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.
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 Next »
Of course he would, he’s a Republican, do some research, NPR morons, the Civil Rightsd Acts were brought by the ‘Pubs and mostly opposed by the Donks.
Tony737 on May 19, 2010 at 7:35 PM
Jenfidel upset.
blatantblue on May 19, 2010 at 7:38 PM
Goldwater voted against it…
but I get your point…
ninjapirate on May 19, 2010 at 7:38 PM
How can he not give a straight answer to the Civil Rights Act? The Civil Rights Act!
terryannonline on May 19, 2010 at 7:38 PM
expect this to be THE news story for the next 24 hours….I’m sure chrissy will be ALL over this tomorrow…
cmsinaz on May 19, 2010 at 7:40 PM
Get off of it… his answer was fine…
ninjapirate on May 19, 2010 at 7:40 PM
Goldwater voted against it – Ninja
Because it didn’t go far enough.
LBJ passed it because his advisors told him it’d be political suicide not to, that’s why Donks get credit for it when it was a ‘Pubbie sponsored bill.
Tony737 on May 19, 2010 at 7:41 PM
What about MLK as a holiday? What about BHO as a holiday!?
El_Terrible on May 19, 2010 at 7:41 PM
Mr. pasty white and tingly legged, Chrissy I wish I was black Matthews. LOL probably!
upinak on May 19, 2010 at 7:41 PM
now thats an idea!!!!
blatantblue on May 19, 2010 at 7:42 PM
Proportionally more Republicans voted for the CRA than did Demorats.
It’s a libel that the the Repulicans opposed civil rights.
“The 1964 Civil Rights Act Roll Call Vote: In the House, only 64 percent of the Democrats (153 yes, 91 no), but 80 percent of the Republicans (136 yes, 35 no), voted for it. In the Senate, while only 68 percent of the Democrats endorsed the bill (46 yes, 21 no), 82 percent of the Republicans voted to enact it (27 yes, 6 no).”
N. O'Brain on May 19, 2010 at 7:42 PM
The liberal scum media will be like blood hounds from now till November. Rove was a master at running these suckers in circles. Time to turn the tables on these parasites.
Rovin on May 19, 2010 at 7:42 PM
He eviscerates racist ideology in his answers, yet somehow to you, he’s a Klan member for questioning the shortcomings of that Act.
Apologetic California on May 19, 2010 at 7:42 PM
i’m sure it is in the works as soon as he leaves office…
cmsinaz on May 19, 2010 at 7:43 PM
:)
cmsinaz on May 19, 2010 at 7:43 PM
You are wrong…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
ninjapirate on May 19, 2010 at 7:44 PM
Character assassination – one of the few things that liberals do well. Oh yeah, the assassination attempts only apply to their opponents. Covering up the transgressions of their mates is another of their traits.
docdave on May 19, 2010 at 7:45 PM
Why Goldwater opposed…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_II
ninjapirate on May 19, 2010 at 7:45 PM
The majority voting against the Civil Rights act were Democrats including Al Gore Senior. Oh, and lets not forget KKK Byrd.
sandee on May 19, 2010 at 7:45 PM
Chris Matthews actually said Rand Paul said he would repeal the Civil Rights Act.
MayBee on May 19, 2010 at 7:46 PM
And most Democrats voted for it.
…but I get your point. The correct thing to say is, “A higher percentage of Republicans voted for it than Democrats in both Senate and House.”
Still, telling folks to “do some research” doesn’t come off too well when you yourself have the basic facts wrong….
As for the 14th, it’s a Constitutional Amendment, so it’s compatible with strict constructionism. That doesn’t mean he’d vote for it, but it also doesn’t make it an automatic “no.”
calbear on May 19, 2010 at 7:46 PM
Uh, his answer was perfectly fine. Now, we have a totally corrupt media that may attempt to attribute to Paul an answer that he never gave(Rush Limbaugh and the St. Louis Rams, anyone?), but he never said he wouldn’t vote for the Civil Rights Act.
Anyone who tries to say otherwise is a liar and has no business being in journalism.
Doughboy on May 19, 2010 at 7:46 PM
Honestly – I don’t like his Dad but I’ve been impressed with the way Rand carries himself.
He needs to seize the initiative here – he’s got a good line going here with daring Obama to campaign against him. He needs to force his opponent to either embrace Obama or denounce him – his opponent will lose either way.
HondaV65 on May 19, 2010 at 7:48 PM
didn’t know that…thanks, but this will just make his day tomorrow….
cmsinaz on May 19, 2010 at 7:48 PM
Oh yeah… there is this too…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_VII
TerryAnn, I know you’re a Christian… well Title II and Title VII and the jurisprudence around it will be used to hammer Christian charities… like adoption in Massachusetts…
ninjapirate on May 19, 2010 at 7:50 PM
And then in the 1960′s and 70′s all the Southern Democrats moved North en masse, and all the Northerne Republicans moved South. And that’s how we have geographic party alignment we have today.
History, conservative-style.
crr6 on May 19, 2010 at 7:51 PM
Some forget that the democrat party was the party of:
Slavery
the KKK
Jim Crow laws
Segregation
racial discrimination
That’s why MLK, father and son, were both life long Republicans.
Mojave Mark on May 19, 2010 at 7:53 PM
What a tricky little question. I agree that he certainly isn’t racist, but that doesn’t change the fact that his alternate ideas for combatting discrimination are stupid and demonstrably wrong. “Local pressure” didn’t work for decades. And even if it did, it would never work uniformly, and we’d have pockets across America where blacks are systematically excluded from motels, hotels and restaurants. That’s why we needed the federal government to act.
crr6 on May 19, 2010 at 7:54 PM
And the party of “The Great Society” which permanently enslaved minorities to the democrat plantation. Disgusting.
Inanemergencydial on May 19, 2010 at 7:54 PM
Civil rights have not help the black population one bit. Before 1964, teenage pregnancy, crime, and unemployment were on par with the white population. It was only after the liberalism of the late 60′s and the whole “civil rights” cavalcade that the black community went to hell in America and are still there. Goldwater and other conservative knew nothing good would come from it. And they were right.
keep the change on May 19, 2010 at 7:56 PM
Sigh. There are principled constitutional concerns with portions of the Act, as much good as it has done. Goldwater opposed Title II and VII as infringing on indiivdual property rights, rights or association and federalism grounds.
Firefly_76 on May 19, 2010 at 7:56 PM
In 1964, it needed to be passed, but it was a case of competing rights, and those are difficult cases for all people who take the Constitution seriously. Equal treatment vs. freedom of association. In 1964, establishing equal treatment took precedent over other concerns because the violations were so blatant.
RBMN on May 19, 2010 at 7:57 PM
You would also have pockets across America where whites are systematically excluded from motels, hotels and restaurants.
People have a right to be racist assholes, government does not.
Holger on May 19, 2010 at 7:57 PM
Obama certainly is the great uniter. Never in my 60 years on this earth have I witnessed such a divisive President. Everything in this mans administration revolves around race. It is no coincidence why they are doing this. Dividing the Country makes it easier to control.
sandee on May 19, 2010 at 7:58 PM
Oh gawd,I just left a minefield,and I`m back
into another,ugh!!
canopfor on May 19, 2010 at 8:01 PM
An easy bet to make with a lib at the office is to ask if John Kennedy ever voted against the Civil rights Act.
Red State State of Mind on May 19, 2010 at 8:01 PM
The left is going about attacking Paul in the same disgusting manner in which they misrepresented the late Senator Goldwater in 1964.The CRA created many unintended consequences and is basically overkill when you consider the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. The left thrives off class and race warfare since it’s their calling card.
Pitchforker on May 19, 2010 at 8:01 PM
Tea Party Mandate!
===========================
Has that been cleared by the Tea Paty Patriots,jus sayin!
canopfor on May 19, 2010 at 8:02 PM
You are wrong as usual. The southerns that move north were mostly blacks. The northerns moved south because the business climate was better there. Examples: the oil industry base left New York for Houston; people from Michigan came to Texas in droves as the auto industry was collapsing.
docdave on May 19, 2010 at 8:03 PM
Some forget that the democrat party was the party of:
Slavery
the KKK
Jim Crow laws
Segregation
racial discrimination
That’s why MLK, father and son, were both life long Republicans.
Mojave Mark on May 19, 2010 at 7:53 PM
Mojave Mark:
=================
And some forget that it was the Republican Party that went to war,to fight along side,side-by-side to free the slaves,
and end slavery!!
canopfor on May 19, 2010 at 8:05 PM
You know it scares me when all our reference material comes from Wikipedia.
shomegirl on May 19, 2010 at 8:06 PM
Wait, so that really is your justification for the party realignment of the 60′s and 70′s? All the liberals moved North and the conservatives moved South? Collectively? Within the span of a decade?
LMAO.
crr6 on May 19, 2010 at 8:06 PM
You’re a simpleton.
CWforFreedom on May 19, 2010 at 8:07 PM
Rand was, what, a few months old when the CRA was passed? The guy had not even tried Gerber’s yet, but was suppose to have political opinions. Mother’s milk or formula would have been a more appropriate question.
tommylotto on May 19, 2010 at 8:07 PM
sighs
and you would knwo the 60′s or 70′s how? You aren’t much older then what… 24?
The chicken looks flat.
upinak on May 19, 2010 at 8:08 PM
Large sections of the Civil Rights Act are pretty much unconstitutional. Forcing businesses to serve certain groups and often requiring burdens on southern states (i.e. elections). I would have voted against it in its current form.
andy85719 on May 19, 2010 at 8:09 PM
Explain again to me why “Lincoln isn’t a Republican?”
I need to laugh.
tetriskid on May 19, 2010 at 8:10 PM
Eh, he’s a white, male Republican… He could have married a black woman, and adopted Eskimo babies and he’d still be labeled a racist or “closet racist” by NPR…
MeatHeadinCA on May 19, 2010 at 8:11 PM
KFTC
Holger on May 19, 2010 at 8:12 PM
Someone find out if he was for or against the Emancipation Proclamation!! Hmmmm, quick, ask Sarah Palin the same question!
El_Terrible on May 19, 2010 at 8:12 PM
Yep. About all we can do on this point is flatly tell the left their race card has expired, to their faces, and then promptly ignore them.
Dark-Star on May 19, 2010 at 8:13 PM
How Conservatives/Republicans Kick-Started The Civil Rights Movement
http://jeannedevon.com/how-conservativesrepublicans-kick-started-the-civil-rights-movement/
Narutoboy on May 19, 2010 at 8:14 PM
eskimo babies? I live in your head don’t I. HEH!
upinak on May 19, 2010 at 8:14 PM
I would have voted against it on principle. Compulsion is abhorrent!
OldEnglish on May 19, 2010 at 8:14 PM
I’m a Latina who understands why Goldwater and Rand Paul would have reservations about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Does that make me a racist? Maybe a coconut in Danny Deutsch’s eyes…
cubachi on May 19, 2010 at 8:14 PM
The Left is playing a real dangerous game here. Think back to 2006 when they openly courted the libertarian vote. And 2008 when some on the Left aligned with Ron Paul. Now here we are in 2010 and they’re about to go after the most successful Libertarian political candidate in America – Rand Paul?
Let them try. They will permenantly put us Libertarians in an alliance with Conservatives. And Libertarians and Conservatives aligned cannot be beat!
Eric Dondero, Publisher
LibertarianRepublican.net
ericdondero on May 19, 2010 at 8:15 PM
Hehehe
You know it! I keep missing you! At least we met up now :D
Yep, I’m done with it. It’s becoming almost humorous…
MeatHeadinCA on May 19, 2010 at 8:15 PM
Should have also asked if he would have interned the japs during ww2 just for balance
How about if he ever used a racial slur
what a joke
Sonosam on May 19, 2010 at 8:15 PM
I should add, if Rand had “married” a black male, he could have been called a homophobic Klansman…
MeatHeadinCA on May 19, 2010 at 8:17 PM
He was a Republican, but he wasn’t a “conservative”. At least not in any contemporary sense of the term. He certainly wasn’t for “states rights”, nor was he for a “limited national government”.
And that’s why all of the references here to the Republicans being “the party of Civil Rights” are so disingenuous. The parties basically switched constituencies in the mid to late 60′s and early 70′s. Democrats picked up minorities, urban whites and most Northerners while Republicans courted working class whites and Southerners. That’s why it’s not Republicans who talk about “states rights” when it used to be the Democrats.
Of course, mostly everyone here knows that, but they just choose to lie distort history anyway.
crr6 on May 19, 2010 at 8:18 PM
Try this again,Rush TV,1994,Bitter,Pissed Off Liberals!!
=========================================================
Democrats react to the 1994 Republican Revolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w547bo2Np4&feature=related
canopfor on May 19, 2010 at 8:18 PM
Crr your argument is so simple. You back it up with nothing just simplistic rambling.
–
You should be more upset about this government but we no you are a lapdog.
CWforFreedom on May 19, 2010 at 8:18 PM
the 10th ammendmant.
Sefton on May 19, 2010 at 8:18 PM
Another way to get a Sarah Palin. If you can’t take her out in a frontal assault, attack her rear or one of her flanks.
technopeasant on May 19, 2010 at 8:18 PM
You in a nut shell
CWforFreedom on May 19, 2010 at 8:19 PM
crr6 on May 19, 2010 at 8:19 PM
there is a chance the ROn Paul Newsletters(remember those) get linked to him.
Paul had his wife and Daughter on the payroll, rest assured if Rand had anything to do with them it will come out.
Try defending that against the left/msm
jp on May 19, 2010 at 8:20 PM
Akzed to National Psocialist Radio:
“Would you have helped Pol Pot kill Cambodians who wore glasses?”
Akzed on May 19, 2010 at 8:20 PM
Crr you’re an idiot if you don’t think there are not many racist Dems. Go to a union shop idiot.
CWforFreedom on May 19, 2010 at 8:20 PM
I’ll repeat what I said in the other Paul thread- this guy is a constant guest on Alex Jones’ radio show. That alone is enough to tag him a lunatic unworthy of serious consideration. If a liberal had appeared on some nutjob left wing show, we’d all be up in arms, I don’t doubt, but with Paul we just give him a pass. No big deal, let’s embrace lunatics.
I don’t get it.
TheBlueSite on May 19, 2010 at 8:20 PM
Boy more simple speak.
CWforFreedom on May 19, 2010 at 8:21 PM
Al Gore Sr. voted against it.
Akzed on May 19, 2010 at 8:21 PM
I am against the Act, not on principle, but because that law violates the Constitution. Housing is NOT a federal power.
I would support a Constitutional Amendment declaring discrimination by government on the basis of race as being wrong.
Tim Burton on May 19, 2010 at 8:21 PM
Irony: Rand looks like a young Arlen Spector.
RobCon on May 19, 2010 at 8:22 PM
Your entire post is disingenuous. You leaped from denying that the Republicans are the party of civil rights to discussing constituents. The constituents may have changed, but that says nothing about the party or ideology of those who began fighting for civil rights. And the original one’s to do that at the beginning of the 20th century were – you guessed it – conservatives.
Narutoboy on May 19, 2010 at 8:22 PM
Conservatives always say liberals use the Commerce Clause to justify their policy preferences, even if it isn’t remotely applicable.
The 10th amendment is your version of the Commerce clause.
crr6 on May 19, 2010 at 8:23 PM
The best explanation of the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act.
Tim Burton on May 19, 2010 at 8:24 PM
We need the feds to act to ban morons.
Akzed on May 19, 2010 at 8:24 PM
NPR gives Rand a hard time on speculation before he is sworn in while he joins a former Klansman like Dem Robert Byrd as one of his colleauges in the Senate.
RobCon on May 19, 2010 at 8:24 PM
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
Once again you brightly show your ignorance. The non-black south HAS always been conservative even when it was predominantly Democrat. It,s the Democrats that have changed to liberalism that has caused the southerns to change their political affiliation. You really should do some research before you spout off about things that you know little about.
docdave on May 19, 2010 at 8:26 PM
I think what you’re trying to say is that Conservatives invoke the 10th like Progressive invoke the Commerce Clause… Not that that’s true.
The 10th Amendment might, just might be more uh… “broad” than a clause.
MeatHeadinCA on May 19, 2010 at 8:26 PM
Robert KKK Bird wasn’t just rank and file, he was a grand kleagle.
No ARMY recruiters on college campii, but a KKK recruiter on the D side of the aisle in the senate? Sure.
Inanemergencydial on May 19, 2010 at 8:27 PM
Genius, at the beginning of the 20th century, the Republicans were conservative. Even more conservative than today. Remember, they were isolationists at one point. Those conservatives kick-started the civil rights movement. Liberal/progressive presidents hindered it. Care to refute that?
Narutoboy on May 19, 2010 at 8:28 PM
No, they each changed ideologically.
The GOP moved slowly but surely towards conservatism, and the Dems moved slowly but surely towards socialism.
Your thesis would have had the GOP going from socialism to conservatism, and the Dems vice versa. That didn’t happen.
As the Dems got more and more socialistic, they lost many enrolled voters to the GOP. I don’t recall an opposite exodus from the GOP to the Dems.
Akzed on May 19, 2010 at 8:28 PM
Give some examples, please.
In fact the commerce clause was to be understood within the enumerated powers of Art I Sec 8 acc to Madison.
Akzed on May 19, 2010 at 8:30 PM
You truly are simple.Just killing me.
I have met my share of racist lib/dems and the dems are the ones who have truly harmed blacks as a whole. You’ve destroyed their families and ensured generations will rely on big borther. Good job. Idiot.
CWforFreedom on May 19, 2010 at 8:31 PM
Yes… I can see why as a member of the party of slavery, prohibition, internment camps, & Jim Crow you don’t see why the Republicans are the party of Civil Rights.
Oh… it was probably that time the Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964!
Don’t you hate when Democrats haven’t flushed history down the memory hole yet!
Laugh laugh laugh.
tetriskid on May 19, 2010 at 8:31 PM
You need to understand : Crr’s game is to play it simple …it is easier and it allows her to essentially be “racist” in a sense against those on the right. She’s a dupe.
CWforFreedom on May 19, 2010 at 8:32 PM
Fool. Was just at the Lincoln Memorial this weekend. Reread the Second Inaugural. Maybe you should try it someday. He would not only be considered a conservative by today’s standards, he would, oh the horror, be considered a Social Conservative.
txmomof6 on May 19, 2010 at 8:33 PM
That and the party of the BOMB. They didn’t use it on white people.
CWforFreedom on May 19, 2010 at 8:34 PM
No, not really. Although considering you’re referring to the political climate 100 years ago, I’m sure your attempt to equate the conservatives back then with those today is misleading and stupid.
We’re talking about the 1960′s and 70′s. You’re losing the argument so you’re trying to change the subject.
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
I’d have asked him if he would’ve opposed Pharoh and led the Jooooooooooooooooooooooos from Egypt.
SouthernGent on May 19, 2010 at 8:36 PM
Yeah. You need to read my post again, cause you’re not really responding to it.
Or maybe you already know that.
crr6 on May 19, 2010 at 8:36 PM
The neighborhood I grew up in was 90% Dem. My parents were minor functionaries in the GOP, working the polls and getting out the vote, and so I know that number is accurate.
It was 90% Dem, and a Klan hotbed, including the Grand Cyclops of the state. No GOPers were in the Klan, so do the math.
Akzed on May 19, 2010 at 8:37 PM
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
You are twisting history to fit your narrative. Lincoln had to increase the government because we were in a war, you cannot fight a conventional war of the Civil War’s magnitude on the dollar menu. You are claiming this makes him something less than a Conservative, which is not the case.
Furthermore, the Southern Argument for their Rights was basically the States created the Union therefore the States have ultimate say over what the Federal Government can and can not do. Which falls flat on its face (they were nullifying Laws that were entirely constitutional such as Foreign Trade Tariffs). Again, this doesn’t make him by default something other than a Conservative.
I know Universities turn the average brain of the average youth into Mush, but you can do better than this. Someone advocating for a position does not automatically advocate for the extreme of that position.
Holger on May 19, 2010 at 8:38 PM
The commerce clause was never intended as the Feds have used it to regulate virtually every business everywhere intrastate as well as interstate. Indeed, if anything the way they have used the commerce clause is the opposite to the 10th amendment which relegated those things that the Feds have usurped to the states.
docdave on May 19, 2010 at 8:39 PM
One, 60′s and 70′s… like Goldwater’s time, right? Oh, I know, he was a racist… /s
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
Because I’m right. Was Calvin Coolidge conservative or not? Calvin Coolidge governed more conservatively than any other president. So why are you bringing up the political climate? Republicans were MORE conservative back then. By mentioning that, you only prove my point.
Yes, the 60s and 70s. Republicans/conservatives still voted for civil rights. Even the one’s that didn’t, like Barry Goldwater, helped desegregate schools and stores in their own states.
In the 70s, conservatives did begin shifting their focus to the South. I’m not denying that. But it doesn’t erase the history. And the policies conservatives still represent today are better for society, better for minorities.
Narutoboy on May 19, 2010 at 8:40 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »