NPR to Rand Paul: Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act?

posted at 7:33 pm on May 19, 2010 by Allahpundit

I don’t like to go back-to-back on the same subject but a hot rumor hit Twitter as the last post was being published that Paul told NPR he would have voted against the 1964 CRA. (Much like certain Democrats who are still serving in the Senate did.) As you’ll see, it’s not true. The reporter, smelling blood, badgers him about it, but Paul never quite gives him a straight answer. And he qualifies his response with enough virtue — he opposes institutional racism, would have marched with MLK, likes a lot of what was in the CRA — that there’s really no wound inflicted here. His reservations about the law have to do not with the ends but with the means of federal compulsion; he wants business owners to serve everyone but clearly prefers using boycotts and local laws to pressure them. It’s not a question of being pro- or anti-discrimination, in other words, it’s a question of how federalism and civil-rights enforcement mesh. The left’s going to give him plenty of grief for that — expect questions soon about whether he would have voted to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment — but the “closet Klansman” narrative that NPR’s going for here is D.O.A.

A Twitterer pointed me to a second instance of Paul talking about the Civil Rights Act where he elaborates a bit on his views. If you want to compare and contrast, skip ahead to 1:00:00 in the second clip below.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Lemme guess. This was in the South. In the 1960’s or 70’s. Thanks for proving my point.
crr6 on May 19, 2010 at 8:38 PM

It was in MD, which is 70% Dem now as it was then. It only proves your point if the same neighborhood were now 90% Dem, and all the Klansmen are GOP, which ain’t the case I can assure you.

Akzed on May 19, 2010 at 8:41 PM

Does he have a subscription to Jet magazine? Does he Tivo BET? Does he have a plentiful supply of Soul-Glo?

And if not, how do you explain the fact that the formerly “Solid Democratic South” is now solidly Republican?

The south is more conservative than the north, thus it now leans conservative, although a LOT of southern states have Donk governors & state legislators since southern Donks are not like the northeastern/CA donks.

It couldn’t be any simpler.

rjwest21 on May 19, 2010 at 8:43 PM

No, not really.

crr6 on May 19, 2010 at 8:35 PM

CRR6 already admitted that conservatives kick-started the civil rights movement. So, I guess argument over. Took awhile, but you got there. :)

Narutoboy on May 19, 2010 at 8:45 PM

In the 70s, conservatives did begin shifting their focus to the South. I’m not denying that.

Narutoboy on May 19, 2010 at 8:40 PM

Great.

Next please.

crr6 on May 19, 2010 at 8:46 PM

Great.

Next please.

crr6 on May 19, 2010 at 8:46 PM

LOL. What’s that got to do with what you were saying? You argued that conservatives did not fight for civil rights simply because they began focusing on other regions. How stupid.

Narutoboy on May 19, 2010 at 8:48 PM

No, not really.

crr6 on May 19, 2010 at 8:35 PM

CRR6 already admitted that conservatives kick-started the civil rights movement. So, I guess argument over. Took awhile, but you got there. :)

Narutoboy on May 19, 2010 at 8:45 PM

I mean “no” I don’t want to get mired in a long and pointless debate which is separate from the topic that we are already discussing. We can talk about turn of the century conservatism some other time. The only reason you brought it up is because 1) You read early 20th century conservatives kick-starting the civil rights movement in a cool wingnut magazine and/or website and you’re eager for the chance to regurgitate the arguments and 2) You were losing the argument you already had with me.

So, no I didn’t feel like delving into that.

crr6 on May 19, 2010 at 8:50 PM

I think much depends on whether you think Jim Crow was unconstitutional. Once state enforced discrimination was dismantled, private discrimination might well have diminished by natural attrition to socially tolerable levels – tolerable meaning probably worse than it is now, but without the bugbear of compulsion. Conversely, there’s plenty of voluntary self-segregation in this country today (eg in college cafeterias) which we don’t attempt to punish. I assume Paul does not question Brown v. Board &c. although there have been honorable conservatives who felt “separate but equal” passed technical constitutional muster however morally abhorrent they found it. I certainly don’t see how anybody who rails against government compulsion could excuse official segregation.

Seth Halpern on May 19, 2010 at 8:50 PM

Rand Paul has had the nomination for the House for less than 24 hours, and the media has asked him more tough questions and done more oppo-type research on him than they’ve done on Obama in the last 4 years.

forest on May 19, 2010 at 8:51 PM

I mean “no” I don’t want to get mired in a long and pointless debate which is separate from the topic that we are already discussing. We can talk about turn of the century conservatism some other time. The only reason you brought it up is because 1) You read early 20th century conservatives kick-starting the civil rights movement in a cool wingnut magazine and/or website and you’re eager for the chance to regurgitate the arguments and 2) You were losing the argument you already had with me.

So, no I didn’t feel like delving into that.

crr6 on May 19, 2010 at 8:50 PM

Losing the argument? You idiot! I had just started posting to you when I brought that up! You’re delusional. So what are you arguing then?

Narutoboy on May 19, 2010 at 8:52 PM

Crr you do know you are one pompous beatchhhh worried about the wrong things. Tell me about the constitutionality of Obama using drones . Oh and how about targeting a United States Citizen with a drone. Oh and show some outrage over Holder and the Nappy one trying to cause a race war over the AZ anti-ILLEGAL immigration war. Yep neither read it prior to trashing it. You should be far more worried about these issues LAPDOG.

CWforFreedom on May 19, 2010 at 8:57 PM

You’re delusional. So what are you arguing then?

Narutoboy on May 19, 2010 at 8:52 PM

She’s a whack job.

CWforFreedom on May 19, 2010 at 8:57 PM

immigration war law.
—-

Crr I bet you get gubenement funds in one manner or another. In fact there is little doubt.

CWforFreedom on May 19, 2010 at 8:59 PM

Crr I bet you get gubenement funds in one manner or another. In fact there is little doubt.

CWforFreedom on May 19, 2010 at 8:59 PM

Of all the pathetic accusations thrown about on political forums, this is one of the saddest.

Dark-Star on May 19, 2010 at 9:08 PM

Crr, i agree with some of the things you have said in this post but the demos have changed alot since the 60′s and 70′s. The McGovernites have taken over the demo part in 72 and lost of demos like me felt like the demos had left me. When they quit being for strong borders, defense and capitalism wasn’t a dirty word. There are few Sam Nunn, Scoop Jackson, HHH, JFK, HST, Eugene McCarthy left in the part. Even McGovern would probably seem conservative to the demo party as it stands today. By the way Wolf Blizter exposed Mexican immigration laws today when he asked Caulderon what Mexico does with illegals. Caulderon said we nab them and deport them.

garydt on May 19, 2010 at 9:12 PM

Did the parties switch constituencies in the 60’s and 70’s, or not? And if not, how do you explain the fact that the formerly “Solid Democratic South” is now solidly Republican?

crr6 on May 19, 2010 at 8:35 PM

Because the Republicans filled a void. The Democrats became the champion of everyone EXCEPT those despised working-class Southern whites. It continues to this day.

ddrintn on May 19, 2010 at 9:19 PM

If we’re going to play this sordid little game lets ask Sestak why he was “relieved of duty”.
Seems rather important, no?

jjshaka on May 19, 2010 at 9:19 PM

Also, I’m surprised you aren’t mentioning the rise of the New Left during that time. Perhaps more traditionalist Southern Voters found themselves no longer welcome in the Democrat ranks… but that’s not entirely true given that Carter (D) won the South… The D’s have been taken over by the New Left and THAT is why the South is no longer solid D.

MeatHeadinCA on May 19, 2010 at 8:40 PM

Yep.

ddrintn on May 19, 2010 at 9:21 PM

Rand needs to bow to his “demonization meme” (that the MSM is fitting him for) with a little less passivity.

A simple Yes would have been sufficient to deflect this dig.

Unless you want to start fighting the Civil Rights battles from the stance of the loser.

And the last word is all that will stick.

LOSER.

profitsbeard on May 19, 2010 at 9:24 PM

Ahh! Rachel just raked him over the coals regarding the rights of private property owners to discriminate. I thought I was watching “Dancing With the Stars!” The man didn’t have the courage to support and defend what he obviously believes!

Rand Paul is his own worst enemy.

chumpThreads on May 19, 2010 at 9:26 PM

The man didn’t have the courage to support and defend what he obviously believes!

chumpThreads on May 19, 2010 at 9:26 PM

Uhhhhh…are you an O-bot? Projection much?

ddrintn on May 19, 2010 at 9:28 PM

The Democrats became the champion of everyone EXCEPT those despised working-class Southern whites.

Everywhere Democrats have held power is an economic basket case.

Only Democrats could have strangled California, killed Michigan and devastated the rest of the rust belt.

If you want to take a freight train to an economic disaster, elect corrupt idiot scum Democrats, it works every time it’s tried.

NoDonkey on May 19, 2010 at 9:28 PM

The Democrats became the champion of everyone EXCEPT those despised working-class Southern whites.

Everywhere Democrats have held power is an economic basket case.

Only Democrats could have strangled California, killed Michigan and devastated the rest of the rust belt.

If you want to take a freight train to an economic disaster, elect corrupt idiot scum Democrats, it works every time it’s tried.

NoDonkey on May 19, 2010 at 9:28 PM

Yeah, I shouldn’t say “Southern whites”. The Democrats have barely-concealed contempt for the lesser breeds of whatever region or race. Just absolute contempt.

ddrintn on May 19, 2010 at 9:30 PM

Rand Paul is his own worst enemy.

chumpThreads on May 19, 2010 at 9:26 PM

When I saw “Rachel” and “raked him over the coals,” I knew you were lying. When I read “I thought,” I laughed out loud.

Narutoboy on May 19, 2010 at 9:33 PM

You really want to see his true colors, ask him if he thinks Abraham Lincoln was a great American.

If you read up on Lew Rockwell’s site, you will come away believing his dad is a Neo-Confederate. I can’t believe he’s too far from his dad’s beliefs….

oddjob1138 on May 19, 2010 at 9:34 PM

ddrintn on May 19, 2010 at 9:30 PM

Exactly.

Democrat politicians divide the nation into two camps.

The loser chumps who believe in Democrats and who are destined to remain loser chumps, waiting for a Democrat to show up on their doorstep with a sack of gold.

And Americans who neither want nor need Democrats and thus are a hated enemy.

NoDonkey on May 19, 2010 at 9:34 PM

oddjob1138 on May 19, 2010 at 9:34 PM

All I need to know is whether or not he considers Barack Obama to be a great American.

Because anyone who does, isn’t worth a vote.

NoDonkey on May 19, 2010 at 9:36 PM

ddrnt,,, I agree that the demo party has taken up every down trodden group and more or less made the white males everywhere in the USA unwelcome. I wonder why white males would be interested in the demo party as it stands to day. Like I said earlier the McGovernites truely have taken over.

garydt on May 19, 2010 at 9:41 PM

What does it matter how he would have voted during 1860s or the 1960s? What I want to know is whether he’ll vote to oppose more of Obama’s grand schemes. There were and are valid reasons to worry about federalism and states’ rights, but unless he’s talking repeal of the CRA, I don’t think that this is relevant.

flataffect on May 19, 2010 at 10:12 PM

You really want to see his true colors, ask him if he thinks Abraham Lincoln was a great American.

Dems ready to run an issues and current events based irrelevant smear based campaign against Rand. He knows as well as anyone the kind of questions that various left wingers will have in store, so I think he is prepared for any of those type of questions. He’s definitely going to be put in some tight spots, but if he has political instincts of his father then he should escape well enough.

It looks like a desperate diversion from the disaster of Obamanomics.

The Dean on May 19, 2010 at 10:39 PM

Seems like a reasonable fellow. But he doesn’t appear to understand the Left. That’s my chief criterion.

rrpjr on May 19, 2010 at 10:42 PM

The only problem with Paul’s answer is that the same argument didn’t fly for many of the good-faith conservatives who argued against the CRA on those grounds in the 60s. “States rights” is — to the left — a dog whistle for racism.

Purple Fury on May 19, 2010 at 10:47 PM

just watched the 10 minutes on Maddow, horrid.

he’s getting labeled with: Rand Paul thinks its ok for Blacks to be banned from restaraunts or to be forced to sit in the back of the bus, etc.

just the beginning

jp on May 19, 2010 at 11:26 PM

It looks like a desperate diversion from the disaster of Obamanomics.

The Dean on May 19, 2010 at 10:39 PM

Well Dean, welcome to reality of the world and how it actually works.

You know, I’m starting to think this experience may turn out to be a great learning experience for Paultards and atleast it will only cost us a Senate Seat instead of the Presidency

jp on May 19, 2010 at 11:28 PM

chumpThreads on May 19, 2010 at 9:26 PM

Ok really. This is the current champ of Trolls on HA at this point in time.

Most of the people that are considered Trolls are, at least, somewhat coherent, this turd pump is not.

BigWyo on May 19, 2010 at 11:54 PM

Wait a second, is he saying that the federal government shouldn’t be involved in some things? … that’s just plain heresy. He’s a racist! /sarcasm

popularpeoplesfront on May 19, 2010 at 11:59 PM

This guy is making me very nervous…..And this is coming from someone who supported him over the other dude, who seemed like a tool.

therightwinger on May 20, 2010 at 12:11 AM

Just slightly OT…I would have really loved to have seen NPR interview Al Franken like this.

Like I said before, I don’t have a problem with Rand Paul..just the StormFront crap.

But he actually has an informed opinion on most of the things the NPR hag asks him.

But I digress….I would love to hear Al Franken answer these questions…

BigWyo on May 20, 2010 at 12:11 AM

The correct answer was “I realize you work for the government news organ and may not have heard this yet, but the Civil Rights Act passed like 45 years ago when I was about 10. Has NPR ever asked Senior Democratic Senator and former Klansmen Robert Byrd why he actually personally voted against & filibustered the CRA?”

motionview on May 20, 2010 at 12:56 AM

TheBlueSite on May 19, 2010 at 8:20 PM

If a liberal had appeared on some nutjob left wing show, we’d all be up in arms

Except both liberals and conservative go on lefty-wing-nut programs all the time, and nobody seems to give a damn… unless it is a member of the Paul family.

Do we freak when conservatives appear on Ed Schultz or Chris Matthews? Of course not. Well, I don’t know much about Alex Jones, but I assure you he is closer to the conservative point of view than those Heroes of the Republic.

JohnGalt23 on May 20, 2010 at 1:47 AM

forest on May 19, 2010 at 8:51 PM

amen forest

morning joe is already saying that he needs to retrack his statements or he is toast in nov….

cmsinaz on May 20, 2010 at 7:14 AM

Rand Paul has had the nomination for the House for less than 24 hours, and the media has asked him more tough questions and done more oppo-type research on him than they’ve done on Obama in the last 4 years.

forest on May 19, 2010 at 8:51 PM

And that surprises you? The MSM is going to try and destroy Dr. Paul. They loved his father in 2008 for being anti-war, but as soon as they were done with him they chucked him aside too. That’s how the MSM works. That’s why Obama doesn’t want us reading alternative media, access to the internet, and owning iPads.

nazo311 on May 20, 2010 at 7:33 AM

Well I hate to break to to ya pal, but parties basically are defined by their constituencies. That’s who votes them into power, that’s who they need to cater to and that’s whose interests they tend to support. If the party changes constituencies, the party itself changes.

crr6 on May 19, 2010 at 8:25 PM

Thank you for the political enlightenment. I’ve passed it on to the Chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party, who will be delighted to know of the recent color conversion of said Commonwealth.

Barnestormer on May 20, 2010 at 8:50 AM

Rand will be seen for what he really is soon. He is no different than David Duke. He is a bit more sophisticated but they are one and the same.

Decider on May 20, 2010 at 9:19 AM

Rand will be seen for what he really is soon. He is no different than David Duke. He is a bit more sophisticated but they are one and the same.

Decider on May 20, 2010 at 9:19 AM

Why has the government been discriminating against so many smokers lately?

Notorious GOP on May 20, 2010 at 9:31 AM

What about MLK as a holiday? What about BHO as a holiday!?

El_Terrible on May 19, 2010 at 7:41 PM

Hey, I’d finally get my birthday off!

kiakjones on May 20, 2010 at 10:20 AM

He’s a closet racist, or just a moron, or both.

Dave Rywall on May 20, 2010 at 11:09 AM

Rasmussen: Election 2010: Kentucky Senate
Kentucky Senate: Paul 59%, Conway 34%

RCP: Paul: I Support the Civil Rights Act

Reacting to an avalanche of criticism over his perceived views of the Civil Rights Act, Rand Paul’s campaign issues this statement today:

“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.”

“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.”

[...]

“These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign.”

They left will do and say anything to distract from their continued destruction of the economy, jobs and small businesses, their on-going banksta bailouts (it’s in the trillions now), and their blatant corruption and cronyism. People are really hurting. This will backfire on them. Trust.

“It’s the economy, stupid!”

Rae on May 20, 2010 at 12:44 PM

Stormfront, Amren and every group ever investigated by the ADL agree with you AP. You’re keeping fine company.

The Race Card on May 20, 2010 at 1:20 PM

Ron Paul is a racist. Now, his son, Rand Paul opens his mouth against the CRA.

Looks like the apple doesn’t fall too far from the tree…

Conservative Samizdat on May 24, 2010 at 2:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2