Rand Paul Wins, Specter Loses

The Coffee Shop
21

“In my recollection, he never directly answered the question (which was put several times) of whether or not he would have voted for passage of the Civil Rights Act.”
**
He said that he would have tried to get that one provision changed, but because of the other 90% of the act with which he agreed he would have supported the “totality” of the act. He also pointed out (and I’m paraphrasing from memory) that in a political context you don’t get to pick and choose, but have to vote on a bill as a whole.

I think his point about how the same principle behind that one provision would make it impossible for restaurant owners to keep firearms out of their establishments went completely over Maddow’s head Not surprising, of course.

I hardly think a civil libertarian Rhodes scholar with an Oxford Dphil in Politics would have difficulty with his firearms retort, though it is surprising that you would assume so. Rachel has a job to do in her current capacity, and that job was to press him for an answer on whether or not the 1/10 of the Civil Rights Act would lead him to vote against its passage. She repeatedly pressed him, and he repeatedly ducked. Not surprising from a politician, of course.

22

Here is the part of the discussion I assume you were recalling (emphasis added):

Rachel Maddow: But maybe voting against the Civil Rights Act which wasn’t just about governmental discrimination but public accommodations, the idea that people who provided services that were open to the public had to do so in a nondiscriminatory fashion.

Let me ask you a specific so we don’t get into the esoteric hypotheticals here.

Rand Paul: Well, there’s 10… there’s 10 different… there’s 10 different titles, you know, to the Civil Rights Act, and nine out of 10 deal with public institutions. And I’m absolutely in favor of one deals with private institutions, and had I been around, I would have tried to modify that.

But you know, the other thing about legislation… and this is why it’s a little hard to say exactly where you are sometimes, is that when you support nine out of 10 things in a good piece of legislation, do you vote for it or against it? And I think, sometimes, those are difficult situations.

What I was asked by “The Courier-Journal” and I stick by it is that I do defend and believe that the government should not be involved with institutional racism or discrimination or segregation in schools, bussing, all those things. But had I been there, there would have been some discussion over one of the titles of the civil rights.

And I think that’s a valid point, and still a valid discussion, because the thing is, is if we want to harbor in on private businesses and their policies, then you have to have the discussion about: do you want to abridge the First Amendment as well. Do you want to say that because people say abhorrent things… you know, we still have this. We’re having all this debate over hate speech and this and that. Can you have a newspaper and say abhorrent things? Can you march in a parade and believe in abhorrent things, you know?

So, I think it’s an important debate but should be intellectual one. It’s really tough to have an intellectual debate in the political sense because what happens is it gets dumbed down. It will get dumb down to three words and they’ll try to run on this entire issue, and it’s being brought up as a political issue.

I think if you listen to me, I think you should understand that… I think you do, I think you’re an intelligent person. I like being on your show. But I think that what is the totality of what I’m saying… am I a bad person? Do I believe in awful things? No.

I really think that discrimination and racism is a horrible thing. And I don’t want any form of it in our government, in our public sphere.

"when you support nine out of 10 things in a good piece of legislation, do you vote for it or against it? And I think, sometimes, those are difficult situations." Restating the question is in no way providing an answer. Rachel never insinuated that Paul is a racist; the discussion was over the proper role of government as it relates to Civil Rights and desegregation. They have a very cordial and respectful relationship, it seems. She was after his ultimate position on the vote including the title he opposed, and he flatly refused to answer the question–as he seems to have done on several occasions lately.

Dr. Ron Paul appeared on Meet The Press a few years back, and the same question was put to him:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about race, because I, I read a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. And you said this: “Contrary to the claims of” “supporters of the Civil Rights Act of” '64, “the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of” '64 “increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.” That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.

REP. PAUL: Well, we should do, we should do this at a federal level, at a federal lunch counter it’d be OK or for the military. Just think of how the government, you know, caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II. But when it comes, Tim, you’re, you’re, you’re not compelled in your house to invade strangers that you don’t like. So it’s a property rights issue. And this idea that all private property is under the domain of the federal government I think is wrong. So this–I think even Barry Goldwater opposed that bill on the same property rights position, and that–and now this thing is totally out of control. If you happen to like to smoke a cigar, you know, the federal government’s going to come down and say you’re not allowed to do this.

MR. RUSSERT: But you would vote against…

REP. PAUL: So it’s…

MR. RUSSERT: You would vote against the Civil Rights Act if, if it was today?

REP. PAUL: If it were written the same way, where the federal government’s taken over property–has nothing to do with race relations. It just happens, Tim, that I get more support from black people today than any other Republican candidate, according to some statistics. And I have a great appeal to people who care about personal liberties and to those individuals who would like to get us out of wars. So it has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.

23

“I hardly think a civil libertarian Rhodes scholar with an Oxford Dphil in Politics would have difficulty with his firearms retort.”

It wasn’t a retort, but a philosophical argument. If she even heard him make the argument, she didn’t acknowledge it. In any case, I’m sorry, but from listening to her over a period of time, I’m not impressed with her intelligence, although she obviously is impressed by it.

“Rachel has a job to do in her current capacity, and that job was to press him for an answer on whether or not the 1/10 of the Civil Rights Act would lead him to vote against its passage. She repeatedly pressed him, and he repeatedly ducked.”

No, he answered the question (saying that he would have supported the “totality”), and he gave the reasoning for his position. Is it not part of her job to find out not just whether, but also why? She just wanted to hear him repeat his objection to that one provision over and over in order to make sure even her most clueless leftist viewers got the point.

24

If you can point to where he gives any clear indication of his ultimate vote on the bill that passed, the discussion could end there. He was being asked if he would vote for it in spite of the title’s inclusion, and he never answered, choosing rather to raise the ‘philosophical argument’ re gun possession in bathrooms.

A simple yes or no, after explaining his philosophical objection, would suffice. Bills can, as you know, be amended and rewritten when certain objections persist; would he hold fast to his principle and vote no until the title was excised or amended, or would he have voted for its passage as written? Voters deserve clear, concise answers to these questions when put to Senatorial candidates.

It’s not a “gotcha” question, but rather a inquisition into how far one is willing to go in pursuit of their ideological goals. It’s relevant, and entirely legitimate to demand an answer to the question as put.

25

“Here is the part of the discussion I assume you were recalling…”

I remember that part, but I also think he said at some point that he would have supported the “totality” of the Act.

I can’t watch a video here, and the Huffington site doesn’t seems to have the entire discussion. (Besides, when I try to search there the ads take over and I have to kill my browser.) Do you have a link to a complete transcript? BTW, I only heard part of it myself, tuning in while I took a late-evening snack.

I have to say, BTW, that I agree completely with what I heard. Although I don’t think he mentioned it, the same would apply to sexual preference, too. The government should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference, but if a department store in the private sector refused to do business with me because I’m gay, that would be within their rights. It would also be within my rights to protest or to encourage my straight friends to boycott, and I’m sure I’d do so, but in a free society I could not interfere directly with their business. After all, I can’t expect my own freedoms to be respected if I don’t respect the freedoms of others.

26

No, he answered the question (saying that he would have supported the “totality”), and he gave the reasoning for his position.

Specifically, this is what he said:

MADDOW: Which side of that debate would you put yourself on?
PAUL: In the totality of it, I‘m in favor of the federal government
being involved in civil rights and that‘s, you know, mostly what the Civil
Rights Act was about. And that was ending institutional racism.

I think you misread, or misremembered. He clearly articulates what it is, in “totality,” that he favors, and that’s the federal government being involved* *in civil rights legislation as it relates to public, but not private, property. This does not in any way tell us how he would have cast his final vote on the legislation including the objectionable title. I suspect you would be a bit more demanding of straight answers from politicians of other stripes, were it not a Libertarian on the hot seat.

All of which is beside the point (save for my original point, that he refused to stand behind his principled opposition in clear terms); no one believes his opposition is based in anything other than Constitutional rights. No one is questioning his character. No thinking person believes his position will have any impact on Civil Rights as they currently exist whatsoever. It’s clear that he would have voted for nine of the ten titles, and against the tenth, given the opportunity to do so. And it’s clear, I think, that he would support legislation to repeal the title that enforces these provisions on private industry. This much he made clear, but as I wrote above, the line of questioning was put specifically to determine whether or not that singular objection would lead him to oppose that particular bill “in totality.” We still don’t know the answer to the question.

27

Here’s a link to the transcript. I think my last post covered the segment in question.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/37252841/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/

28

*"*I have to say, BTW, that I agree completely with what I heard. Although I don’t think he mentioned it, the same would apply to sexual preference, too. The government should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference, but if a department store in the private sector refused to do business with me because I’m gay, that would be within their rights. It would also be within my rights to protest or to encourage my straight friends to boycott, and I’m sure I’d do so, but in a free society I could not interfere directly with their business. After all, I can’t expect my own freedoms to be respected if I don’t respect the freedoms of others.

Your views are pretty well know on the subject, so without responding with a philosophical argument of your own, would you have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act as it was written, or would your opposition to the title in question lead you to ultimately vote against it?

29

he refused to stand behind his principled opposition in clear terms

IMHO, it sounded like he skillfully avoided giving her a soundbite that they would use to paint him as a racist, and she just ask skillfully avoided getting into a discussion around the role of government vis a vis private property and free speech.

.

30

It’s clear from his record, and from the multiple interviews, that concerns over being painted as a racist for giving a yes or no answer would be rooted in paranoia, which I don’t suspect he suffers from. The lefty blogs aren’t even pursuing that avenue, for the obvious reasons.

But at least we have acknowledgment that he artfully dodged. That’s a start, at least.

Do you have a clear idea from that interview whether or not he’d have voted as his father would have?

31

First, let me say that I just went through the transcript to which you linked, and after a careful reading, I have to agree with you: Rand Paul waffled on the issue. That’s unfortunate.

“without responding with a philosophical argument of your own, would you have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act as it was written, or would your opposition to the title in question lead you to ultimately vote against it?”

I would have voted against it if that provision was not amended.

Since I’m not allowed to include a philosophical argument, I suppose you don’t really care why or why not, which makes me wonder why my hypothetical vote would matter to you at all. (Yes, you know my views on proper government and law, but why I would vote a certain way if I were in Congress is a somewhat different question.)

32

Do you have a clear idea from that interview whether or not he’d have voted as his father would have?

Yes, I have a clear idea of how he would have voted, and I also have a clear idea of how much government control of private businesses and persons that the interviewer would like.

Do you also acknowledge that she artfully dodged?

.

33

First, let me say that I just went through the transcript to which you linked, and after a careful reading, I have to agree with you: Rand Paul waffled on the issue. That’s unfortunate.

Mark the date. :wink:

“without responding with a philosophical argument of your own, would you have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act as it was written, or would your opposition to the title in question lead you to ultimately vote against it?”

I would have voted against it if that provision was not amended.

Since I’m not allowed to include a philosophical argument, I suppose you don’t really care why or why not, which makes me wonder why my hypothetical vote would matter to you at all. (Yes, you know my views on proper government and law, but why I would vote a certain way if I were in Congress is a somewhat different question.)

A clear answer in only one sentence. Clearly, you have no future in politics.

Of course I care about the why’s or why not’s; it’s just that I already know (and respect) the Libertarian philosophical (and practical) argument against it, and don’t need further justification to accompany the answer. But you are correct in that the issue of whether or not to compromise on these practical matters serves the greater good, and I suspect your no vote stems from the foreseeable unintended consequences of encroachment. I’m interested in reading your accompanying rationale if my assumptions are incorrect.

34

Do you have a clear idea from that interview whether or not he’d have voted as his father would have?

Yes, I have a clear idea of how he would have voted, and I also have a clear idea of how much government control of private businesses and persons that the interviewer would like.

Do you also acknowledge that she artfully dodged?

.

How would he have, then? Do you agree with Rob, that he would have supported it “in totality” or do you, as I suspect, think he’d have voted against?

It’s irrelevant whether I think Rachel “dodged;” she’s the interviewer, not the candidate running for elected office. I articulated the question she was asking, and why the particular answer mattered. A digression into political philosophy doesn’t get us any closer to that answer, and she had only so much time to extract the answer. It seems all the time in the world wouldn’t have dragged it out of him, though.

35

“Clearly, you have no future in politics.”

Glad to know I dodged that bullet! :wink:

“But you are correct in that the issue of whether or not to compromise on these practical matters serves the greater good, and I suspect your no vote stems from the foreseeable unintended consequences of encroachment.”

The point I was thinking of is more general. Sometimes we’re faced with alternatives that have both good and evil in them. So how should one proceed in such cases? My viewpoint is that while compromise is sometimes appropriate (e.g., should Virginia get more Congressional representation than Rhode Island), you should never compromise where a basic moral principle is involved, because if you do so, the next time another issue involving the same principle comes up you will already have lost.

36

I think he would have voted for it, then fought to change the one Title. Especially at that time in history.

I think it is important that Rachel dodged the question/discussion about wether or not that Title was good law. Without the discussion, it is ‘assumed’, especially now, that the Civil Rights Act was wonderful law, and if he says that he would have voted against it, all you would hear is:

“He is against Civil Rights!”
“He is against Civil Rights!”
“He is against Civil Rights!”
“He is against Civil Rights!”

No, he is against government dictating what private citizens do in their own home or business. But that would never come up again.

It’s like the current Wall St. ‘reform’ bill. Voting against it is “Supporting Wall St. fat cats who destroyed the economy!”, not against billions of dollars in bailout funds and greater government control of private business, all the while it’s the government and government enterprises (FHA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) that need reforming.

.

37

Having read the transcript, how do you read his position on the final vote, should he have been in a position to cast one?

I really think the question matters greatly, and though I’m sure you know why, others seem to think it’s nothing more than a gotcha question designed to embarrass. If people are embarrassed by the positions their principals lead them to, then perhaps they should reconsider their principles, no?

His final vote matters, and should be illuminated, because it tells his potential future constituents whether he’s the sort (pardon the mixed metaphor) to throw out the baby with the bath water, or if, as the en vogue saying goes, he’s unwilling to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If Rand Paul would be willing to obstruct a monumental bill that is all but universally recognized as among the most important pieces of legislation in American history, because of his own personal philosophical objections–ones that the majority of his constituents do not hold themselves–then the voters need to know this about him. They deserve a straight answer, with explanation, on what his final vote would be. I agree with you; it’s disappointing that he appears to hold an opinion rooted in principle, yet is elusive about how it would affect his vote, and the lives of his constituents.

Maddow, and every other journalist who’s raised the issue, is absolutely justified in pressing the point exactly as it has been. The answer to that specific question tells us more about what kind of Senator he will and will not be than do his expositions on political philosophy. Votes, not opinions, are what matter.

38

Again, I think he’s more than adequately covered his bases there. The real issue, I suspect, is that his position on that point (as well as his opinion on the ADA) is unpopular even among the majority of Republicans. He is, without question, very much in the political wilderness on these two points; his father, at least, had the chutzpah to give his coordinates when asked.

Telling Maddow he’d have voted for it, and why, then worked to repeal a particular provision, is a perfectly defensible answer.

39

Interesting damage control from the Paul camp (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/pauls-views-on-civil-rights-cause-a-stir/?hp):

Mr. Paul’s campaign issued a statement this morning in response to the uproar over his remarks. In it, he said that he supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the landmark anti-discrimination law. :
“I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person,” he said. “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.”
Mr. Paul disputed the claim by opponents that he would support repealing the Civil Rights Act.
“These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign,” he said.
And in an interview on “Good Morning America” on ABC, Mr. Paul argued that his decision to hold his election night celebration at a fancy country club was not in any way at variance with the grass-roots movement he has now come to epitomize. And in the process of explaining his decision, Mr. Paul invoked Tiger Woods, the golfer.
“I think at one time, people used to think of golf and golf clubs and golf courses as being exclusive,” Mr. Paul said, adding, “Tiger Woods has helped to broaden that, in the sense that he’s brought golf to a lot of the cities and to city youth.”

“staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person” would be truthful: he defends the rights of the businessman to deny service to anyone he chooses. But that’s not what Joe the Plumber would hear, is it?

He knows that the majority of Americans don’t understand what Rob C. understands about libertarian views on rights, and that to be blunt about those views would have that majority label him a racist/sexist/whateverist. He knows that to say that a businessman should have the right to refuse service would be political suicide at this point in history.

And that bit about golf? I’m not seeing the connection between what he said and the fact that he held his celebration at an exclusive place. Just because there are non-exclusive golf clubs and courses doesn’t mean that this particular one is in that set. Sounds like a John Edwards $400 haircut thing.

40

I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Well, that’s somewhat helpful, yet it still doesn’t answer the question of whether or not he would’ve voted for its passage, presumably for the same reasons Rob says he would not have, just as Rob’s direct answer to that question provides no definitive answer to the question of whether or not he (Rob) would now support an effort to repeal it.

Pretty sad that that’s as close to clarity as we should expect from a politician.

I inferred from his interviews that he would, in fact, oppose it–hence his expositions on the proper role of government and private property–but was hesitant to come right out and say it. Odd that the two Libertarian-leaning respondents to my post inferred the opposite, despite any clear signal to that end, and despite the fact that it violates a core principal of Libertarianism. Wishful thinking, maybe?