Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Rand Paul spox: Fed gov't should bar businesses from discriminating

A spokesman for Rand Paul just clarified to me that the candidate does, in fact, believe that the Federal government should have the power to ban private businesses from discriminating based on race.

Paul had earlier claimed he didn't support that role for the Federal government, sparking a raging controversy. A statement he issued today in hopes of quieting the firestorm affirmed his support for the Civil Rights Act, but only said he backed it for stopping "discrimination in the public sphere."

Asked for further clarification, Jesse Benton, a spokesman for the Paul campaign, confirmed that Paul does in fact think the Federal government should have the power to ban private businesses from commiting racial discrimination. He told me:

"Civil Rights legislation that has been affirmed by our courts gives the Federal government the right to ensure that private businesses don't discriminate based on race. Dr. Paul supports those powers."

That's a reversal from what Paul said last night on Rachel Maddow's show. Maddow asked Paul to clarify his previous expressions of doubt about parts of the Civil Rights Act, querying: "Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?"

"Yes," Paul answered, repeatedly decrying racism but saying he was reluctant to "limit their speech."

But now Paul's campaign is clarifying that he does, in fact, think this is an appropriate role for the Federal government. More along these lines coming soon.

UPDATE, 2:37 p.m.: Nice bit of understatement from Ben Smith: "It's a comment that suggests Paul views his election as Senator as more important than standing on this particular principle."

By Greg Sargent  |  May 20, 2010; 2:21 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: What do Rand Paul's patrons think of Civil Rights talk?
Next: What Rand Paul really believes

Comments

So much for his convictions.

That didn't last long.

Next he'll be doing high fives with Steele on camera to let everyone know he doesn't think this country should start moving backwards.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | May 20, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

The depths of Paul's convictions are becoming clearer now. Will the teabaggers appreciate his more nuanced approach to allowing for big government? His only constituency are the teabaggers and they have shown no mercy to any politician who dares to compromise.

Stick a fork in Paul. He's already done.

Posted by: Gasman1 | May 20, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

If he said he "supports" or he "will not oppose" existing law, that might be believable. Saying he "believes in" it is an obvious and craven lie.

Paul is his father's son.

Posted by: jimmyzuma | May 20, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Greg:

I have a feeling Rand Paul is going to keep you busy for quite a while!

Posted by: wbgonne | May 20, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

@ Gasman1

You think Rand is going to lose to Conway? LOL. Rand has like a 30 point lead in all of the polls. There is no chance.

Posted by: johnyt1977 | May 20, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Looks like DeMint got to him already:

"I'm going to talk to Rand about his positions."

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/20/demint-rand-paul/

Posted by: Ethan2010 | May 20, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

"You think Rand is going to lose to Conway? LOL. Rand has like a 30 point lead in all of the polls. There is no chance."

Just watch, My Friend.

Posted by: wbgonne | May 20, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

First Read has Conway's statement about Paul's comments:

Rand Paul is promoting a narrow and rigid ideology and has repeatedly rejected a fundamental provision of the Civil Rights Act. He is focused on the Tea Party whereas I am running to be a senator for all the people of Kentucky, who are really hurting right now.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/05/20/2323834.aspx

(more of the statement at the above link...)

They also flag HuffPo's article on Paul's comments to Laura Ingraham, whining about Rachel Maddow! Too much!

"It was a poor political decision and probably won't be happening anytime in the near future," the Tea Party endorsed Senate candidate said on the Laura Ingraham show on Thursday morning. "Because, yeah, they can play things and want to say, 'Oh you believed in beating up people that were trying to sit in restaurants in the 1960s.' And that is such a ridiculous notion and something that no rational person is in favor of. [But] she went on and on about that."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-civil-rights-rachel-maddow_n_583292.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | May 20, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"Rand has like a 30 point lead in all of the polls."

Arlen Specter had a huge lead in the polls at one time, too.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | May 20, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Agin' it afore he were for it?

Posted by: CalD | May 20, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

"First Read has Conway's statement about Paul's comments:

Rand Paul is promoting a narrow and rigid ideology and has repeatedly rejected a fundamental provision of the Civil Rights Act. He is focused on the Tea Party whereas I am running to be a senator for all the people of Kentucky, who are really hurting right now."

Nicely done, Mr. Conway. Or should I say: Nicely done, SENATOR Conway?

Posted by: wbgonne | May 20, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Ha....it didn't take long for Rand Paul to realize he can't stand up for his principles if he's campaigning for a job in Washington

Posted by: SDJeff | May 20, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Now the question is,"What do you think he really believes?" I think the position he took with Maddow last night, before the clarification of the clarification, is what he truly believes-government should stay away from telling people/business what to do. It's everyone for themselves!

Posted by: mg11231 | May 20, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

johnyt1977,
Yup, I'm calling it for Conway. A 30 point lead in a poll in May is meaningless. Paul is a pompous fool whose views are so repugnant that he will alienate even many Republicans. Paul is going to shoot himself in the foot dozens of times between now and November. He can't help himself. It is who he is.

Posted by: Gasman1 | May 20, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

From Benen on GOP responses about Rand Paul:

"As for the NRSC, Cornyn had no comment, but the campaign committee nevertheless issued a statement attacking Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) for having been on the wrong side of the civil rights debate in the 1960s."

Posted by: suekzoo1 | May 20, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Awww... so Republicans talk a good talk about "opposing big government", but when they get called on what that means they flip flop and go hide in a corner. I get it.

Posted by: vvf2 | May 20, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

I wonder what his views are on business owners employing their own children in a business--say, running a restaurant. Does the federal or state government have the authority to prohibit child labor at the owner's business (or at all) or do parents' and business owners' rights prevail? Do children have rights or are they private property too?

Posted by: Mimikatz | May 20, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

"SENATOR Conway"

Has a nice ring to it!

OT:

*Financial Regulation Bill Advances in Senate on Close Procedural Vote*

Whatta day!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | May 20, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

"I think the position he took with Maddow last night, before the clarification of the clarification, is what he truly believes-government should stay away from telling people/business what to do. It's everyone for themselves!"

That was the point Ezra Klein made in his post about this. Regardless of whether Paul is or is not a racist the interview is probably the most revealing thing Paul's done regarding how he views the proper role of the federal government, and his view is way off in right field. Regardless of whether he would or would not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 he clearly has enormous problems with the way the federal government interprets the Commerce Clause when it comes to regulating businesses.

Posted by: akaoddjob | May 20, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

"It's a comment that suggests Paul views his election as Senator as more important than standing on this particular principle."

Ah ... the NEW politicians! What a refreshing change.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | May 20, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

"Does the federal or state government have the authority to prohibit child labor at the owner's business (or at all) or do parents' and business owners' rights prevail? Do children have rights or are they private property too?"

Once the candidate's a libertarian it's all an open question and fair game, isn't it?

Posted by: akaoddjob | May 20, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

As Ethan might say - this is over. Not news. There are more important matters. Move along, nothing to see here, he's clarified.

Posted by: sbj3 | May 20, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

"As Ethan might say - this is over."

I agree. There's no walking back from insanity. It's over alright.

His big mistake being that he went on real news shows like Rachel Maddow, NPR, GMA instead of staying strictly on Fox. OOPS! As Sue Lowden has found, videos on "teh interweb series of tubes" cannot be deleted. Sorry.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | May 20, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

sbj, go read Ezra's column.

This is only the first chapter. It's probably done, but there were insights into what's likely to come.

Posted by: akaoddjob | May 20, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Rand also denies gay rights, but believe the govt has more rights to a women's body that she does.

He's just another son of congressman , claiming to be outside the beltway. Bull HOckey

Posted by: newagent99 | May 20, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

"sbj, go read Ezra's column."

You'd have to waterboard me...

"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.”

I am not familiar with Paul but anyone can see that this is nothing more than an attempt "to score cheap political points."

Posted by: sbj3 | May 20, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Serwer really has the best piece I've read on Paul's philosophy (the real one he sought to avoid voicing explicitly last night, not the corrected version to Greg)... http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=05&year=2010&base_name=rand_paul_and_the_hard_part_ab

Posted by: bernielatham | May 20, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

It sure would be nice if we could get the real story on what "small government" means to these teabaggers. Just tell us in SPECIFICS! What are you going to eliminate, SPECIFICALLY?

Posted by: Andy94 | May 20, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

"I am not familiar with Paul but anyone can see that this is nothing more than an attempt "to score cheap political points.""

Thanks for fessing up as to why you don't get it.

Posted by: akaoddjob | May 20, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

A reminder from Josh Marshall that Rand's campaign spokesman resigned last December over some racist cr@p on his MySpace page that had been posted for 2 years. Stuff like ""HAPPY N***ER DAY!!!" above what appears to be a historical photo of the lynching of a black man."

Today, Rand says he doesn't want to be associated with such people.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/flashback_paul_spokesman_resigned_over_racist_mysp.php

Posted by: suekzoo1 | May 20, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

"He clearly has enormous problems with the way the federal government interprets the Commerce Clause when it comes to regulating businesses."

Paul is certainly no outlier in that regard!

Posted by: sbj3 | May 20, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

So then back to the original question, Dr. Paul: why do you feel that holding your victory party at a private country club is an appropriate venue?

Posted by: boloboffin1 | May 20, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the Serwer piece Bernie, "the hard part of defending freedom" from someones who's freedom has never been denied. We need to keep Paul in the news, Conway's ads should pretty much write themselves.

Posted by: lmsinca | May 20, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

An answer like this: "Civil Rights legislation that has been affirmed by our courts gives the Federal government the right to insure that private businesses don't discriminate based on race. Dr. Paul supports those powers."

I don't know what he intends to parse, but a statement this convoluted on something that should be a layup is clear evidence he intends to parse _something_.

Posted by: theorajones1 | May 20, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

""He clearly has enormous problems with the way the federal government interprets the Commerce Clause when it comes to regulating businesses."

"Paul is certainly no outlier in that regard!"

No, not in the Tea Party perhaps. But here in the real world, you know the one where due partly to lax government regulation an oil company is in the process of destroying the Gulf of Mexico and the Louisiana Coast, yeah, Paul's Anti-Government ranting is not merely an outlier; it is freakish.

Posted by: wbgonne | May 20, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

And Yglesias puts the set of problems for Paul clearly...

"The point to make about Paul, however, is that what he suffers from here is an excess of honesty and ideological rigor not an unusual degree of racism. Basic free market principles really do lead one to the absurd conclusion that government regulation of private business is a greater evil than institutionalized segregation. That’s why Barry Goldwater, William F Buckley, the Young Americans for Freedom, and the other progenitors of the postwar conservative movement all opposed the Civil Rights Act and the civil rights movement. And, indeed, under the kind of hyper-restrictive construction of the constitution that today’s rightwingers use to say the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, the Civil Rights Act would probably also be invalidated." http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/05/freedom-as-white-supremacy.php

There are many consequences that fall out from Paul's political philosophy which, if proposed explicitly or put into effect, would be anathema to most citizens (which is why he refused to get explicit and it's why DeMint, Cornyn etc refuse to speak today).

Posted by: bernielatham | May 20, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

Do you know if Rand Paul's staunch term limit advocacy and crusade against politicians' hypocrisy includes his father and himself?

http://www.progressiveblue.com/diary/5266/rand-paul-to-his-father-time-to-retire

I've look around, but haven't seen him asked about this yet.

Posted by: MichaelConrad | May 20, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

RAND PAUL FOR UNITED STATES SENATOR

Because he knows the federal government shouldn't exist ...

And so do you

Posted by: wbgonne | May 20, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

RAND PAUL FOR UNITED STATES SENATOR

He'll make sure the government does nothing.

Posted by: wbgonne | May 20, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

RAND PAUL FOR UNITED STATES SENATOR

Because it's time we finally had a senator who hated the federal government

Posted by: wbgonne | May 20, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

That's all I got, Folks!

O&O.

Posted by: wbgonne | May 20, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne, I still like:

RAND PAUL FOR UNITED STATES SENATOR

We're taking the Country (Club) BACK

Posted by: Ethan2010 | May 20, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

""He clearly has enormous problems with the way the federal government interprets the Commerce Clause when it comes to regulating businesses."

Paul is certainly no outlier in that regard!"

Not among libertarians, but libertarians as a group are outliers and long have been.

Posted by: akaoddjob | May 20, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Ims - That "hard part of liberty" line is particularly galling. His stance is, he implies, noble because it is principled and will likely/certainly gain disagreement. "It's hard and quite unusual to be noble these days, but hey, that's just who I am", he might as well have said. No wonder Dobson identifies with the guy. All that rectitude and spine and self-certainty and the nailed-to-some-cross victimhood present or on its inexorable way (topped with humility of the pretended variety).

Of course, it is no less "hard" to hold to any competing principle, eg, ending poverty in America. Or preventing parents from beating their children senseless under the justification of "spare the rod". Or mandating that a private golf club allow Jews to be members.

In another sense or perspective, the tenacious and unrelenting adherence to any such principle while ignoring competing principles is actually the "easy" way out.

Posted by: bernielatham | May 20, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

I don't know what poll you're reading. But according to the primary ballott. The lowest ranking Democrat had more votes than Rand Paul!

Posted by: careful2 | May 20, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

"In another sense or perspective, the tenacious and unrelenting adherence to any such principle while ignoring competing principles is actually the "easy" way out."

Bernie, now that he's running against a Democrat instead of a Republican, he won't be getting such a free reign to blindly adhere to his "principles" while ignoring questions of their ramifications to his constituents. It's not so easy now.

Posted by: lmsinca | May 20, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

More on what Rand Paul really believes:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/what_rand_paul_really_believes.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | May 20, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

.He was dumb for going on the show to start with . no matter which way he anwered he was going to be put in a bad place. why ask the question in such a manner no matter
if its is Fox or msnbc . you only get one side of the story. Fox conservative slant
Msnbc leftist slant.

Posted by: JYFS | May 20, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

What the spokesman means is "Rand Paul believes what he said he believed, but he believes even more that he would like to be elected, so we're going to pretend he didn't say anything."

What this incident is about is the absurdity of hardcore anti-government libertarianism. They are unwilling or unable to recognize that the government can actually be one of the most powerful *defenders* of rights and of people who are otherwise powerless. Call it "ivory tower conservatism" -- beliefs that are completely disconnected from the reality of living in the real world.

Posted by: jeffwacker | May 20, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

this video boils down Rand Paul's interview with Rachel Maddow to its essence:
http://bit.ly/atMtk8

Posted by: mjwilstein | May 20, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Paul is truning out to be another Bunning!

Posted by: samf911 | May 20, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Paul is turning out to be another Bunning!

Posted by: samf911 | May 20, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

JYFS : if its is Fox or msnbc . you only get one side of the story. Fox conservative slant
Msnbc leftist slant.

I guess you didn't watch the Maddow segment. She gave him lots of time to express himself. She asked pertinent questions. She didn't yell or berate him. She gave him the last word. It was a civil if intense discussion. Definitely not Faux News.

Posted by: srw3 | May 20, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

"Civil Rights legislation that has been affirmed by our courts gives the Federal government the right to ensure that private businesses don't discriminate based on race. Dr. Paul supports those powers."

It is an interesting statement. Notice the "that has been affirmed by our courts" line. One might reasonably infer that Paul "supports those powers" simply because they have been affirmed by the courts.

This does not really take away his statements that had he been around at the time that the Civil Rights Act was being drafted, he would have had trouble with the sections that bar private discrimination.

He seems to be saying that he understands the law of the the land without saying that the law is good policy. He will continue to get questions about his beliefs on this subject, and parsing his language this way will not make the questions any easier.

Posted by: Patrick_M | May 20, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse


"...just confirmed to ME..." (Sargent)?

Store it. You think you're so important that a spokesman try at cleanup settles the question?

So many hear his little stinkey performance last night, his gig fooling all of us (rright) with his clever pitter patter.

Why does Sargent thinks he's so hot he can cancel out that silly gig?

Posted by: whistling | May 20, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse


CAN you imagine the country run by the Palins and Pauls of the Tea Party?

Someone on some post wrote about the "frothy-mouth breathing silly hillbillies" or something like that. Hit the nail, struck the spitoon, etc.

Only thing better would be to schedule
Palin on the Rachel Madoff show. Laugh ourselves silly.

Posted by: whistling | May 20, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

...that's Rachel Maddow show...
of course, not Madoff

Posted by: whistling | May 20, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul has already did the flip-flop.

Quoting from The Plum Line:

"A spokesman for Rand Paul just clarified to me that the candidate does, in fact, believe that the Federal government should have the power to ban private businesses from discriminating based on race.

Paul had earlier claimed he didn't support that role for the Federal government, sparking a raging controversy. A statement he issued today in hopes of quieting the firestorm affirmed his support for the Civil Rights Act, but only said he backed it for stopping "discrimination in the public sphere."

On only the second day of Rand Paul's run for office in November the direction and tone of his campaign has already been determined - run, hide, flip and flop.

Might end up being the shortest political campaign in US history.

Thank you Rachel Maddow. Mazel tov!

Posted by: apspa1 | May 20, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

If you watched the show, you know this "clarification' is bull. Keep it up Rand. Don't want any non-whites sitting next to you when you sip that tea.

Posted by: davidlhanegraaf | May 20, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne said in his note above that Conway said: ""whereas I am running to be a senator for all the people of Kentucky, who are really hurting right now"".

Show me a Democratic Senator now-a-days that believes that the people are hurting right now. If they did,they would have unleashed a host of new laws and regulations that would have promoted new production facilities, associated tariffs, right-to work rules, affordable trade education in junior colleges for those who don't make it on their own into full colleges, lower payroll deduction taxes and cash-back credits for small businesses, and statements that the U.S. Government stands behind this country's small businesses while leaving aside for the time being any new social and costly programs that create US debts to foreigners and increased interests in outgoing years. Found out since January 2009 that it is easy to promise in the idyllic world and hard to deliver in the real world.

Posted by: HarGru | May 20, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Again Greg... JUST LIKE THIS MORNING, Rand Paul didn't COME TO THE MICROPHONE and specifically state that HE is not a racist. His 'spokesperson' did... WHAT A COMPLETE CROOK..!!

Rand Paul is a RACIST and until he comes out in public and states the REASONS he's not and how he got this issue so backwards, HE'S A RACIST!

Posted by: rbaldwin2 | May 20, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

RE: It sure would be nice if we could get the real story on what "small government" means to these teabaggers. Just tell us in SPECIFICS! What are you going to eliminate, SPECIFICALLY?


In no particular order:
Dept. of Education: GONE!
Individual Income Tax: GONE!
NPR: GONE!
Patriot Act: GONE!
90% of our Foreign Military presence: GONE!
IRS: GONE!
Dept. of Health: GONE!
Social Security: To be phased out.
Federal Employee Unions: They can continue to exist, but the government will no longer negotiate with them.
FTC: GONE!
FCC: GONE!
FEMA: GONE!
Open southern border: GONE!
Food Stamps: GONE!
WIC: GONE!
50% or more of Fed Employees: GONE!
Bailouts to ANY private industry
except military suppliers: GONE!
There's more, this is just off
the top of my head.

Posted by: chasetracks | May 20, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Jist another white cracker speaking to his base: other white crackers.

Posted by: mikie44 | May 20, 2010 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Just another white cracker speaking to his base: other white crackers.

Posted by: mikie44 | May 20, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

RE: Just another white cracker speaking to his base: other white crackers.


Mike, you managed to exemplify racism on your part quite well. Thanks for sharing.

Posted by: chasetracks | May 20, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

People may someday look back on this episode as Rand Paul's macaca moment. (We all know how that turned out for George Allen). Rand Paul is a flash in the pan who is not ready for primetime. His brand of politics may fly with Republicans in the primary election, but come November, he'll be unelectable.

Posted by: BlueMoon1 | May 20, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul is a first-class creep. His father is creepy, too. Not on the bell curve of normal people in the political process. I suppose we'll hear more about that every day, and all about libertarians and their obsessive views.

Where is Franklin Delano Roosevelt when we really need him? But I like Pres Obama.

Posted by: dudh | May 20, 2010 10:18 PM | Report abuse

I guess you could say that he was against the Civil Rights Acts before he was for it.

Posted by: Mac27 | May 20, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

The quote is totally made up. Rand Paul didn't say "yes" - even though that would be totally fine because he would just be defending private property.

MSNBC put up a FAKE TRANSCRIPT. He didn't say the words "yes".

I can't believe WAPO didn't check out the transcript to make sure MSNBC didn't fake it. Because they did fake it.

Posted by: yoda15 | May 22, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

I watched the Maddow show and believe he did not say "yes" when asked if private businesses should be able to refuse to serve people because of race. However, he did the usual political sidestep and just kept repeating that businesses should be free to run the business the way they wish or we would be limiting their right to free speech...it was very obvious to me that he just did not want to say the word yes as this would actually prove he is racist and a politician does not want to make it that obvious. He is definitely a recist and I thank Rachel for showing us the true vision of his lack of good character and morals.

Posted by: congocat | May 22, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

It disgusts me that you are spreading a lie visible to the whole world on youtube that wrote:

Maddow: Do you think that a private business has the right to say, "We don't serve black people"?

Paul: Yes. I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form...

The way this is written makes it sound that Rand Paul answered Yes to Rachel's question. Anyone with even 3 neurons in their brain would listen to the following conversation and realize that Rand was not answering "Yes" to her question, but made a small vocal 'yeh' moving into his emphatic statement that he was NOT IN FAVOR OF ANY RACISM OF ANY FORM.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VGdP2mNPeo#t=8m1s

Your credibility with the world is GONE if you do not issue a correction to this.


Thank you.

Posted by: tidowty | May 24, 2010 2:16 AM | Report abuse

Correction to the last comment:


It disgusts me that you are spreading a lie visible to the whole world on youtube that wrote:

"Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?"
"Yes," Paul answered, repeatedly decrying racism but saying he was reluctant to "limit their speech."

The way this is written makes it sound that Rand Paul answered Yes to Rachel's question. Anyone with even 3 neurons in their brain would listen to the following conversation and realize that Rand was not answering "Yes" to her question, but made a small vocal 'yeh' moving into his emphatic statement that he was NOT IN FAVOR OF ANY RACISM OF ANY FORM.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VGdP2mNPeo#t=8m1s

Your credibility with the world is GONE if you do not issue a correction to this.


Thank you.

Posted by: tidowty | May 24, 2010 2:19 AM | Report abuse

Andy94 is showing his BRILLIANCE by calling
people "teabaggers" who are FOR:

Sound money
Limited government
State's rights
Low taxes
Individual freedoms

If believing these things makes one a "teabagger" then so be it. If you don't believe in these things, I have plenty of nasty names for you sir.

Posted by: tidowty | May 24, 2010 2:30 AM | Report abuse

'"Yes," Paul answered, repeatedly decrying racism but saying he was reluctant to "limit their speech."'

No he did not answer "Yes." The network issued a retraction, but no apology. Wapo, do just a little research, okay? Learn to google at least.

Posted by: jdadson | May 26, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company