commentary on Politics and a little bit of everything else

Rand Paul announces that he would support Private employers discrimination by race?…..

You read that right……

Rand Paul the current GOP, Tea Party nominee for the United States Senate from Kentucky defended private employees rights to discriminate based on race…

He further goes on to say that the 1964 Civil Rights Law was wrong in taking away that right from those private employers….

He didn’t misspeak…..

He gave that same opinion on the MSNC Racheal Maddow show and at NPR……

Maddow: Do you think that a private business has a right to say that ‘We don’t serve black people?’

Paul: I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. But do discriminate.

But I think what’s important in this debate is not getting into any specific “gotcha” on this, but asking the question ‘What about freedom of speech?’ Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things that freedom requires is that
we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it…


Let me get this straight….The First Amemendement should makes it ok to tell someone they can’t eat in your dinner?

I’m not saying the guy is a racist…..I’m questioning his thought process…..he’s in line to become a United Sates Senator…..

It’s REAL now……

From Jonathan Singer @ MyDD……

Here’s an illustrative exchange from the NPR interview:

SIEGEL: But it’s been one of the major developments in American history in the course of your life. I mean, do you think the ’64 Civil Rights Act or the ADA for that matter were just overreaches and that business shouldn’t be bothered by people with the basis in law to sue them for redress?Dr. PAUL: Right. I think a lot of things could be handled locally. For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. You know, we do it in our office with wheelchair ramps and things like that. I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who’s handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to the solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions.

The problem with this view is apparent to just about anyone who lives in a world of reality rather than ideology. It is fine enough to believe that, in theory, individuals’ contractual and property rights should not be trampled on by the state, and that, what’s more, the market will solve all problems. But the fact is the market did not solve the problem of institutional racism. It took state action, not only in directing state actors but also in directing the practices of private individuals like the ones who owned restaurants. The same can be said about the Americans with Disabilities Act, which like the Civil Rights Act restricted individual action to ensure access for those who otherwise might be denied access. The good acts of individual property owners to accommodate their workers in the ways described by Paul in his NPR interview are important — but they were not enough. Only when the state stepped in were the rights of the disabled to access restaurants and other accommodations ensured.

This isn’t to say that Paul is racist or biased against the disabled. He’s not. He holds a principled stance against federal action to regulate private action in these areas. But this stance, when the manifested as the law of the land prior to enactment of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, enabled institutional racism to occur. That’s a fact. And that’s a problem for Paul because it’s hard to imagine many Americans, or Kentuckians specifically, want to go back to a period in which segregated lunch counters, whether on the basis of race or disability, are condoned under the law.



[UPDATE by Jonathan]: Four more questions for Rand Paul considering his apparently limited views of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers:

  1. Do you believe the federal minimum wage is constitutional?
  2. Do you believe federal overtime laws are constitutional?
  3. Do you believe the federal government has the power to enact work safety laws and regulations?
  4. Do you believe that federal child labor laws are constitutional?

A “no” answer to any of these questions would presumably be problematic for the Paul campaign considering folks seem to like the minimum wage, laws that stop employers from, say, making their workers use machines that cut off their hands, and laws that prohibit 7 year olds from laboring in coal mines.

UPDATE from desmoinesdem: Paul’s campaign issued a statement today on the controversy. He says he supports the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and will not seek to repeal it. “As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years.”

May 20, 2010 - Posted by | Blogs, Breaking News, Counterpoints, Government, Law, Media, Men, PoliticalDog Calls, Politics, Updates | , , ,


  1. Stop this Paul bashing.

    Comment by Daniel G. | May 20, 2010 | Reply

  2. Paul would also like to do away with the dept of education. He’s a nut.

    Comment by Ben Hoffman | May 20, 2010 | Reply

  3. Daniel please read the WHOLE post…links included…

    I do not bash the man….

    I do not call him a racist….

    I DO question the fact that he running to be a member of the US Senate…
    He seems right now to be the class of my current state’s governor….


    I’d like him to prove my opionin wrong…..

    Comment by jamesb101 | May 20, 2010 | Reply

  4. Wow! So Paul won’t seek to repeal the Civil Rights Bill of 1964? I guess that’s considered “outreach” in today’s conservative movement. Barry Goldwater admitted it his vote against it was the biggest mistake he made in the Senate. Paul’s a nut. Good luck with him Republicans!

    Comment by Scott P | May 20, 2010 | Reply

  5. He, he, he……

    Another one of those gifts that is going to keep giving……..

    Comment by jamesb101 | May 20, 2010 | Reply

  6. I thought about Paul stance for SEVERAL MONTHS

    from a STRICT no Government Interference I see his point that WHY should a business be FORCED to allow customers it does not want

    In my PERSONAL realm I can tell you the Caucasian customers ANGER ME MORE than African American customers

    Comment by Timothy Leal | May 20, 2010 | Reply

  7. This is a good subject….

    Paul says he’s NOT a racist…..

    But is so naive that he doesn’t understand how the game is played?

    The first amendment thing is BS……You don’t push that…

    Comment by jamesb101 | May 20, 2010 | Reply

    • Exactly. He tries to be a philosopher. He will be tricked into big headlines over and over..

      Comment by talkandpolitics | May 20, 2010 | Reply

      • It’s a bit scary……

        Comment by jamesb101 | May 20, 2010

  8. Guide

    A truly great public speaker could be able to come off positively or in the least neutral off this comment

    BUT I dont know if Rand Paul is that kind of speaker

    Campaign slogan

    ” Why should Negroes be forced to allow White Devils in their store” Paul 2010

    Comment by Timothy Leal | May 20, 2010 | Reply

  9. Ouch!

    Comment by jamesb101 | May 20, 2010 | Reply

  10. Guide

    It would be AMUSING to see stores that denied Caucasians entrance

    Comment by Timothy Leal | May 20, 2010 | Reply

  11. NO IT WOULDN’T…..

    This country has its first black president and we still have to deal with this shit?

    Comment by jamesb101 | May 20, 2010 | Reply

  12. psst

    he is not black

    he… he ..he

    Comment by Timothy Leal | May 20, 2010 | Reply

  13. Agreed…… but that’s what he calls himself…we’ll go with it…..

    Comment by jamesb101 | May 20, 2010 | Reply

  14. I see what this nut is now backing off from this stuff

    Just another Right Wing extremist hypocrite

    Comment by My Name Is jack | May 20, 2010 | Reply

  15. Lesson learned…..


    This IS REAL….

    Engage brain before opening mouth….

    If I was running against him…..My opposition research people would be having a field day!

    Comment by jamesb101 | May 20, 2010 | Reply

  16. This isn’t just gonna to go away…….

    While he said from the jump that he would vote to repeal the Bill…doubling up on the issue shows he’s not grasp the fact of where he is…..

    Comment by jamesb101 | May 20, 2010 | Reply

  17. Actually a REAL libertarian would adopt Pauls view

    That the real problem with libertarians

    Oh a bunch of people listen to all that “freedom” BS they espouse but when they see its REAL effects then they start backing away from it

    Comment by My Name Is jack | May 20, 2010 | Reply

    • I heard Paul with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer…he was RUNNING AWAY from his remarks….

      He, he, ,he..where is Vertigo?

      Comment by jamesb101 | May 20, 2010 | Reply

  18. I like this take on Pauls flub and subsequent “clarification”

    What he is REALLY saying is

    “Im dumb as Hell and if I dont retract this my campaign is over”

    I always loved Tea party


    Comment by My Name Is jack | May 20, 2010 | Reply

    • What principles’????

      He’s a politician…..

      Comment by jamesb101 | May 20, 2010 | Reply

  19. Yeah I also heard Rand was in favor of legalizing marijuana before he became the front runner for the GOP senate nomination. That they want to repeal our idiotic drug laws is one of the things I actually like about libertarians. Of course Paul’s “principles” folded like a cheap suit on that one as well.

    Comment by Scott P | May 20, 2010 | Reply

    • Good point Scott, as all politicians their views fit the times and always change. But I also agree with most people here that think Paul is a Nut. I hope the Republicans win the election cycle this year and when their constituents who actually voted for them see them for what they are…..oh boy…they will be forced to kiss the Black president’s ass for another 4 years.

      Comment by BenjaminDOG | May 20, 2010 | Reply

    • $1.98 type!

      Comment by jamesb101 | May 20, 2010 | Reply

  20. People don’t understand Paul’s position as an ideological one. My media is having a field day with this because you can’t fit the libertarian philosophy into a 4 second sound bite.

    The only thing Paul is guilty is being a bad politician. I won’t more bad politicians, because you can’t trust the good ones… how many politicians will actually tell you how they really feel about the first amendment? How many of them even know what it says?

    Comment by zach | May 21, 2010 | Reply

    • Hey zach…that has been my point in both posts….

      It’s HOW he’s presenting himself…..

      The media loves the offbeat side of this back and forth…..

      Comment by jamesb101 | May 21, 2010 | Reply

  21. […] Rand Paul announces that he would support Private employers discrimination by race?….. jamesb101 […]

    Pingback by Rand Paul (R) vs. Jack Conway (D): 4th Match Named for PCW Extreme Election Night 2010 « Political Championship Wrestling | May 23, 2010 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: