Google
 
Web Osi Speaks!

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Rand Paul's Ballyhooed Racial Stances Suggest He Misunderstands The Constitution, Or He Wants To A Re-Write It. Enough Said.

Rand Paul embroiled in Civil Rights controversy over remarks made on Courier-Journal video interview ballyhooed

Two days after winning the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate, Rand Paul found himself embroiled Thursday in a growing national controversy over his view that federal civil-rights law shouldn't bar businesses from practicing racial discrimination.

While stressing that he abhors racism, Paul said in an interview last month with The Courier-Journal's Editorial Board that a restaurant or other enterprise with no government funding should be allowed to discriminate.

"In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people who have abhorrent behavior," he said.

A firestorm of criticism erupted after MSNBC host Rachel Maddow grilled Paul Wednesday night about those remarks on her cable television program.

That prompted Paul to issue a statement Thursday promising not to support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited such discrimination -- the same law he was referring to during his Courier-Journal interview.

"Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws," he said Thursday.

But his statement didn't directly address the controversy.

At issue is his stated belief that while government was right to prohibit discrimination in public agencies and by organizations that receive public funds, private businesses should have the right to make race-based decisions about which customers they serve.

Paul, a Bowling Green ophthalmologist who ran on libertarian themes of smaller, less-intrusive government during this year's campaign, did not respond to telephoned and e-mailed requests by The Courier-Journal to clarify his remarks.

Democrats and civil-rights advocates were sharply critical for what they said was Paul's desire to turn the country back on civil rights issues by nearly a half century.

"I call on Mr. Paul to answer the question of whether or not my wife and I should have the right to eat at any establishment in our great commonwealth or this great nation, free of racial discrimination," said Colmon Elridge of Lexington, an African American who is vice president of the Young Democrats of America.

Former state Sen. Georgia Powers, the first African American elected to that body, said she was furious when she heard about Paul's position.

"I don't think he's thinking clearly and not considering how minorities will react to this," she said. "Maybe he doesn't expect to get any votes from any minorities. I hope he doesn't."

Jack Conway, the Democratic nominee in the Senate race, who had called attention to Paul's editorial-board remarks during a televised interview Wednesday, said those statements indicate that Paul is out of step with both Republicans and Democrats in Kentucky.

"I don't think his thinking on rejecting this large portion of the Civil Rights Act reflects the thinking of Kentucky Republicans," he said. "Kentucky Republicans are the party of Lincoln."

The Democratic National Committee began airing an Internet ad criticizing Paul for his statements, and committee chairman Tim Kaine issued a statement calling Paul's position "indefensible."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., declined to comment on Paul's most inflammatory remarks.

Instead he focused on the portion of Paul's statement in which he said he supports the Civil Rights Act, which was passed with the strong support of Sens. John Sherman Cooper and Thruston B. Morton, the two Republicans who represented Kentucky when the law was passed.

"Among Senator McConnell's most vivid memories and most formative events in his career was watching his boss, Sen. John Sherman Cooper, help pull together the votes to break the filibuster and pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964," McConnell spokesman Robert Steurer said in a statement. "He has always considered the law a monumental achievement for the country and is glad to hear Dr. Paul supports it as well."

It was a question about that law, posed during The Courier-Journal editorial board interview, that prompted Paul to elaborate on his views.

"Under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. (Martin Luther) King to not be served at the counter at Woolworths?" he was asked during the meeting.

"I would not go to that Woolworth's, and I would stand up in my community and say it's abhorrent," he responded. "In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people who have abhorrent behavior. But if we're civilized people, we publicly criticize that and don't belong to those groups or associate with those people."

In his appearance on the Maddow show Wednesday night, he refused to state flatly whether businesses should be allowed to discriminate.

Several times he drew an analogy to the right of a business to bar guns from its premises, implying that the same right should apply to decisions about who to serve.

Thursday morning on his television show, "Morning Joe," former Republican U.S. Rep. Joe Scarborough called on Paul to clearly state his position.

"He needs to come up with an answer today, or Kentucky will be Arizona (which recently enacted a controversial immigration law): a battleground for ugly, racial politics. He has 24 hours," Scarborough said.

Pageonekentucky.com, a Louisville-based blog, uncovered a letter to the editor that Paul wrote to the Bowling Green Daily News in 2002.

In it, he said: "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."

Among the Democrats who criticized Paul was 3rd District U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth of Louisville, who contended that Paul has "embarrassed Kentucky in the eyes of the world."

He said Paul's comments "are simply appalling, and make it abundantly clear that he has no place holding public office in Kentucky in the 21st century."

Kaine, the Democratic national chairman, was equally critical, saying, "Rand Paul's endorsement of policies that would result in a segregated America is indefensible. ... He thinks our civil rights laws represent 'government overreach,' and he would tolerate a country which allowed separate lunch counters and discrimination in housing and employment based on the color of someone's skin."

Even some Washington Republicans were distancing themselves, according to Roll Call, a newspaper that covers Capitol Hill.

It quoted Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who said Paul's comments were "wrong."

"I think that was settled a long time ago, and the country is better off," he said.

And Sen. John Thune of South Dakota said Paul's comments are not universally accepted by Republicans and that Paul will "have to answer for" his position.

"There are positions that some of our candidates will take that a lot of us won't agree with," Thune said.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, an African American, was traveling and couldn't be reached for comment.

But an RNC spokesman forwarded a statement he made to the St. Petersburg Times, in which he said he understands Paul has "clarified his voice" on the issue.

"We are focused as never before on embracing and reaching out to as many folks who want to be a part of this Republican family," Steele said. "I'm sure that the nominee for the Senate from Kentucky is out there right now making sure that everyone knows where he stands ... in supporting ... all efforts by leadership to promote opportunities for people, regardless of race creed, color or background."

Reporter Joseph Gerth can be reached at (502) 582-4702.

Labels:

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home