Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

It doesn't matter what Rand Paul thinks about prejudice

Kentucky's Republican senatorial candidate Rand Paul insists that there isn't a racist bone in his body. Who am I to say he's not telling the truth? Paul also said he's not in favor of racial discrimination or the repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He probably means that, too.

But when Paul states, as he has, that he doesn't believe the federal government should tell a private business how to act when it comes to serving the public -- hence his reservations about the public accommodations section of the '64 civil rights law -- I frankly couldn't care less about what he thinks about prejudice.

Paul's opposition to the federal prohibition against racial discrimination by privately owned facilities offering food, lodging, gasoline or entertainment to the public puts him, intellectually, in the same place as Lester Maddox who, on July 3, 1964, armed his white customers with pick handles to use against three black customers who sought service at his Pickrick Cafeteria in Atlanta.

Paul probably wouldn't wield a pick handle to keep the unwanted out of a privately-owned facility. He says he would not patronize a segregated establishment. But Paul believes it's not the federal government's business to tell a private owner, such as Maddox, who he can and cannot serve.

Acting in the Rand Paul spirit, Maddox challenged the constitutionality of the public accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act and lost. But rather that let blacks in, Maddox closed his restaurant… and went on to become governor of Georgia.

It matters not what's in Paul's heart. It's what he carries in his head -- that racial discrimination in public accommodations should be legal -- that puts him firmly in the company of those who would humiliate and marginalize Americans, not because they can't pay or are disorderly but simply because of the color of their skin color. That's no intellectual excercise to me.

By Colbert King  | May 24, 2010; 12:06 AM ET
Categories:  King  | Tags:  Colbert King  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The job failed more than DNI Blair did
Next: Small GOP victory in Hawaii

Comments

It's irrelevant if racists agree with him. Racists also agree with those who promote free speech.

Posted by: AminCad | May 24, 2010 12:52 AM | Report abuse

"Lester Maddox who, on July 3, 1964, armed his white customers with pick handles to use against three black customers who sought service at his Pickrick Cafeteria in Atlanta." => King

This is where the Law comes into play => When Action Happens; It should not have Preemption and Wrath Should Be As Severe As The Crime.

Prohibition and Mandated Morality Never Work.

Discrimination By Race Is Weak Minded. Attitudes Are Not The Same As They Were.

The Commerce Clause has brought about many "Cures Worse Than The Diseases". Prohibition Of/War On ... "Insert Issue Here".

The Root Of Liberty Is => All Created Equal.

When You Subvert To Government You Lose Equality.

Be Careful The Seat You Intend For Angels Be Occupied By Evil.

Posted by: PainfullyAware | May 24, 2010 12:59 AM | Report abuse

You know what? This is a disgusting blog post.

That's like saying, because King believes in the First Amendment, I care not what is in his heart, because that puts him in the same boat as those from the Westboro Baptist Church who protest soldier's funerals to say those who suffer, "He'll Burn in Hell."

Such a ridiculous ridiculous statement. If you want to link him to anybody, link it to an honest man at least like Barry Goldwater. But Maddox? There stops any rational thought that comes out of this blog. Ridiculous.

Posted by: 0zzy | May 24, 2010 1:24 AM | Report abuse

Mr. King is just another collectivist. People like him are the reason why African Americans would never be able to enjoy full freedom and always be under the clutches of the ones (Democrats etc.) who throw money at them.

Ron Paul: "Libertarianism is the enemy of all racism because racism is a collectivist idea."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnPnAJeVuvw

Posted by: MinoritiesforRonPaul | May 24, 2010 1:55 AM | Report abuse

Admittedly, Mr. King's guilt-by-association argument isn't entirely convincing. But there is a vast difference between defending the freedom of speech and defending a business owner's alleged "right" to discriminate. For one, a right to free speech actually exists in the U.S. Constitution.

More importantly, however, discrimination devastates lives and violates everything we stand for as a nation. "Whites Only" is not the sign of a "free society." Arresting black people for refusing to leave lunch counters is not a defense of "liberty." And denying promotions to deserving women does not further "the pursuit of happiness." No amount of anti-government paranoia can excuse the ignorance and insensitivity of a political candidate who defends an imaginary right to discriminate. It is obvious that Rand Paul has never seriously thought about what it would be like if he weren't a privileged white male.

Posted by: StephenD11 | May 24, 2010 2:14 AM | Report abuse

How is it that this rubbish is the first article that populates when you Google Rand Paul? This is a disgraceful bit of agenda-laden opinion. To compare a man who is advocating TRUE freedom and equality by attempting to scale-back government, repeal taxes and encourage a free market to someone who armed men and encouraged them to commit violence against other is absolutely ridiculous.

Firstly, the Drs. Paul are both practicioners of medicine and have sworn oaths to 'first do no harm', secondly I have never heard either of them EVER advocate any action that would inhibit the freedoms of another. If anyone has any proof of them EVER inciting violence please show me and I'll join in on this smear campaign against them.

If you want equality then let's have equality. If a woman can open a spa and discriminate against male customers, which most find acceptable, then we must allow someone to discriminate based on race... which most people find distasteful. Let the few idiots who would do this dig their own graves. When they go out of business someone will eagerly replace them by offering whatever goods or services they offered, but to all people.

It is sad what passes for journalism today, if you have nothing better to talk about sir, then say so and bow out. Do not tiredely beat the fossilized remains of the horse's first ancestor... the race card has been played for to long and to frequently. Nowadays people actually demand a cogent argument now and again. Please give us one or put your skills to use writing fiction.

Posted by: igoodnessi | May 24, 2010 2:18 AM | Report abuse

Tea Party types like Rand Paul - and now former ABC News reporter John Stossel - claim that it's not racist to want it to again be legal for some - and once it would be legal, an increasing amount - of white racists to force more and more blacks to have to carry a bucket or jar around just so they can have something to pee in.

If wanting this to be legal is not an expression of racism, then it most certainly is an expression of a questionable ethics and morality - it most certainly says something as to who does and does not listen to Conscience.

I say this above even though Rand Paul has now decided to start lying to get votes, because he now realizes that a truly doctrinaire Tea Partier cannot get elected. He now is trying to get people to believe that what he has been saying all these years as to what law should be - which is that such racism by private business should be legal - is not what he really believes law should be.

All regulatory law is about disallowing one set of people hurting another set of people. (Outlawing almost all killing is the most extreme example of this.)

We have to make moral and ethical judgment calls on each issue to decide whether this hurting is severe enough to be legally disallowed.

The libertarian Tea Party philosophy says that blacks are not being hurt enough by racist whites when forced by racist whites to have to pee in jars and buckets as they drive through the southern US to justify making such hurt illegal.

I think it very, very clear to anyone who listens to Conscience that if this philosophy is not racist, then it most certainly shows a great deal of lack of ethics and morality and when confronted with such an example of one set of people hurting another set of people. To anyone who listens to Conscience, this example of one set of people hurting another set of people is severe enough to legally disallow.

I note that William F. Buckley Jr. recently said before he died that he was wrong in thinking the libertarian philosophy correct, this libertarian philosophy saying that that such examples of one set of people hurting another set of people would evolve itself out of existence via the marketplace. He finally in the end started to listen to Conscience. He said that government regulation is necessary, because he finally realized that such racism will never evolve itself out of existence via the marketplace, that there will always be far too much of such racism for people of meaningful conscience to be willing to legally allow.

Posted by: Keefanda | May 24, 2010 2:50 AM | Report abuse

If the idea is that governments shouldn't regulate small businesses, that seems pretty silly, and if the idea is that governments shouldn't regulate morality, that seems pretty silly too. Laws are just morals that have gotten codified.

As for the guy who argued that a spa for women only was equivalent to racial discrimination at a lunch counter, I'll take that seriously when I hear him advocate for uni-sex restrooms.

Posted by: fzdybel | May 24, 2010 2:58 AM | Report abuse

While I agree with you in spirit, how about somebody on the WaPo staff running these editorials through spell check...at least once. "Excercise" really? It makes me seriously doubt that any thought went into the writing of this piece... or is it peice.

Posted by: d-35 | May 24, 2010 3:07 AM | Report abuse

America is like a bowl of soup and where there is soup there are crackers. dry salty stale old crackers.

Posted by: iseasygoing | May 24, 2010 3:32 AM | Report abuse

Meal plans can help you eat a balanced diabetes diet, keeping your blood sugar under control. use this free meal planner http://bit.ly/daDZ9s

Posted by: sablekeri | May 24, 2010 4:40 AM | Report abuse

This is a tired trip down the race card lane. You can simply look at the Pauls and with a little research see that they are in the same class as the folks that follow Lyndon LaRouche. Confused ideology merges with conspiracy theories. Rand is in trouble because he isn't a real Libertarian, isn't a real Tea Party member, and isn't a real Republican. He is a fringe candidate that will melt in the spotlight of press coverage.

Posted by: Puller58 | May 24, 2010 6:36 AM | Report abuse

I would really appreciate the WP presenting a series of editorials defining racism in the 21st century. Mr. King would be an excellent member of that writing group. As an older white guy who has lived through the civil rights strife but really not contributed much to either side, some claims of being prejudiced are difficult to comprehend.

Posted by: manliusfred | May 24, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

Mr. King - you could not have said it any clearer!!! The truth is the light and should set us free -- except for those who would not know "truth" if it slaps them in the face. The truth set Mr. Paul free -- he said EXACTLY what he feels -- not only in his head but also in his heart.(period)

Posted by: phyllisr5 | May 24, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

Mr. King's position has nothing to do with guilt by association. He is saying we can't really know, and that it doesn't really matter, whether Rand Paul is a racist. If he opposes -- or concedes only grudgingly -- the CRA of 1961, then he is doing the bidding of racists. Possibly, he thinks the goal of libertarian purity is more important that the souls crushed along the way by the "whites only" crowd. Possibly, he's the real elitist -- I've got mine, good luck getting yours. I'm glad Rand was at least momentarily honest about his views -- hardly any politicians are. But "states' rights" has been code for, "Blacks 'round the back," for centuries.

Posted by: obamasnoosama | May 24, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

The only explanation I can find on these reports, that some people make wild bigoted, racist statements is that some brains must be constructed differently.

This was confirmed, in my mind ,by a current Canadian study that links brain function to feelings toward races. The researchers say,"Observing someone of a different race produces significantly less motor-cortex activity than observing a person of one's own race." (This study wss published in the Journal of Expermental Social Psychology.)

Who knows what paleo-need this might have
served? If this is true, and such a barrier exists, in sone people, we should face it and find ways to deal with it. Understanding a problem is the first step to correcting it?

How? That's for other brains to figure out.


Posted by: juneconwaybeeby | May 24, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

The only explanation I can find on these reports, that some people make wild bigoted, racist statements is that some brains must be constructed differently.

This was confirmed, in my mind ,by a current Canadian study that links brain function to feelings toward races. The researchers say,"Observing someone of a different race produces significantly less motor-cortex activity than observing a person of one's own race." (This study wss published in the Journal of Expermental Social Psychology.)

Who knows what paleo-need this might have
served? If this is true, and such a barrier exists, in some people, we should face it and find ways to deal with it. Understanding a problem is the first step to correcting it?

How? That's for other brains to figure out.


Posted by: juneconwaybeeby | May 24, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

My friend, you have been brainwashed your entire life by Social Democrats who use you as nothing more than a cudgel for avoiding intellectual debate between white people.

You see White Liberals are to intellectually puny to actually defend social democracy on analytic points. So they drag you into the debate, and now White Liberal A uses you as a cudgel against White Conservative B. A tells B that if B does not agree with A, B is a racist because obviously he hates you.

You, as a black person, are merely a pawn in the social democratic anti intellectual cudgel game.

Posted by: gorak | May 24, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Many of we Americans have lived most of our lives under Affirmative Action laws...so stop with your minority whining...you have never experienced true discrimination - the kind that comes with "minorities get hired over whites."

Stick it.

Posted by: joesmithdefend | May 24, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

It seems to me that Libertarianism is the mirror image of true Marxist Socialism. Both are utopian as academic exercises, but fail miserably when you insert the variable...humanity. Get people involved, with their greed, etc. and both become instantly impossible to achieve. It therefore seems that our two-party system where compromise is supposed to be the rule (rather than the nowadays uncommon exception) is the most practical way to settle things. We don't need ultra-right Libertarians any more than we need ultra-left Socialist Communists.

Posted by: JoeT63 | May 24, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Paul simply was stating that at some point, .gov needs to keep out of PRIVATE businesses. Everybody supports the purpose of civil rights act, yes, but given that this is supposed to be "The land of the free," forcing PRIVATE businesses to accept certain practices is against the beliefs that made this nation prosper. This belief by Rand Paul is one of individual freedom, while the press and the left just see race, race, race, because it's the only card they have left to pull.

The left and the media fear Paul because he brings something to Washington that rarely exists these days: Consistency in Constitutional interpretation, honesty (even if it gets him in trouble), and integrity. And people are starting to tune in because of it.

Posted by: bigpapa_z | May 24, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Just keep in mind the liberal establishment's plan for the 2010 elections:

"Distract, Distract, Distract!"

Talk about anything EXCEPT this abysmal Obama/Pelosi/Reid economy: the Wall Street bailouts, the unemployment, the national deficit, the mounting debt, the rising foreclosures.

"Distract, Distract, Distract!"

Posted by: krissys | May 24, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

bigpoppa_z,
You wrote "Everybody supports the purpose of civil rights act yes, but given that this is supposed to be "The land of the free," forcing PRIVATE businesses to accept certain practices is against the beliefs that made this nation prosper."

===========================================
1). Why does "Everyone" believe in the premises of the CRA now yet did not believe in the premises during the 1940's, 1950's and much of the 1960's?

2). If one were to say "Attitudes have changed and racist businesses would be shut down by public opinion", how do you think public opinion changed?

The answer to both questions is that the CRA showed that racial integration was not the end of the society and that white and black customers of a business are not mutually exclusive universes.

Posted by: Ken_Davis1 | May 24, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

The very fact that a supreme court could give extra constitutional protections means with a shift of the winds it could take them away. Mr. Paul's more conservative views are principaled and he may not want to change his philosophy by joining in to this long term extra constituitional work around. More relevant is what he would propose to maintain the spirit of and gains of the law. One of these days our ouija board vetting of one of our stealthy supreme court appointees is going to go terribly wrong and the whole edific may be taken from us because regardless of what we would like. Amend the constitution and then follow it.

Posted by: almorganiv | May 24, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Has anyone mentioned that the Democrats tried to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Republicans, like Martin Luther King Jr., pushed it through...

Posted by: 2010Rout | May 24, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Are you nuts? LBJ helped push through the CRA leading to the exodus of Southern Democrats to the Republican party. Kennedy gave the landmark Civil Rights speech.

How can you even try with people who have no collection with reality. There are facts in this world.

I can't believe the Republicans, displaying their ridiculousness for everyone to see. They're so busy doing a victory lap for a future election that they may drive themselves out of their inevitable pick-ups.

Posted by: Scribbly29 | May 24, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

"Has anyone mentioned that the Democrats tried to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Republicans, like Martin Luther King Jr., pushed it through..."

No one's mentioned it because it's historically inaccurate. Some Southern Democrats tried to block it but it was pushed through by Democratic president Lyndon Johnson and Democratic congressman Hubert Humphrey. When this happened, Southern Democrats defected en masse to the Republican Party, which today has not a single African-American governor or congressperson.

Posted by: dnahatch1 | May 24, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

I think if you used the term "pick-AX", you would covey the thought a little better and the Gen Xers might figure out what you mean.

Posted by: edismae | May 24, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Many of we Americans have lived most of our lives under Affirmative Action laws...so stop with your minority whining...you have never experienced true discrimination - the kind that comes with "minorities get hired over whites."

Stick it.

Posted by: joesmithdefend | May 24, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse
==================================
So you are equating the whites only lunch counters, water fountains, and restrooms, riding in the back of the bus, segregated schools, denial of the right to vote, lynching and maiming of blacks in this country to affirmative action. Minorities getting hired over whites is TRUE discrimination. But you want blacks to stop the whining? Really, you can't be serious. This has got to be the stupidest comment I have read on the WaPo boards.

Posted by: wmwilliams14 | May 24, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

The point of the article is that Paul and libertarians of that degree of extremism are dangerous, whether they are racist or not. If they believe that the free market will end racism or make mines safe, they are dangerously naive, as a poster noted that William F. Buckley Jr himself concluded.

The fact is that even in theory, the free market would not necessarily ever end racism, or reward safe mine operators. Most first year economics 101 students could point out the serious flaws in the premise.

And even if it were true that the market would eventually reward integration, the notion that individual liberty would dictate that we tell the blacks of Nashville that they had no right to eat lunch anywhere but their desks or break rooms, but instead had to wait however long it took for integrated lunch counters to emerge from market forces, is absurd.

That's the danger of libertarianism. It's a naive, theoretically flawed, intellectually lazy point of view that when translated to government responses to social situations leads to absurd conclusions.

The fact is that Paul would tell Nashville blacks that they had no right to eat lunch in a restaurant if no one wanted to serve them is all you need to know.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 24, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter what Rand Paul believes. It matters how he would act. If he thinks the commerce clause of the Civil Rights Act is illegal or dispensable it is appropriate to be concerned about any legislation he might write or support if elected.

Posted by: freedom9 | May 24, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

States' rights...
separate but equal...
private business/property ownership rights...
Just one racist try after another.

Hopefully, as the RepubliKKKan party splits itself apart, voters of KKKentuckkky will do the same.

Libertarian??? Really??? Sounds pretty raccist to me.

Posted by: bgreen2224 | May 24, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

The point that Rand Paul was trying to get across was the same as Voltaire is in the following.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." -Voltaire

Basically, he puts freedom of association as equal to how American's view freedom of speech. He doesn't want the government to place restrictions on how whom you do business with even if it leads to racism in the same way that most people don't want restrictions put on speech even if leads to racism.

It's an intellectual arguement and not a policy argument. Dr. Paul's biggest mistake was thinking that the public and the media would understand that.

Posted by: BradG | May 24, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I can only hope that those who think this is some sort of theoretical, civilized debate and that at worst it might only result in someone's feelings being hurt will look into the behavior in Houston Texas of a man named JOE HORN.

You will not be surprised that this happened in Texas, but the rationale for Horn's murderous behavior is totally LIBERTARIAN.

Posted by: bgreen2224 | May 24, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

The point that Rand Paul was trying to get across was the same as Voltaire is in the following.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." -Voltaire

Basically, he puts freedom of association as equal to how American's view freedom of speech. He doesn't want the government to place restrictions on how whom you do business with even if it leads to racism in the same way that most people don't want restrictions put on speech even if leads to racism.

It's an intellectual arguement and not a policy argument. Dr. Paul's biggest mistake was thinking that the public and the media would understand that.

Posted by: BradG
____________________
unfortunately you are wrong. Paul is not saying that this is a nice intellectual exercise but of course in the real world we have to do exactly the opposite. He said that the government should not have integrated the Nashville lunch counters, period. That's policy, not theory.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 24, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Why don't we just go back to living in trees?

What a bunch of mean-spirited reactionaries.

You white folks had better start caring about the rights of minorities because you're about to join their ranks. Just about the time you're holding onto your walker for dear life and wheezing down the aisles of a nursing home in an open-backed hospital gown that doesn't half cover your white heinie, expect those little brown children to be all grown up with business degrees and running the country.

There is nothing you can do to change the above. It will happen and the only question is how. All your power plays in the world won't change the brown ocean that is coming to swallow up you white dinosaurs. Try to hold onto your money and power and it will be taken from you forcefully. With what measure you mete it will be measured to you. I believe this.

I am white and I pray I may die before I must live in the racist world that you folks are creating for my retirement years. Thanks for nothing.

Posted by: martymar123 | May 24, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

hahahahaha...bet Mitch THE b.i.a.t.c.h. misses bunning now!

Posted by: SofaKingCool2009 | May 24, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Basically, by making it a "right" for businesses to discriminate or having no law against it, Randy is putting the local authorities in the position of enforcing your "rights" by removing unwanted persons from your business i.e. blacks, latinoes, etc. It's back Jim Crow no matter what Randy says, and he and his supporters know it.

Posted by: rodneythecat | May 24, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

The sheer ignorance of republicans is amazing.

Of course, black people supported the GOP in the old days (it was the party of Emancipation!) The most racist folks in this country were southerners. Republicans were considered liberal northerners, while the South was solidly conservative democrat.

Then things changed dramatically in the 50s and 60s.
Despite the political risks, LBJ pushed for civil rights legislation, angering southern conservatives along the way (dems and dixiecrats).
The result? Them racist southerners flocked to the desperate GOP, which was in disarray after LBJ won the 1964 election in a landslide over the segregationist Republican Barry Goldwater.
Is it a coincidence that Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina and other southern states went republican for the first time EVER in the 1960s and have remained so? In 1964, Mississippi went from solidly democrat to 86% republican after just ONE election cycle! What the f** happened? LOL

The GOP selects TOKENS to give an impression of inclusion (Thomas, Powell, Steele, Rice)... At least Colin Powell had the decency to leave that sorry administration early. It's no surprise there are no blacks in the GOP Congressional caucus: You select tokens because your racist voters can't ELECT them.

The GOP stopped being the party of Lincoln in the 60s and became a Goldwater-Thurmond-Helms-Falwell-Nixon-Duke-Limbaugh-Reagan-Bush-Palin diaspora. Why would black people associate themselves with these bigots?
Do you honestly believe that men like Rockefeller, Ike or even Teddy Roosevelt would still feel at home in the current GOP? This is the party of Jefferson Davis now, not Lincoln.

And it's so funny when republicans keep referring to MLK to criticize black people. Conservatives absolutely DESPISED him when he was alive (especially William Buckley, Falwell, Reagan, Helms, Duke and others who called him a dangerous communist)... but now that he's sanctified (and safely dead) some are even trying to claim him (didn't he vote for JFK and LBJ?)

Sorry but you ain't fooling no one.

Posted by: sgtpepper23 | May 24, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

I think that people misunderstand Dr. Paul's thrust for the privat business owner's right to exclude certain people from an establishment. What he rally means is that the exclusion is not bound by the sole example he offered. In other words. banning Jews, Latinos, Orientals, Arabs, is also their prerogative in a truly free country. For Dr. Paul this is the real meaning of a democracy. We could be a shining beacon to all the countries of the world if we promulgated these policies of the capitalist ideals. It didn't work too well for the Fascists, but we surely can do better. After all, we are Americans.

Posted by: TheTraveler | May 24, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone mentioned that the Democrats tried to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Republicans, like Martin Luther King Jr., pushed it through...

"As a presidential campaigner in 1960, Kennedy largely avoided the civil rights issue for basically political reasons. Although he endorsed some kind of federal action, he could not afford to antagonize southern Democrats whose support he desperately needed to defeat Republican candidate Richard M. Nixon. In outlining the most important issues for the campaign early in 1960, Kennedy ignored civil rights rather than jeopardize his political support.

After his election in November 1960, the new President failed to suggest any new civil rights proposals in 1961 or 1962, again for political reasons. He needed southern support in Congress for his other foreign and domestic programs. It was particularly risky to introduce specific civil rights legislation in the Senate. The Senate filibuster rule made it possible for a minority of senators to prevent passage and to obstruct other Senate business. To overcome this obstacle, 67 members would have to support some version of civil rights legislation and vote to end the inevitable filibuster. It was difficult for the Kennedy administration to propose a bill without considering carefully the politics of congressional passage.

Although Kennedy accomplished some strictly limited improvements in equal rights by executive action, the civil rights movement generally proceeded without Presidential support. When Kennedy did act in June 1963 to propose a civil rights bill, it was because the climate of opinion and the political situation forced him to act."

Source, The Dirksen Congressional Center

Democrats did not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


Posted by: 2010Rout | May 24, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, only southern democrats and southern republicans opposed the Civil Rights Act. They also had another thing in common: they were CONSERVATIVES. It's the liberals who passed the bill.

The racist southern democrats flocked to an opportunistic GOP.
It's no surprise that Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia and other southern states voted republican for the first time EVER after the bill's passage. In 1964, Mississippi went from solidly democrat to 86% republican after just ONE election cycle!

Posted by: sgtpepper23 | May 24, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

I live in central Wisconsin and no, racism is not dead. This society needs someone to blame. Always did- always will.

Posted by: bluecollarbluejeans | May 24, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter what Rand Paul thinks about prejudice

===========================================

True, it doesn't matter because you, Eugene Robinson and the media will be more than happy to use a broad brush and associate racism and Paul with everyone who opposes Obama.

Posted by: bbface21 | May 24, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone mentioned that the Democrats tried to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Republicans, like Martin Luther King Jr., pushed it through...

Posted by: 2010Rout | May 24, 2010 11:24 AM

===========================================

I don't think you got the memo, but the liberal talking point is that the Democrats who would support blocking the Civil Rights Act became Republicans under the Southern Strategy. Ergo, Democrats can't be racist by definition.

Posted by: bbface21 | May 24, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

The history of the CRA and which party pushed it harder hardly matters, when the issue is the views of Paul, who says he opposes the public accomodations provision. He can't exactly run on a platform of "I would have opposed it then and now, but my 2010 democrat opponent who supports it now and would have then can't use that againse me because his party didn't support it as much as my party did in 1964 (of course I think they were wrong)." That doesn't really make much sense, does it?

It's pretty simple. Paul thinks Nashville blacks had no right to eat lunch in restauraunts open to the general public unless their operators wanted to serve them, and that the government had no business lifting a finger to make it possible for them to eat anywhere downtown.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 24, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Libertarians always vote Republican. The Tea Party is simply a bunch of pissed off, middle-aged white folks who see their small-minded world getting smaller. They are upset they have to share the country with other people, and no one asked for their permission. And, they can't tell of one right, freedom or liberty they've lost. Small-minded, small world, fear-mongering folks.

Posted by: jckdoors | May 24, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

bbface wrote, "True, it doesn't matter because you, Eugene Robinson and the media will be more than happy to use a broad brush and associate racism and Paul with everyone who opposes Obama."

Speaking of a broad brush...

Posted by: martymar123 | May 24, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Rand’s Paul in my opinion message was no slip of the tongue and either about “Civil Rights Act”. In his opinionated ideologies he tells white American don’t worry we “Republicans” do not want nor will we except a “Black President” handling our government affairs, nor do we want change in America, and “Republican political philosophy in the constitutional law will always protect your white rights only.

A good remedy for all suffrage of minority communities stop eating their establishments, buying their goods, and making them richer. To many have lost their lives, cultural identity, bloodshed, turning races against each other and we no longer will accept their demonology as a form of justice. As this country was stolen from their true owners, through slavery, illegal laws, thievery and they benefited from productive, ideals of minorities and ancestral wits.

The ideological social beliefs of the Republican party today is that of demented minds that are out of touch with realism, that show its “true colors” in inclusive reason, goals in separation, and bringing back racial idiosyncrasies such as “Old Age Jim Crow Laws” that leaves a bad taste in the mouth that forces us down memory lane to a world where so called white government is the only government that works for whites. The only thing that this has accomplished is that it’s caused them to dig their own graves due to their own unprofessional and amateurish ideas of change.

One of their main drawbacks:
It is plainly written in their laws of governing from their ill will and intent of savagery in the invasion of the American Indians to the Atlantic holocaust trades of Africans which show the true history of America and its whitewashed politics.

Reality of the Republicans Tea baggers parties:
Their version of historical events served the country’s so called elite counterparts of justice well, so long as the population is overwhelmingly white skinned.

Negligent:
Just to put it bluntly, in your history books, news papers, written historic documentations, and media coverage, Rome burn to the ground. What history can account is that white people are for white people and they have a “Treacherous Plot” to exploit other human races contributions through genocide and destruction.

In conclusion:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Africans born on American soil but also enforced unconstitutional laws by reducing individuals liberties; and they also failed to achieve its main goal of promoting racial harmony and a color blind society. By electing a half African-half White president he is able to analyze both worlds.

Posted by: chambersmary50 | May 24, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Since Rand Paul does not believe government should interfere in private businesses choice to discriminate does that mean that he opposes government interfering in a woman's right to choose abortion. Or is he inconsistent?

Posted by: withersb | May 24, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

The point that Rand Paul was trying to get across was the same as Voltaire is in the following.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." -Voltaire

Basically, he puts freedom of association as equal to how American's view freedom of speech. He doesn't want the government to place restrictions on how whom you do business with even if it leads to racism in the same way that most people don't want restrictions put on speech even if leads to racism.

It's an intellectual arguement and not a policy argument. Dr. Paul's biggest mistake was thinking that the public and the media would understand that.

Posted by: BradG
____________________
unfortunately you are wrong. Paul is not saying that this is a nice intellectual exercise but of course in the real world we have to do exactly the opposite. He said that the government should not have integrated the Nashville lunch counters, period. That's policy, not theory.

Posted by: JoeT1
------------------------------------------
I'd call any discussion of a law passed 46 years ago to be in the realm of the theoretical.

Posted by: BradG | May 24, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

I can think of worse company - the "BLACK PANTHERS." Racist.

Posted by: joesmithdefend | May 24, 2010 9:08 PM | Report abuse

to "the mainstream media";all,

inasmuch as 90+% of what the main-SLIME media has reported about Rand Paul's comments is DEMONSTRABLY FICTION,PLEASE continue doing what you "media types" are doing.

then we Tea Party folks will be MORE successful at the polls in November. = the public no longer believes the DIMocRAT propaganda spewed out on the public airwaves by KNOWING LIARS.

to all DIMocRATS: "the light at the end of the tunnel" is a freight train that will run over your party in November. - it won't even be close. = say, "ADIOS" to your control of BOTH houses of Congress.

yours, TN46

Posted by: texasnative46 | May 25, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

There's no way RP could win against Obama. Can anyone imagine a debate where this is brought up with Barack standing right there?

Posted by: cmnt | May 29, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Do business owners feel oppressed by the public accommodations in the Civil Rights Act?
What if the market doesn't sort it out? Racist ideologues would be more interested in having their views legitimized than making gobs of money anyway.

We are a changing society with a diverse population. The freedom to discriminate in business would empower the few to affect our society in a very negative way and we wouldn't need a lot of businesses doing it to feel that effect.
For example, these places would be targets for violence/demonstrations. The media coverage would give a voice to these views and make them something to be discussed on talk shows. And because of the controversy many would watch.
These ideas would find new appeal in some of the younger generation because they would see how pissed off their parents would get. But then there would be a backlash from their own generation against them.

The tea partiers need to remember how legalizing abortion caused there to be an increase in abortions. Also the opinion about abortion has changed considerably because it is legal.


http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm
This law is important as well as that section. Having our government stand for civil rights is a good thing.



Posted by: cmnt | May 29, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Whoa. Please disregard my post about Obama Paul and the election! Yes, I know we aren't electing a president right now. I was thinking about media with Obama in office the election in Kentucky and.. voila! Apparently some wires crossed.

Posted by: cmnt | May 29, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Whoa. Please disregard my post about Obama Paul and the election! Yes, I know we aren't electing a president right now. I was thinking about media with Obama in office the election in Kentucky and.. voila! Apparently some wires crossed.

Posted by: cmnt | May 29, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

cmnt,
Hey don't feel bad. I just learned who Rand Paul is today! Your posts were still interesting.:)

Posted by: Candace5 | May 30, 2010 7:12 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company