, or thinks they're going to be fair over the issue isn't going to vote for Rand anyway. And very few people here care what Jesse Jackson has to say, either.

The media is running with this, but the campaign's statement should put it to rest. They can keep trying to bring it up, but he can now just point to the statement and say "Instead of discussing law that is settled and decades old, I'd like to talk about..." and bring up healthcare or the deficit. Heck, he could even bring up school choice, which I believed he referred to as "the civil rights issue of our time" if for some odd reason he wanted to continue talking about civil rights.

This will be over in a couple weeks, max. Rand is probably realistically up by a massive margin now, and the campaign is going to GOTV like no other come November. We will win by ten points, and Rand will then have the ability to have philosophical discussions with whomever he wants (though he should indeed be more careful about it).

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I wish we could move on too. But MSNBC just did an interview with Jesse Jackson, I don't think moving on is an option.

Does Jesse want to cut his nuts off?

 

[Deborah K]

The way to deal with this is for him to clearly state that he is FOR equal rights and solidly against discrimination but that he is also against BIG intrusive gov't telling businesses what they can and can't do. A good example of private businesses exercising discrimination these days is Augusta not allowing women to play, and the gym Curves won't allow men, etc. I think his point was that if a restaurant refuses to serve blacks, they will ultimately go out of business because the public won't tolerate that kind of discrimination so why not just leave the gov't out of it! He's going to need clarify this.

 

[Cowlesy]

I wish we could move on too. But MSNBC just did an interview with Jesse Jackson, I don't think moving on is an option.

MSNBC did an interview with Jesse Jackson.

So are you insinuating that MS-NBC is trying to help Rand's poll numbers with Kentuckians?

 

[RM918]

Does Jesse want to cut his nuts off?

Yeah! Jesse 'Cut Obama's nuts off' Jackson? He's fucking offended?

 

[haaaylee]

he needs to compare this with businesses that have "no shirt, no shoes, no service." signs. it isn't really about race. it is about private property. and the slippery slope you have when Government tells you what you can and can't do in your business.

 

[Carole]

The key part of the quote in red:

"I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person."

And this reinforces his other arguments about unintended consequences, private property,etc.

Collectivism always interferes with the rights of some in order to grant "special" rights to others.