"GOP Downplays [Rand] Paul's Remarks".
GOP Downplays Paul's Remarks
By ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON and VICTORIA MCGRANE
Republicans on Sunday sought to neutralize criticism of GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul's remarks questioning aspects of a landmark desegregation law, and his support of racial discrimination by property owners expressed in a 2002 letter to a Kentucky newspaper.
Mr. Paul, the antiestablishment tea party candidate who won the party primary in Kentucky last week, has told the Louisville Courier-Journal that he opposed provisions in the 1964 Civil Rights Act banning racial discrimination by private businesses. He told MSNBC on Wednesday that while he abhorred racial discrimination, he questioned the federal government's power to force restaurants to serve minorities, against the wishes of those businesses' owners.
On Sunday, Democratic Party officials suggested Mr. Paul's comments were more than a misstep by a new player on the national stage. They pointed to a letter Mr. Paul wrote in 2002, in which he supported "unofficial, private discrimination—even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin."
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said on ABC News's "This Week" that he "wasn't comfortable" with Mr. Paul's remarks about the 1964 civil-rights law. "Any attempt to look backwards is not in the best interest of our country certainly, and certainly not in the best interest of the party," he said.
But he added that he had spoken with Mr. Paul, and that he "will be four-square with the Republican Party, in lockstep with moving forward on civil rights, not looking backwards."
Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine, appearing on the same show, pointed to a letter that he said Mr. Paul had written to the Bowling Green Daily News, criticizing federal rules against discrimination in private housing.
Following his comments on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Rand Paul said Friday morning President Obama's criticism of BP has sounded "really un-American." WSJ's Jerry Seib joins the News Hub to discuss the latest controversy and the political damage of Paul's recent comments.
Mr. Paul's 2002 letter, an electronic copy of which was viewed by the Wall Street Journal, reads, in part: "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.
"It is unenlightened and ill-informed to promote discrimination against individuals based on the color of their skin.
"It is likewise unwise to forget the distinction between public (taxpayer-financed) and private entities. A society that forgets this distinction will ultimately lose the freedoms that have evolved and historically been attached to private ownership."
Mr. Paul's campaign manager, David Adams, had no comment on the letter nor its airing on television.
Mr. Steele said that view expressed by Mr. Paul in his letter was "a philosophical position held by a lot of libertarians, which Rand Paul is. They have a very, very strong view about the limitations of government intrusion into the private sector."
Mr. Steele added, "We have had a lot of members go to the United States Senate with a lot of different philosophies, but when they get to the body, how they work to move the country forward matters."
Rand Paul on the Fair Housing Act
Mr. Paul wrote a letter to the Bowling Green, Ky., Daily News dated May 30, 2002, in response to an editorial on the Federal Fair Housing Act.
Distinction blurred between private, public property
A recent Daily News editorial supported the Federal Fair Housing Act. At first glance, who could object to preventing discrimination in housing?
Most citizens would agree that it is wrong to deny taxpayer-financed, "public" housing to anyone based on the color of their skin or the number of children in the household.
But the Daily News ignores, as does the Fair Housing Act, the distinction between private and public property. Should it be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individual's beliefs or attributes? Most certainly. Should it be prohibited for private entities such as a church, bed and breakfast or retirement neighborhood that doesn't want noisy children? Absolutely not.
Decisions concerning private property and associations should in a free society be unhindered. As a consequence, some associations will discriminate.
Alcoholics Anonymous may only accept alcoholics; Madison Avenue advertisers may choose only the young and slender; Boy Scouts may wish to exclude sex offenders; Christian churches may wish to exclude atheists from the clergy.
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.
It is unenlightened and ill-informed to promote discrimination against individuals based on the color of their skin.
It is likewise unwise to forget the distinction between public (taxpayer-financed) and private entities. A society that forgets this distinction will ultimately lose the freedoms that have evolved and historically been attached to private ownership.
Former Alaska Republican Gov. Sarah Palin said Mr. Paul was "right on when he says he is a supporter of civil rights. He's a supporter of the Civil Rights Act and equal rights."
Ms. Palin, appearing on "Fox News Sunday," suggested that Mr. Paul's views were consistent with his belief in libertarian politics: "He wanted to talk about, evidently, some hypotheticals as it applies to impacts on the Civil Rights Act, as it impacts our Constitution."
Mr. Paul on Friday canceled his Sunday appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," saying he was exhausted. He was the third guest in six decades to cancel on the show. On Sunday, host David Gregory cited additional comments by Mr. Paul over the weekend that he had decided to scale back on national-television appearances "to avoid the liberal bias of the media."
National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas) called Mr. Paul's comments on the civil rights law a "stumble." He said the Kentucky ophthalmologist's decision to avoid the national media was a good one. "I think he needs to be talking to the voters back in Kentucky," Mr. Cornyn told NBC's "Meet the Press."
Asked whether he agreed with Mr. Paul's civil-rights views, Mr. Cornyn said: "I don't know what all his views are…he's clarified his views, that he's opposed to any kind of discrimination, period."
"I think we will have a discussion about the role of government in our lives. …I think he will speak directly to that," Mr. Cornyn added.
Sen. Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, appearing on the same show, said Mr. Paul's views were "clearly in the extreme."
Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R., Minn.), speaking on CNN's "State of the Union," called Mr. Paul's comments about the Civil Rights Act "unfortunate," but he defended the Tea Party movement and what it means for the Republican Party.
"We'll take that energy," he said. "It's still a little chaotic in some ways, but it's a good thing."
Write to Elizabeth Williamson at elizabeth.williamson@wsj.com
By ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON and VICTORIA MCGRANE
Republicans on Sunday sought to neutralize criticism of GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul's remarks questioning aspects of a landmark desegregation law, and his support of racial discrimination by property owners expressed in a 2002 letter to a Kentucky newspaper.
Mr. Paul, the antiestablishment tea party candidate who won the party primary in Kentucky last week, has told the Louisville Courier-Journal that he opposed provisions in the 1964 Civil Rights Act banning racial discrimination by private businesses. He told MSNBC on Wednesday that while he abhorred racial discrimination, he questioned the federal government's power to force restaurants to serve minorities, against the wishes of those businesses' owners.
On Sunday, Democratic Party officials suggested Mr. Paul's comments were more than a misstep by a new player on the national stage. They pointed to a letter Mr. Paul wrote in 2002, in which he supported "unofficial, private discrimination—even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin."
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said on ABC News's "This Week" that he "wasn't comfortable" with Mr. Paul's remarks about the 1964 civil-rights law. "Any attempt to look backwards is not in the best interest of our country certainly, and certainly not in the best interest of the party," he said.
But he added that he had spoken with Mr. Paul, and that he "will be four-square with the Republican Party, in lockstep with moving forward on civil rights, not looking backwards."
Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine, appearing on the same show, pointed to a letter that he said Mr. Paul had written to the Bowling Green Daily News, criticizing federal rules against discrimination in private housing.
Following his comments on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Rand Paul said Friday morning President Obama's criticism of BP has sounded "really un-American." WSJ's Jerry Seib joins the News Hub to discuss the latest controversy and the political damage of Paul's recent comments.
Mr. Paul's 2002 letter, an electronic copy of which was viewed by the Wall Street Journal, reads, in part: "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.
"It is unenlightened and ill-informed to promote discrimination against individuals based on the color of their skin.
"It is likewise unwise to forget the distinction between public (taxpayer-financed) and private entities. A society that forgets this distinction will ultimately lose the freedoms that have evolved and historically been attached to private ownership."
Mr. Paul's campaign manager, David Adams, had no comment on the letter nor its airing on television.
Mr. Steele said that view expressed by Mr. Paul in his letter was "a philosophical position held by a lot of libertarians, which Rand Paul is. They have a very, very strong view about the limitations of government intrusion into the private sector."
Mr. Steele added, "We have had a lot of members go to the United States Senate with a lot of different philosophies, but when they get to the body, how they work to move the country forward matters."
Rand Paul on the Fair Housing Act
Mr. Paul wrote a letter to the Bowling Green, Ky., Daily News dated May 30, 2002, in response to an editorial on the Federal Fair Housing Act.
Distinction blurred between private, public property
A recent Daily News editorial supported the Federal Fair Housing Act. At first glance, who could object to preventing discrimination in housing?
Most citizens would agree that it is wrong to deny taxpayer-financed, "public" housing to anyone based on the color of their skin or the number of children in the household.
But the Daily News ignores, as does the Fair Housing Act, the distinction between private and public property. Should it be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individual's beliefs or attributes? Most certainly. Should it be prohibited for private entities such as a church, bed and breakfast or retirement neighborhood that doesn't want noisy children? Absolutely not.
Decisions concerning private property and associations should in a free society be unhindered. As a consequence, some associations will discriminate.
Alcoholics Anonymous may only accept alcoholics; Madison Avenue advertisers may choose only the young and slender; Boy Scouts may wish to exclude sex offenders; Christian churches may wish to exclude atheists from the clergy.
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.
It is unenlightened and ill-informed to promote discrimination against individuals based on the color of their skin.
It is likewise unwise to forget the distinction between public (taxpayer-financed) and private entities. A society that forgets this distinction will ultimately lose the freedoms that have evolved and historically been attached to private ownership.
Former Alaska Republican Gov. Sarah Palin said Mr. Paul was "right on when he says he is a supporter of civil rights. He's a supporter of the Civil Rights Act and equal rights."
Ms. Palin, appearing on "Fox News Sunday," suggested that Mr. Paul's views were consistent with his belief in libertarian politics: "He wanted to talk about, evidently, some hypotheticals as it applies to impacts on the Civil Rights Act, as it impacts our Constitution."
Mr. Paul on Friday canceled his Sunday appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," saying he was exhausted. He was the third guest in six decades to cancel on the show. On Sunday, host David Gregory cited additional comments by Mr. Paul over the weekend that he had decided to scale back on national-television appearances "to avoid the liberal bias of the media."
National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas) called Mr. Paul's comments on the civil rights law a "stumble." He said the Kentucky ophthalmologist's decision to avoid the national media was a good one. "I think he needs to be talking to the voters back in Kentucky," Mr. Cornyn told NBC's "Meet the Press."
Asked whether he agreed with Mr. Paul's civil-rights views, Mr. Cornyn said: "I don't know what all his views are…he's clarified his views, that he's opposed to any kind of discrimination, period."
"I think we will have a discussion about the role of government in our lives. …I think he will speak directly to that," Mr. Cornyn added.
Sen. Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, appearing on the same show, said Mr. Paul's views were "clearly in the extreme."
Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R., Minn.), speaking on CNN's "State of the Union," called Mr. Paul's comments about the Civil Rights Act "unfortunate," but he defended the Tea Party movement and what it means for the Republican Party.
"We'll take that energy," he said. "It's still a little chaotic in some ways, but it's a good thing."
Write to Elizabeth Williamson at elizabeth.williamson@wsj.com
Labels: General information
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 6:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home