If Rand Paul really wants to be the next U.S. Senator from Kentucky he can either speak only to the friendly folks at Fox News who won’t ask him any hard questions about his embarrassing views on civil rights and disabled people or he can have a nice big cup of STFU until November. He can’t do both.
Paul, a Libertarian in Republican clothing like his father, Ron Pau,l would like to come off as just a regular guy fed up with Beltway politics, but he just can’t keep his wingnut extremism to himself. He returned to The Rachel Maddow Show, where he announced his candidacy, to take a victory lap, but ended up fumbling badly as Maddow grilled him for 20 minutes on his opposition to Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That’s the provision which bars private businesses from discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of race, religion and national origin. It’s okay with Dr. Paul if the “Whites Only” signs go back in the windows of restaurants.
The Civil Rights Act has been settled law for 46 years, but apparently for Dr. Paul (he’s a ophthalmologist) it’s still 1964.
Nobody’s even talking about his likely Democratic opponent (Jack who?) and the only face time he’s getting is showing up on cable news shows talking about how Paul wants to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act. (and maybe he does, but he can’t say he does. Robert Bork said Brown v. Board of Education was “wrongly decided” and nobody’s seen him within sneezing distance of the Supreme Court since.
For a political neophyte, you have to hand it to Paul. Just two days after he cruised to victory winning the Republican U.S. Senate primary in Kentucky and he’s already insulted African-Americans and disabled people. What’s he going to do for an encore next week?
Paul said his victory over Mitch McConnell’s hand-picked choice was a victory for the Tea Party. But like the Tea Party, Rand Paul seems to have a problem. The problem being they don’t much like black folks.
The G.O.P doesn’t much care for the Paul family, but better a Republican they can’t stand than a Democrat they might like. The party will pour plenty of money and support to hold the seat. Fox will say wonderful things about Paul, Sarah Palin will show her stupid face and Michael “fried chicken and potato salad” Steele will drop by to be Rand Paul’s token colored friend.
Maybe what we’re not considering is how much Rand proves the apple doesn’t fall too far from the tree.
Charles Johnson, a conservative blogger writes on his site, Little Green Footballs, “In 2004, his father Ron Paul was the only member of Congress who voted “NO” on a resolution to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act.”
Here’s part of what Daddy Paul had to say. It sounds a lot like little Randal’s rap:
Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676. (July 3, 2004)
Don’t you just love these guys who take a princpled stand against discrimination by defending the right to discriminate?
Hey Rand, you didn’t run looking for minority votes or liberal votes, so if you don’t support the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 2008 Fair Housing Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act because you believe private business should have the right to discriminate, OWN IT.
In Kentucky, the average Rand Paul supporter probably eats this shit up with a fork and knife. Rand Paul is scary. In Kentucky, a state where Blacks, Latinos and liberals are in short supply, Dr. Paul’s less-than-mainstream thinking may have little effect on his candidacy. He leads his Democratic challenger by over 20 points.
Those that love Paul aren’t going to change their minds if his views on civil rights are 46 years behind the times and those that don’t love him have even less of a reason to start now.