Rand Paul calls out MSNBC… on MSNBC

posted at 6:41 pm on July 30, 2014 by Noah Rothman

Amid a bipartisan push to reform America’s drug sentencing laws, Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) appeared on MSNBC on Wednesday to drum up grassroots support for this reform effort.

While their proposal has a lot of merit, Paul seemed to me to be wasting his breath appearing on MSNBC where the message of prison and drug sentencing reform is already a winning one. It would seem more prudent for Booker and Paul to take their message to conservative outlets where there would be resistance to this reform.

But the conversation quickly turned from Paul’s proposal to comments he made before he was even elected to office about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. MSNBC’s flagship host Rachel Maddow went to town on Paul for suggesting that the CRA might have violated the rights of business owners. Paul’s take on the Civil Rights Act remains a bugaboo for Maddow even to this day (the most recent segment on her program litigating the Kentucky senator’s position on civil rights broadcast on July 25.)

But Paul spun that moment in his favor rather deftly and, as Ace of Spades blogger Drew M. suggested, probably scored some points among conservatives when he attacked that network’s myopia and serial fact distortion.

“I’ve always been in favor of the Civil Rights Act,” Paul said when asked about his 2010 comments. “So, people need to get over themselves writing all this stuff that I’ve changed my mind on the Civil Rights Act.

“Have I ever had a philosophical discussion about all aspects of it? Yeah, and I learned my lesson – to come on MSNBC and have a philosophical discussion, the liberals will come out of the woodwork and they go crazy and say you’re against the Civil Rights Act, and you’re some terrible racist,” Paul continued, effectively jabbing at liberalism’s anxiety with dissent and unpopular thought.

MSNBC host Ari Melber asked Paul why he simply did not explain that his take on the CRA had “evolved” over the years. Paul replied that there had been no evolution to explain.

“I’ve been attacked by half a dozen people on your network trying to say that I’m opposed to the Civil Rights Act,” Paul added. “So, I’m not really willing to engage with people who are misrepresenting my viewpoint on this.”

Melber protested. “I think the honest discussion, as you said, that some titles of it, Title 2 and Title 7 that relate to…”

“The honest discussion would be that I never was opposed to Civil Rights Act,” an exasperated Paul interjected. “And when your network does 24-hour news telling the truth, then maybe we can get somewhere with the discussion.”

Boom.


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

What a Liar!!

He was asked point blank: Would you have voted for the 1965 Civil Rights bill?

There is only ONE answer to that question and it is a one word answer: Yes

Rand Paul could not bring himself to say he would have voted Yes on the 1965 Civil Rights bill.

And these guys thinks he is going to win over black folks? LOL!

Ned Pepper on July 30, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Rand Paul could not bring himself to say he would have voted Yes on the 1965 Civil Rights bill.

Ned Pepper on July 30, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Most democrats in 1965 didn’t vote for the Civil rights Bill.

LBJ needed the Republicans to pass the Civil rights bill.

Let that sink in, Ned Pepper.

portlandon on July 30, 2014 at 6:50 PM

What a Liar and Plagiarist I am, just like Zakaria on CNN!!

Ned Pepper on July 30, 2014 at 6:46 PM

You’re welcome, scum of HA.

Schadenfreude on July 30, 2014 at 6:52 PM

And these guys thinks he is going to win over black folks? LOL!

Ned Pepper on July 30, 2014 at 6:46 PM

French is not the official HA language.

Schadenfreude on July 30, 2014 at 6:53 PM

Alright! Tell it like it is, Rand. MSNBC doesn’t deserve any slack. They are dem party propagandists not news people and not as smart as they repeatedly try to suggest. They distort and out and out lie. Screw ‘em! If they were smart they wouldn’t need to put so much effort in trying to relay that idea.

Charm on July 30, 2014 at 6:54 PM

Too bad a thread all peckered up so quickly.

Brat on July 30, 2014 at 6:54 PM

Robert Byrd, in white hoods, Democrat

Schadenfreude on July 30, 2014 at 6:54 PM

For Ned, especially

Schadenfreude on July 30, 2014 at 6:55 PM

He was asked point blank: Would you have voted for the 1965 Civil Rights bill?

There is only ONE answer to that question and it is a one word answer: Yes

Rand Paul could not bring himself to say he would have voted Yes on the 1965 Civil Rights bill.

Ned Pepper on July 30, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Ned’s right on that. And that’s why it’ll come back to haunt Paul should he ever get to a general election.

Stoic Patriot on July 30, 2014 at 6:55 PM

oh my aqua buddha! she really got under his skin, didnt she?

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on July 30, 2014 at 6:55 PM

is seo so important you never correct the url when this happens?
2014/07/30/rand-pall-calls-out-msnbc-on-msnbc/
since people search for paul and not pall it should not matter….
or does wp not allow furl changes?

dmacleo on July 30, 2014 at 6:56 PM

portlandon on July 30, 2014 at 6:50 PM

Weak and lame argument.

We are not talking about democrats in 1965. We are talking about 2016 presidential candidate in 2014.

A guy who wants to be president in 2014 cannot bring himself to say that Yes, I would have voted for the 1965 Civil Rights bill.

The country is much different today than 1965. Rand Paul’s view would have worked in 1965. In 2014? Not a chance. LOL!

Rand Paul, the fool who thinks that just by saying that black and browns have been disproportionately harmed by the drug war and the GOP looks discriminatory towards minorities with their Voter ID obsession, that the black and other minorities will forget that he is against the Civil Rights Act in this day and age.

What a chump!

Ned Pepper on July 30, 2014 at 6:56 PM

Also…

Rand Pall calls out MSNBC

Pall?

Stoic Patriot on July 30, 2014 at 6:56 PM

Democrats have spent their entire history defending racial subjugation, even going so far as to celebrate a KKK “Exalted Cyclops” on the floor of the Senate as recently as 2010. So this is all just pot calling out kettle at worst, or even absolute projection.

If Democrats had even a shred of self conscious dignity, they’d shut down this sort of talk. But there is no respect on the left for honesty or political principle, only tactical politics.

MTF on July 30, 2014 at 6:57 PM

Rand Paul is getting good practice. You can tell he is getting more relax during confrontations. I would even say that he is turning into a Bill Clinton right before my eyes. He is mastering the media and enjoying it.

coolrepublica on July 30, 2014 at 6:57 PM

Don’t you just love the “call out” articles by “journalists”…?

d1carter on July 30, 2014 at 6:57 PM

Pall?

Stoic Patriot on July 30, 2014 at 6:56 PM

LOL…

d1carter on July 30, 2014 at 6:58 PM

Byrd and Gore voted against it.

Schadenfreude on July 30, 2014 at 6:58 PM

I’m all for reaching out to people, but I wonder if Rand’s approach is proving successful.

chris0christies0donut on July 30, 2014 at 6:58 PM

lot of stuff in civil rights bill I would not have voted for. business owner/land owner/person should not be forced by law to do anything with anyone they don’t want to for any reason including white people.
voting, same civil rights, stuff like that I would vote for.

dmacleo on July 30, 2014 at 7:00 PM

We are not talking about democrats in 1965.

Ned Pepper on July 30, 2014 at 6:56 PM

Is that because you’re ashamed of your party’s history?

corkie on July 30, 2014 at 7:01 PM

O/T
House votes to sue bams.

31giddyup on July 30, 2014 at 7:02 PM

Might behoove your argument to get the facts before you post.

tiger4truth on July 30, 2014 at 7:04 PM

O/T
House votes to sue bams.

31giddyup on July 30, 2014 at 7:02 PM

Leftists are all for fascist dicktatorship and thuggery.

Schadenfreude on July 30, 2014 at 7:07 PM

Rand Paul may not be thrilled with this story regarding the Dept of “Homeland Security.” DHS Raid Home To Seize Land Rover For Violation Of EPA Regulations. This is asset forfeiture, and not part of the drug war, but of unsuspecting people’s property, valued at $65,000! Utterly insane. Here’s a video from the above link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8yg-4IoRPo

anotherJoe on July 30, 2014 at 7:07 PM

And these guys thinks he is going to win over black folks? LOL!

Ned Pepper on July 30, 2014 at 6:46 PM

You tell them, Ned. The Democrats own black people and they will vote for who you tell them to vote for, no matter how it effects them directly.

magicbeans on July 30, 2014 at 7:08 PM

Preach it.

Key West Reader on July 30, 2014 at 7:10 PM

if there isn’t a black candidate, there won’t be enough showing up to vote to matter

burserker on July 30, 2014 at 7:16 PM

We are not talking about democrats in 1965.

Ned Pepper on July 30, 2014 at 6:56 PM

So you admit that your party was built from the slavery of blacks?

Good to know.

Of course last 49 years should wash away the sins of your parties 237 years of slavery, jim crow, lynching, Dixiecrat past. Right?

portlandon on July 30, 2014 at 7:17 PM

Why play the race card?

libfreeordie on May 4, 2014 at 11:40 PM

Schadenfreude on July 30, 2014 at 7:17 PM

frequent appearances by rand paul on msnbc should raise a red flag to anyone with common sense.

renalin on July 30, 2014 at 7:19 PM

We are not talking about democrats in 1965.

Ned Pepper on July 30, 2014 at 6:56 PM

“But the founders were all racists” — Ned Reppep

Schadenfreude on July 30, 2014 at 7:20 PM

At least he got them to talk about something besides their impeachment fantasies.

forest on July 30, 2014 at 7:21 PM

Rand Paul, the fool who thinks that just by saying that black and browns have been disproportionately harmed by the drug war and the GOP looks discriminatory towards minorities with their Voter ID obsession, that the black and other minorities will forget that he is against the Civil Rights Act in this day and age.
What a chump!

Ned Pepper on July 30, 2014 at 6:56 PM

Give it up, these people are hopeless. They’re so deeply cocooned in their own little political bubble, you will never get through to them.

Trotsky on July 30, 2014 at 7:22 PM

“So, Senator Paul, have you stopped beating your wife while obstructing the Civil Rights Act?”

Objectivity.
Religiously avoided, by the gaggle of hacks at MSNBC.

orangemtl on July 30, 2014 at 7:22 PM

Ned’s right on that. And that’s why it’ll come back to haunt Paul should he ever get to a general election.

Stoic Patriot on July 30, 2014 at 6:55 PM

Where would Rand Paul be on the political spectrum in the mid-1960′s?

Asking that sort of question is a strange sort of thing as it requires trying to see the actual roots of where one stands on topics today and to try and translate them into the milieu of the past.

Perhaps we can find out which side he would have taken with James II or Charles I? Would he have been for or against WWI?

One can talk about the outcome of the actual placement of a bill into law, or the outcome of civil conflicts… but asking about where you would have been on the subject at the time is trying to do the impossible. LBJ had voted against the CRA that Eisenhower put forward and forced it to be very watered down, and yet by ’65 he was pushing it and finding his party wanted little to do with it. Meanwhile Republican judges had been handing down decisions to bolster equality of standing of blacks before the law as they were part of the Party of Lincoln and saw all men as being equal. With that said some Republicans had trouble with the CRA on procedural grounds on how it treated States and that is a just concern to have in a federal system. That did not make them racist.

Given the era, the arguments, the judicial proceedings, the problems seen at the time, the Democrats still having Bull Connor and KKK members, and Libertarians trying to see if what was being proposed could function within the federal system… asking for a snap answer or ANY ANSWER to how one would have voted IN THE PAST before they were even in their majority, much less past infancy, is problematical, at best, if you want an HONEST ANSWER and are willing to take time to DISCUSS IT. Those latter parts are notably absent in the sound-bite era and ‘gotchya!’ questions.

I’m hoping that someone does take Rand Paul to task for the question and then gets it turned right around on them by asking if they have a few hours of broadcast time to hash it out. If you see the MFM run away in fear from that, then you know they can’t take the intellectual challenge of actually being honest in their questioning. MSLSD deserves the cold fish across the face.

So does anyone bringing the question up and not being willing to honestly examine the question, the time period and one’s philosophical understanding of the law, the Nation and man’s liberty for a given era. I would gladly watch a good hour or two on the entire topic with Rand Paul and anyone else who wanted to show up as it would be a fascinating intellectual exercise and historical review. Not great TV, true… but this is about honest in questioning, not ratings and playing ‘gotchya!’

ajacksonian on July 30, 2014 at 7:23 PM

Rand Paul may not be thrilled with this story regarding the Dept of “Homeland Security.” DHS Raid Home To Seize Land Rover For Violation Of EPA Regulations. This is asset forfeiture, and not part of the drug war, but of unsuspecting people’s property, valued at $65,000! Utterly insane. Here’s a video from the above link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8yg-4IoRPo

anotherJoe on July 30, 2014 at 7:07 PM

Thanks, I was looking for that story at a link that HotAir would accept. It’s bloody outrageous.

slickwillie2001 on July 30, 2014 at 7:23 PM

“But the founders were all racists” — Ned Reppep

Schadenfreude on July 30, 2014 at 7:20 PM

No doubt, Founders were all racists.

They used big and fancy words and then left slavery intact in the constitution and the 3/5th of human being B.S. They left slavery in for political expediency.

Founders were not gods. There were humans with deep flaws, warts and all.

Ned Pepper on July 30, 2014 at 7:27 PM

O/T
House votes to sue bams.

31giddyup on July 30, 2014 at 7:02 PM

Leftists are all for fascist dicktatorship and thuggery.

Schadenfreude on July 30, 2014 at 7:07 PM

They certainly are Schad.

31giddyup on July 30, 2014 at 7:29 PM

Civil-Rights. That is a nonsensical word coupling.

Buddahpundit on July 30, 2014 at 7:32 PM

Give it up, these people are hopeless. They’re so deeply cocooned in their own little political bubble, you will never get through to them.

Trotsky on July 30, 2014 at 7:22 PM

Says the man who is trying to resurrect a cult of personality for the Butcher of Kronstadt.

And speaking of political bubbles, most of the denizens of this site are very leery of Paul fils. So you don’t even have your facts straight on that point either.

dreadnought62 on July 30, 2014 at 7:34 PM

They used big and fancy words and then left slavery intact in the constitution

Ned Pepper on July 30, 2014 at 7:27 PM

You’re right.

And when the Republicans wanted to free the Slaves, the Democrats said “Hell No, they aren’t people they are farm equipment”.

And we fought the civil war, many white Republican men having died to free the black man, despite the efforts of the evil democrats.

Your party is built on the blood of hate and human ownership.

YOU KNOW ITS TRUE.

portlandon on July 30, 2014 at 7:37 PM

“But the founders were all racists” — Ned Reppep

Schadenfreude on July 30, 2014 at 7:20 PM

No doubt, Founders were all racists.

They used big and fancy words and then left slavery intact in the constitution and the 3/5th of human being B.S. They left slavery in for political expediency.

Founders were not gods. There were humans with deep flaws, warts and all.

Ned Pepper on July 30, 2014 at 7:27 PM

Weak and lame argument by myself. That was so long ago.

We are talking about 2016 presidential candidate in 2014.

What a chump I am!

Ned Pepper on July 30, 2014 at 6:56 PM

Schadenfreude on July 30, 2014 at 7:40 PM

Give it up, these people are hopeless. They’re so deeply cocooned in their own little political bubble, you will never get through to them.

Trotsky on July 30, 2014 at 7:22 PM

Lol.

You know Trotsky literally invented racism right?

tetriskid on July 30, 2014 at 7:41 PM

Idiot, with warped logic, you can’t argue “that was so long ago” only on topics that you fancy.

Logic 101, exemplar 1, Ned, the plagiarist of HA

Schadenfreude on July 30, 2014 at 7:41 PM

What a Liar!!

He was asked point blank: Would you have voted for the 1965 Civil Rights bill?

There is only ONE answer to that question and it is a one word answer: Yes

Rand Paul could not bring himself to say he would have voted Yes on the 1965 Civil Rights bill.

And these guys thinks he is going to win over black folks? LOL!

Ned Pepper on July 30, 2014 at 6:46 PM

You’re not only a jerk, you’re an ignorant jerk. Paul’s “non-answer” was based on there being more to the CRA than a simple black and white issue. He would not have voted for hurting businesses, so how do you deal with that and your simple answer BS?

HiJack on July 30, 2014 at 7:43 PM

There is only ONE answer…

Authoritarian troll is authoritarian….

wytshus on July 30, 2014 at 7:45 PM

You do KNOW that the 3/5 compromise was to WEAKEN the south. Slavery’s OPPONENTS wanted this.

When the southern states counted slaves as citizens they had more representatives. Counting them less than that was not about hurting their wittle feelings but to lessen their count in the census which determined number of representatives.

Stop using EMOTIONS and use your brain. In other words stop being a Democrat.

DavidM on July 30, 2014 at 7:48 PM

In a way, we need more conservatives to go on MSNBC because they really can’t handle them. The problem is they’ll get weak-kneed Conservatives and make them look dumb. Paul, although not a conservative, is libertarian enough to be comfortable and call them for what they are. I can’t imagine Boehner going on there.

Actually, when you really think about it, going on there is a waste of time. Even liberals don’t trust them so what’s the point, do you really want to try and connect to the far left of the Democratic Party. If you can connect with them, perhaps you really have to think your positions through.

bflat879 on July 30, 2014 at 7:50 PM

Lol.
You know Trotsky literally invented racism right?

tetriskid on July 30, 2014 at 7:41 PM

That is a disgusting slander, and the fact that you are able to utter it with no consequences under the guise of “free speech” is a testament to the utter prostration of the government at the knees of the far right.

Trotsky on July 30, 2014 at 7:51 PM

Trotsky on July 30, 2014 at 7:51 PM

Stop being a thread-derailing idiot, troll.

non-nonpartisan on July 30, 2014 at 8:07 PM

So, I guess Rand finally came up for air. It appears that his marathon make-out session with Cory Booker has really energized him.

http://twitchy.com/2014/07/29/making-me-sick-rand-paul-and-cory-bookers-love-fest-isnt-pretty/

Pork-Chop on July 30, 2014 at 8:07 PM

Founders were not gods. There were humans with deep flaws, warts and all.

Ned Pepper on July 30, 2014 at 7:27 PM

I think they were more self aware than you give them credit for. The current occupant of the White House, not so much.

DaveDief on July 30, 2014 at 8:11 PM

Stop being a thread-derailing idiot, troll.

non-nonpartisan on July 30, 2014 at 8:07 PM

Actually, for once, the troll is actually proving why our concern over L’Affaire Lerner is so well founded. She doesn’t have the mental horsepower of the real Trotsky (not the gibbering fool we’re currently kicking around for sport), but Lerner would have fit in very well with the Bolsheviks in the day.

dreadnought62 on July 30, 2014 at 8:14 PM

Stop being a thread-derailing idiot, troll.

non-nonpartisan on July 30, 2014 at 8:07 PM

I had been kinda hoping that it was an agent from The People’s Cube.

No such luck.

ajacksonian on July 30, 2014 at 8:14 PM

No doubt, Founders were all racists.

They used big and fancy words and then left slavery intact in the constitution and the 3/5th of human being B.S. They left slavery in for political expediency.

Founders were not gods. There were humans with deep flaws, warts and all.

Ned Pepper on July 30, 2014 at 7:27 PM

Tell us, Ned, if slaves shouldn’t have been counted as 3/5, how should they have been counted?

mankai on July 30, 2014 at 8:16 PM

Founders were not gods. There were humans with deep flaws, warts and all.

Ned Pepper on July 30, 2014 at 7:27 PM

Which they understood and why they wrote separation of powers and checks and balances into the Constitution. But, apparently, your president considers himself a god who is above checks and balances.

mankai on July 30, 2014 at 8:19 PM

We had a local, self-proclaimed black racist who dropped the 3/5 thing in almost every thread on the news blog. I finally broke the bad news that he had been promoting the slave-owners position for weeks.

Public schools…

mankai on July 30, 2014 at 8:26 PM

Tell us, Ned, if slaves shouldn’t have been counted as 3/5, how should they have been counted?

mankai on July 30, 2014 at 8:16 PM

If I remember correctly one of the Anti-Federalists, Brutis, attacked this philosophically. Seeing as how a man is either a man or not, then the 3/5 basis is ill-founded philosophically. I know that his alternative was in the spirit of contention, but he put forward that if we cannot count the slaves as men but as property, that such property has value and that we should then be basing number of people based on the value of property. Thus a wagon having the same value as a slave would get an extra count in the census…it was a thought provoking paper.

If we laud the Founders for their attempt to get the idea that slaves are men into the minds of everyone, then we should also look with some fondness on those who point out that while this achieves the objective it undercuts the principle and actually weakens the argument. The trouble was that no one wanted to have that fight right after the war and the near breaking apart of the Confederal system by the Shaysites. Our admiration must be that on the deal brokering side and doing the best that could be done at the time to hold the Nation together. There was the hope that with the ending of importation that the southern economic system would begin to deteriorate and slavery ended naturally. Only the cotton gin turned that around and no one could have seen that change coming down the road.

ajacksonian on July 30, 2014 at 8:30 PM

Actually, for once, the troll is actually proving why our concern over L’Affaire Lerner is so well founded. She doesn’t have the mental horsepower of the real Trotsky (not the gibbering fool we’re currently kicking around for sport), but Lerner would have fit in very well with the Bolsheviks in the day.

dreadnought62 on July 30, 2014 at 8:14 PM

I absolutely agree our concern over Lerner is well-founded, but I don’t believe we need a fool like the juvenile troll Trotsky, who just throws crap against the wall to see what will stick, in order to help us realize it-Lerner’s own words/actions are sufficiently self-indicting.

I had been kinda hoping that it was an agent from The People’s Cube.

No such luck.

ajacksonian on July 30, 2014 at 8:14 PM

Trotsky looks to me to be a lark. I don’t really care, though, because it’s a self-serving one that wants to control threads. For a comparison, Frank Lib doesn’t seem interested in doing that.

That was a great link btw. =)

non-nonpartisan on July 30, 2014 at 8:44 PM

He was asked point blank: Would you have voted for the 1965 Civil Rights bill?

Ned Pepper on July 30, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Uh, no. He was asked about the 1964 CRA.

You’re a filthy, greasy, shiftless, layabout, no-account liar…

JohnGalt23 on July 30, 2014 at 8:59 PM

“And when your network does 24-hour news telling the truth, then maybe we can get somewhere with the discussion.”

Yeah, good luck with that.

College Prof on July 30, 2014 at 9:04 PM

it is so rare for someone to go on msnbc and call them out on their bias and LIES.

sniffles1999 on July 30, 2014 at 9:37 PM

sniffles1999 on July 30, 2014 at 9:37 PM

I thought he did it in a good way, too, which makes his effort even better.

non-nonpartisan on July 30, 2014 at 10:04 PM

While I despise MSNBC and always enjoy seeing someone get a good jab in on them, frankly, the host was right and Paul was lying.

There are parts of the Civil Rights Act that, quite frankly, are indeed unconstitutional and violate the rights of business and property owners. When Paul answered the question originally, he answered honestly — yes, he would have voted for the act because he supports it overall, but there are also some problems with certain parts of it and he would have worked to fix those.

Now he’s going into full politician spin mode, likely preparing for a presidential run, and trying to say that he didn’t say what he clearly said. This is just the latest in a series of examples of him attempting to “moderate” his positions in preparation for a national campaign. And it just proves that Rand Paul is, more or less, just another politician.

Shump on July 30, 2014 at 10:21 PM

I liked this. Never enter into a discussion when you don’t agree with the premise.

He didn’t get sucked in..

seesalrun2 on July 30, 2014 at 10:24 PM

Rand Paul just pwned MSNBC and looked rather relaxed in the process.

Greek Fire on July 30, 2014 at 10:56 PM

Is his hair even real?

hawkdriver on July 31, 2014 at 12:24 AM

Ned Pepper on July 30, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Uh, no. He was asked about the 1964 CRA.

You’re a filthy, greasy, shiftless, layabout, no-account liar…

JohnGalt23 on July 30, 2014 at 8:59 PM

Ned is a sockpuppet. As far as I’m concerned, it’s the worst form of deceit here.

hawkdriver on July 31, 2014 at 12:26 AM

We are not talking about democrats in 1965. We are talking about 2016 presidential candidate in 2014.

Ned Pepper on July 30, 2014 at 6:56 PM

Exactly, that is why the question is foolish, it’s been resolved…maybe in this day and age he would have tried to amend it, or change it, 2014 is different than 1965, when most of the democrats were against it.

The difference is, the Republicans were trying to pass a bill that would help the black community, the dems were passing a bill that forever would keep them on the plantation voting for the dems…as brought out by LBJ.

BTW, almost the exact same bill that Ike proposed when he was president and the democrats skewered him for trying to initiate civil rights…good to see you have a good life on the plantation.

right2bright on July 31, 2014 at 7:16 AM

Rand Paul is getting good practice. You can tell he is getting more relax during confrontations. I would even say that he is turning into a Bill Clinton right before my eyes. He is mastering the media and enjoying it.

coolrepublica on July 30, 2014 at 6:57 PM

I watch all of Rand Paul interview videos and am always entertained and informed. He does have a casual way and wit about him. One of the things I am impressed with is his command of facts.
Many other politicians blather away with their talking points, not
really saying much of substance.

I find myself interested in what Rand Paul has to say.

He certainly is someone to watch and follow.

Amjean on July 31, 2014 at 8:55 AM

Trotsky on July 30, 2014 at 7:22 PM

The irony literally drips from this one, huh?

PJ Emeritus on July 31, 2014 at 10:37 AM

Ned Pepper on July 30, 2014 at 7:27 PM

Oh look, yet another moron who doesn’t realize the 3/5 rule was anti-slavery. It’s this SIMPLE, d!psh!t, if slaves had been counted as a whole “person” the South would have out-populated the North and slavery would have continued longer than it did, because of the voting blocks – any words in that too big for you to understand?

PJ Emeritus on July 31, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Rand Paul could not bring himself to say he would have voted Yes on the 1965 Civil Rights bill.
Ned Pepper on July 30, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Not only that, but Rand Paul does have some questionable associations for which the media will hammer him HARD for.

Ron Paul is well known for his associations with racists. His son isn’t. But that will change if his son, Rand Paul, runs in 2016. People will find that the apple doesn’t fall too far from the tree.

Conservative Samizdat on August 2, 2014 at 10:53 AM