Rand Paul Under Fire for Comments on Race

[jefferson_dem]

Source: CBS

(edited for copyright purposes-proud patriot Moderator Democratic Underground)

Rand Paul Under Fire for Comments on Race
Posted by Stephanie Condon

Now that the Tea Party-backed Rand Paul has the GOP nomination for Kentucky's open Senate seat, the media and his Democratic opponent are pouncing on his extreme libertarian views -- particularly with respect to his position on racism in private businesses and whether he would have supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In an interview on NPR yesterday, host Robert Siegel asked Paul, the son of libertarian hero and former presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), whether the Civil Rights Act went too far. Seigel noted that Paul has said in the past that the Americans with Disabilities Act was an overreach of the federal government.

"What I've always said is that I'm opposed to institutional racism, and I would've, had I've been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism," Paul said.

However, he added:

"I think a lot of things could be handled locally. For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. You know, we do it in our office with wheelchair ramps and things like that. I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who's handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to the solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions."

(snip)

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20005474-503544.html

---

More on Rachel's exposure of Rand's racism at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-tells-maddow-th_n_582872.html

[habitual]

1. so this guys victory really does seem like a huge win for the dems

we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized... o yah baby, keep it coming..

[rurallib]

7. provided dems are smart enough to capitalize on it

but I, for one, am not holding my breath for that to happen.

[Kahuna]

10. There's always THAT!

:scared:

[David__77]

2. Rand Paul and Sarah Palin ought to get a lot of public exposure.

The more, the better. The thought of President Palin and people like Paul in charge will give a lot of "independents" the willies, as it should. This civil rights act issue is a big deal - they want to tear up the basic social contract and return to one from long ago.

[get the red out]

3. We don't limit such speech

That's the way these guys work, you criticize their point of view on something and they immediately say that free speech is under attack, and they call everything speech. Denying someone service at a business due to race is somehow speech, corporate money buying elections is speech. Every disgusting thing they support is masked as free speech, but the freedom to criticize them gets framed as us trying to deny their rights.

[wtmusic]

4. Them racists, they may have a point there.

[charlesg]

5. They need to expose the racism of the Paul family

[fatbuckel]

6. A racist republican? Not news,fellas.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. It comes in the parcel with all the Right wing policies (RL Party)

The Raving Loony Party

[LeftishBrit]

9. Now don't insult the Raving Loony Party!

Screaming Lord Sutch was always much saner than any Republican!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

18. do you remember those days?

what happened to Lord Sutch - is he still alive?

[LeftishBrit]

20. Sadly, he died in 1999.

The party continues to field candidates; but it's not the same without him. They are a more varied bunch than in the past, and a few of them are pretty right-wing.

[thucythucy]

11. Americans with Disabilities Act

Sigh. Yet another right wing "libertarian" attacking the ADA without having clue one what it does or says.

The ADA would not require any business in a 2 story building to build "a $100,000 elevator" to accommodate an employee or a customer with a disability. The ADA requires "reasonable accommodation" for disabled employees--"reasonable" being defined on a case by case basis based upon the size of the business, the resources available, and the accommodation being requested. So a mom & pop antique store is judged by entirely different standards than, say, Bank of America. Similarly, the ADA doesn't require businesses or private entities to retrofit access if such a retrofit would be "an undue burden" or "an undue hardship." Where I live there are still plenty of small businesses without access. MacDonalds and Burger King, though, are accessible, because they've got the resources to do it without "undue hardship" (and in fact, since ADA, both have been actively soliciting disabled consumers. Message to all business owners: we spend money too, you know).

This is like the "King of the Hill" episode that claimed that under the ADA businesses are required to hire heroin addicts, or the Newt Gingrich story about some town somewhere having to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars ramping "a nude beach." Pure BS.

Is it too much to ask someone running for the US Senate, who wants to attack the ADA, to at least read the bill before he mouths off?

That was a rhetorical question. The answer is painfully obvious.

[Iowa]

19. Excellent post. And you are absolutely right...

This turd simply has no clue what the ADA is about. He displayed his ignorance and incompetence for everyone to see.

[defendandprotect]

12. We should all keep our eye on this racist GOP pick -- IMO he's doing a

Glenn Beck act to try to stir up racial animosity -- not to mention discontent with

the Civil Rights Act -- etal.

This guy is real slime --

[elocs]

13. Paul: "Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean, know what I mean?" n/t

[sandspur]

14. They need to ask him about flag burning. Funny how free speech ends there

For many conservatives discriminating against some one based on race, sex, religion etc. is fine, but burn a flag you own and they lose their minds.

[blueworld]

15. I was stunned, ashamed as I should be to admit it

I interpreted his comments as basically indistinguishable from the "states rights" arguments of our greatest Confederates. "Like, yeah, it's wrong, I wouldn't condone it, but the Feds have no right to enforce equal rights locally". Huh?

In the first place, I didn't understand why he tried to justify his answer as "free speech" rights - it's directly related to Constitutional equal rights. And in the second place, the local application has been magnificently tested under the Southern "massive resistance" of the '50's. It took the Supreme Court to overturn that evil. I have several friends my own age who did not attend school for years because of the local resistance to desegregation.

[bc3000]

16. Finally, the people of the US may get a real explanation of libertarian policies.

[BumRushDaShow]

17. Seems most teabagger "Libertarians"

only recognize the 1st amendment, 2nd amendment, 5th amendment, 10th amendment, and 27th amendment. The rest of the amendments in the Constitution, most notably the 4th, 9th, 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th amendments, don't count or are unknown to them.

[easilynervous]

21. there was a story a few days back about them also

wanting to repeal the 17th Amendment.

[charlesg]

22. How Rand Paul's civil-rights views escaped media scrutiny:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl2167