Rand Paul reboots: ‘I would have voted yes’
After his Tuesday night victory in Kentucky, Rand Paul’s debut as a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate got off to a shaky start with awkward interviews on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The tea party hero declined to say whether the federal government should have the authority to prohibit a private business from discriminating on the basis of race. Here’s the morning post with the background.
We haven’t seen the video, but Paul attempted a reboot this afternoon, during an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. A portion of the transcript:
BLITZER: All right, I want to give you a chance to explain, because there’s a lot of confusion right now about precisely where you stand. I’ll ask you a simple question. If you had been a member of the Senate or the House back in 1964, would you have voted yea or nay for the Civil Rights Act?
PAUL: Yes. I would have voted yes.
BLITZER: So why is there all this confusion emerging right now? Give me your analysis, because you’ve had to issue a statement today. There have been interviews on NPR yesterday and MSNBC. Tell us what’s going on.
PAUL: Well, first of all, Wolf, I thought I was supposed to get a honeymoon. When does my honeymoon start, you know, after my victory?
BLITZER: There’s no such thing in politics, Dr. Paul.
PAUL: No such thing. I think you’re right.
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
36 comments Add your comment
Ashamed of the Morons in GOP
May 20th, 2010
6:45 pm
You know, I appreciate the sincerity of his views. I don’t agree with the vast majority of what he believes, but I think he’s not a racist – he’s just a strong libertarian who values racial equality less than me and most other people. that said, i would not want this man representing me. his views are extreme – opposed to the Fair housing Act, American with Disabilities Act, Dept of Education and pretty much anything congress did while relying on it’s powers through the commerce clause. Not someone I’d want in the Senate.
markntejas
May 20th, 2010
6:47 pm
1) This “I would have voted yes.” is the same thing he said Thursday night.
2) Tea Partier’s as defined by media as right-wing extremists do want less taxes and smaller government. I think it is a movement still defining itself and while Rand Paul would probably want to be the face of the movement coming from the direct lineage of his father and the libertarian philosophy are uniquely different than what the Tea Party will define itself to be
desegregating private businesses to not discriminate is an imperative because people and wall street when left to their own devices will become corrupt.
expecting regulation and government to bring social utopia is a flawed philosophy and fiscal responsibility cant be obtained by a larger expanding federal government. Nazism Facism were all failed social experiments that the masses all bought into as a welcome change and step towards social utopia.
3) People should question their government and pastors and bankers and insurance agents or they will be duped.
TW
May 20th, 2010
7:26 pm
RAND PAUL IS A FLIP-FLOPPER!
RAND PAUL DOES NOT SUPPORT THE TROOPS!
RAND PAUL IS…A…MUSLIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG!
Dick
May 20th, 2010
7:27 pm
Wish Blitzer would answer questions asked to him in lieu of skippping around the subject.
Fire Eater
May 20th, 2010
7:39 pm
A tidal wave of destruction is headed towards the Establishment this november and they know it. Look at the latest salvo in the ongoing campaign of hate against Pat Buchanan by the USUAL SUSPECTS.
Atlanta Techie
May 20th, 2010
7:55 pm
“A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin.”
– Rand Paul (R), in a letter to the Bowling Green Daily News in 2002
This video boils down Rand Paul’s interview with Rachel Maddow to its essence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhrG4bf8ABU&feature=player_embedded
FunkUniversity
May 20th, 2010
7:59 pm
First, just as an aside, what’s with Rand Paul’s hair hat? Or is it just sort of jerry-curl thing? Yikes – not quite ready for prime time with that ‘do. On a more serious note, it will probably not take long for the Dem & repub powers-that-be to put the squish on Paul’s brief momentum. For some political context on this, I suggest that you read the following article:
http://funks2.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/the-trip-to-nowhere-on-the-tea-party-express/
Alabama Communist
May 20th, 2010
8:02 pm
Poor Kid! He just found out that 19 th century politics does not work in the 21 st century!
You just can’t trust those Communist Liberals when it comes to individual civil liberty and exposing stupidity
BEND OVER, HERE COMES THE CHANGE
May 20th, 2010
8:37 pm
Big deal, he’s better than any TAX and SPEND liberal, PERIOD!
keith
May 20th, 2010
9:00 pm
Freedom of association per the Constitution applies not only to individuals but also privately owned businesses. I can understand publicly traded companies being subject to non-descrimination laws. If a business is biased against a group based upon sexual orientation, gender, race, religion, political beliefs, etc then that is their right and the free market will take care of it if the general public thinks they’ve gone too far.
TW
May 20th, 2010
9:37 pm
Seriously though, by being against the bail-outs and Federal stimulus, Rand and the rest of the baggers (ew) advocated for 25% unemployment, Great Depression 2.
Wait…maybe the baggers are really al qaeda!
OMG!
BEND OVER, HERE COMES THE CHANGE
May 20th, 2010
10:12 pm
TW, Where do you get your “facts”? Maybe you should start drinking tea!
Matt
May 20th, 2010
10:37 pm
When did Rand Paul say he would have voted NO? He simply said he had some questions and would want some debate regarding one amendment. He never said he would have voted no.
sharecropper
May 20th, 2010
10:38 pm
If you people in the press would do some reporting for a change and tell your readers what libertarians really believe in,l they would be appalled. Anti public schools, public highways, regulatory agencies, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security would be merely the tip of the iceberg. You failed in explaining Ron Paul’s besotted absurdities, and now you’re failing with his son. And if the idiots peopling the Tea Baggers would do some reading rather than merely parroting slogans, they would get the hell out of the “movement.” Paul’s problem was that he was more candid than was good for him, and accidentally so. A doctor who opposes Medicare, but who makes his living off Medicare patients, and fights against cuts in the doctors’ reimbursements? Why part of hypocrite does the Far White not understand?
Simon Jester
May 20th, 2010
10:43 pm
No- Government should have no say whatsoever on whether a private business discriminates against anyone for any reason. That is a business decision. If you want to limit your business, then you should be allowed to. If you don’t like left-handed people, then that is your choice. If you want to keep certain people from shopping in your store, that should be your choice. It will probably result in you going out of business, but the govt needs to stay out.
deegee
May 20th, 2010
10:44 pm
UNCLE!
mike
May 21st, 2010
2:36 am
Well the man just told the truth of his convictions. Interesting how what he said is being explained away. Personally I just look at the interview and I can see and hear what he actually said. But I guess if you listen to his support they will tell you he did not actually say what he said. It is good to see the other idiots here who think it is ok to discriminate. You and others of your mindset are exactly why this country is in the shape it is in. You do realize people of color are slowly replacing you morons as the majority in this country. So when they do it to you, I hope you have no problem with their choice.
Big L
May 21st, 2010
6:45 am
It’s disgusting how there is no discussion here. It’s just tea baggers and communists. No wonder the plitical system is broke. You people are happy just to scream and bitch from your sides and your reps know it. Rile up the masses and get to vote for us. Quit letting your political offiliation turn you into a bunch of crap slinging monkeys.
Boots
May 21st, 2010
7:04 am
Those putting their money on Rand Paul are betting on a “bobbed-tail nag.” Personally, I’m betting on the “Bay.”
The Dems will take a hit in the “mid-terms” — but nothing like Gingrich and others are prognosticating and will come back with a fury in 2012 as unemployment and the economy continues to improve.
Those with an IQ over 40 will determine the safe bet is to continue with Obama as opposed to the “unusual” ideas of these newly emerging leaders of the right.
Dan J
May 21st, 2010
8:00 am
wake up folks he would have voted no, he got caught now so he say yes i would have votes yes now but anyone who ask him before he said yea it would be Ok for private business to not allow blacks women Hispanic etc into there business if they did not want to this guy has a white robe and hood in his closet i can promise you that. His most popular way to state a sentence is )now that’s interesting) he does not understand a yes or no question until the nation is focus on him then he changes his tune and lies and now says yes when we all know he would have said no .Wake up folks this is what the tea party is really about and want they want to turn back time i would be worried about this group tea party Aka the KKK
Mike
May 21st, 2010
8:01 am
Go get ‘em Rand. The left wing media loves it when a politico says something that can be fodder for their shotguns. We need more like him. Help save America, keep voting conservative.
Morrus
May 21st, 2010
8:48 am
Curiously, in a supposed anti-incumbent year, most of the departing are not retiring but seeking higher office. We may recycle more than we replace. The bad news is that a frustrating 114 seats still have but one contestant. Two of them aren’t even incumbents, meaning they will affect state policy without being vetted by voters. And I have to think that we’d be better off if many had run instead for the Legislature — and cut down on the number running unopposed. Georgia’s problems are numerous. They aren’t going away. There’s too much stale thinking at the Capitol, on both sides of the aisle. New voices would be welcome.
The Snark
May 21st, 2010
8:50 am
Amateur.
Kim
May 21st, 2010
8:54 am
Rand Paul is revealing what the tea party believes. They say that our country is about small government and freedom, but sometimes this freedom has been at the expense of others. The Constitution is not a perfect document–that is why we have amendments. The Constitution allowed slavery when it was written, and denied women the right to vote.Sometimes the majority will violate the rights of the minority. Majority is not always right. That is why we need a strong federal government. The federal government gave the people more rights, and that is what the tea party people hate- more educated citizens who fight for their rights and the preservation of their culture. They don’t understand that people who are not WASP have rights too.
CJae From East Lake
May 21st, 2010
9:06 am
Again I submit to you that the “Tea Party” is a skillful marketing campaign. Rand Paul and others are running as RUPUBLICAINS, in many cases conservative/libertarian leaning RUPUBLICANS.
This Tea Party label is misleading to voters making them believe the candidates holding up that particular banner are somehow different than the incumbants already holding the post. In many cases they are not.
Rand’s politics very closely mirrors his father Ron’s. I have a great deal of respect for the latter although I don’t agree with every position he takes.
My suggestion is that the voters carefully look over these so called Tea Party candidates to make sure they are getting what they believe they are
Viva Arizona
May 21st, 2010
9:20 am
Kim
May 21st, 2010
8:54 am
Please read the Constitution. Unless your public education requires that you must have dictators or despots tell you what to do. The federal government only has power equal to the consent of the citizens who are willing to give up GOD given rights. The Government only gives you free Cheese paid for by the Tax payers. God gives you rights – EQUAL rights.
Do you belong to a Union? Not all unions are bad. Do you take public assistance? When necessary, I support this? Do you value Freedom of Speech? Barry Obama is taking your free speech away. Can you explain the Free Press movement? If not I can tell you about it.
Culture – Are you an American? If so, melt into the pot instead of rolling it and smoking it.
Aaron Burr V Mexico
May 21st, 2010
10:30 am
Viva Arizona,
May 21rst, 2010
10:28AM
Please read the constitution. Then, please look outside. Then, pick up a news paper. Then, check the internet. Then, check your letter. Yes. This is 2010.
This is not 1789.
We do not live in collective little individual bubbles where your actions are magically independent of everyone else. Your free market doesn’t work if people don’t take part in it. You need GOVERNMENT and a FREE SOCIETY working together to create prosperity.
If the constitution does not solve the needs of modern society; if an argrarian senate is broken beyond repair then it is a PIECE OF PAPER and invoking it like some kind of holy cross warding off vampires means nothing.
NOTHING.
Aaron Burr V Mexico
May 21st, 2010
10:57 am
And a final note: Anyone who defends George W. Bush or ANY of the Republican senators that advocate torture or a suspension of rights mandated in the constitution for US citizens is an absolute HYPOCRITE for ever mentioning the constitution in defense of ANYTHING.
Bigdawg88
May 21st, 2010
11:36 am
Any of you Libertarians care to explain how you plan on educating your children without a department of education or building roads without public highways? I agree with some of your points about liberty, but you just go too darn far like the left/right wing nuts; which is why Paul will be marginalized in congress.
What’s really upsetting about this country is that unless a candidate agrees with EVERYTHING that the dominate parties believe, they have little chance of getting support. I support federal assistance, but I’m personally against abortion. I support gay rights, but not gay marriage (for religious reasons), although I do support civil unions for gay couples (yeah, I know!) because I think it’s right on a certain level. I agree with states rights on a certain level, but there are some things that are better handled by the feds, especially things that are national in scope. I believe in a strong defense, but I think our military spending has gotten out of hand and out of touch with reality.
Thing is, I tend to vote Democrat, but I don’t really support everything that they do. I just think the Republicans go too far with their support of the wealthy and make too much noise about relatively minor things like abortion, gun rights, and states’ rights.
I hear the tea party people and conservatives complaining about the size of the government, but they don’t have any concrete ideas about what to reduce, especially since the last conservative in office greatly expanded the government.
Can any of the GOP members here tell me exactly what they would cut out of the federal budget?
Paddy O
May 21st, 2010
5:05 pm
Morrus – this guy is the ultimate retread.
Paddy O
May 21st, 2010
5:06 pm
The federal government does not need a Department of Education. That is a state function.
Paddy O
May 21st, 2010
5:10 pm
CJ – you are not paying attention. 2 prominent & party selected repubs have been defeated by the TEA party candidates. TEA party people want taxes to go down. You do this by reducing government spending, or increasing revenue from another source (such as import tariffs). We could eliminate most troops stationed on foreign lands, amend or repeal NAFTA, and terminate all foreign aid. I would also analyze state department embassy operations. Finally, I would freeze all federal wages for the next 3 years, and then slowly eliminate employees. YOu also need to stop increasing entitlements – such as federal law which mandates allowing illegal immigrant minors to attend your local schools.
Paddy O
May 21st, 2010
5:19 pm
Kim – the federal government did NOT GIVE YOU RIGHTS – elected fellow humans did. Currently, the fed is so poorly run they run up titanic deficits. Who is going to pay for this? I disagree with Viva – you have natural rights, but unless the power structure supports those natural rights, then they are not worth a hill of beans. The US Constitution provides governmentally agreed to, inalienable, rights. They can not be taken away, even by narcissistic, small minded people who blame anything and anyone except the perpetrator for bad actions and results.
deegee
May 22nd, 2010
8:52 am
Paddy O – the ultimate xenophobe
deegee
May 22nd, 2010
8:54 am
I wonder why Rand Paul ran as a Republican and not a Libertarian?
Skull / Bones » Blog Archive » Rand Paul as one of the Mole People
May 22nd, 2010
3:45 pm
[...] I would have voted yes.” — Rand Paul. No. I do not believe Rand Paul. You only have to do a cursory glance of pursue the debates of [...]