»» Columnists

KY Dem Nominee Jack Conway Accuses Rand Paul Of Opposing The Civil Rights Act

video

by Frances Martel | 8:20 pm, May 19th, 2010

» 42 comments

And we’re off! Just shy of 24 hours after winning the nomination of their respective parties, Kentucky Senate candidates Jack Conway and Rand Paul started up their general elections campaigns, still in the glare of the national spotlight. Conway visited Chris Matthews on Hardball today to explain how he would make the people of his state see his opponent as someone outside of the mainstream. Easy, he explained: Paul opposes the Civil Rights Act.

Conway listed a series of issues which Paul was against, including the Civil Rights Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the Department of Agriculture and Education:

He isn’t the first to make the claim and wasn’t even the last to do so on this episode of Hardball, with a supposedly damning Paul interview– an appearance from earlier today on NPR– making the rounds on Twitter. Except, regardless of what he may privately believe, Paul hasn’t publicly expressed outright opposition to the Civil Rights Act– or, at least, the part of the Civil Rights Act it would be scandalous not to support. Paul was asked about previous statements he made calling the Americans with Disabilities Act an overreach and, specifically, “Would you say the same, by extension, of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?” Paul gives a lengthy answer on how much he disagrees with institutional racism, and admits that he hasn’t even read all of the Civil Rights Act, not having found it too pertinent to the Kentucky Senate campaign, but that he believes it is possible it have been an overreach. Not exactly a passionate assault on the virtues of the Civil Rights Act. Neither is the interview Conway cites with the Louisville Courier-Journal, in which, again, Paul opposes discrimination. Below is the NPR interview, in which Paul is asked specifically about the Civil Rights Act:

Paul is scheduled to appear on The O’Reilly Factor and The Rachel Maddow show tonight, where at this point the topic is sure to come up, and a chat with those two to be nothing if not a spirited discussion.

2010 election, civil rights act, Hardball, Jack Conway, Kentucky, Kentucky Senate, msnbc, NPR, Rand Paul

ImNotBlue

No smear is too great or outlandish to be propped up by Chris Matthews. He’s still just trying to keep his head above water… and he’ll do anything he has to.
MichelleF

Frances,
As painful as it it, I’m watching him on Maddow’s show and you should post his response. The left is trying to spin this into something that just isn’t there. The only problem he has is the part that talks about private institutions and what their rights are. He’s saying that he may abhore what someone says, but does that mean they don’t have a right to say it. He’s leary of gov’t overreach and only said if he had been around at the time, he would’ve like to have further discussion on the private institution portion.
http://www.youtube.com/cmdrgmh cmdrgmh

He (Rand Paul) was just on Rachel Maddow and stated that private owners of restaurants should not be forced to serve blacks. He disagreed with that part of the Civil Rights Act that allowed desegregation of lunch counters. I will be posting this interview later tonight. This guy is toast.
CollegeLibAdultConserv

Paul is not in favor institutional racism. Point. Period. Finished. It’s beyond me how Maddow can call herself a progressive or intellectual and at the same time not admit to the fact that the overreach Paul addresses in his view of the Civil Rights Act is not an overt statement in favor of racism, but one of many examples of an ideological viewpoint (popular among true conservatives) that good government intentions can tread (if not overstep) constitutional lines. Trying to pidgin-hole Paul’s viewpoint into a racist claim is irresponsible journalism. And tonight was the first time I’ve put more than a moment into Maddow, and she elucidated for me why hers is the only show on MSNBC I do not enjoy…because she’s not very smart or interesting. Blanket agendas and those that carry them out never are. (And blanket agendas are all over FOX. That’s why I prefer MSNBC shows (except Maddow’) over other commentary news programs.)
MichelleF

cmdrgmh says:
May 19, 2010 at 9:50 pm
He (Rand Paul) was just on Rachel Maddow and stated that private owners of restaurants should not be forced to serve blacks. He disagreed with that part of the Civil Rights Act that allowed desegregation of lunch counters. I will be posting this interview later tonight. This guy is toast.

He’s only toast in the eyes of people who want to misrepresent what he said. I watched it to. The lib media will do everything they can to spin it into something it wasn’t, that’s just what they do. Those who are capable of thinking for themselves will listen to what he really said and agree or disagree based on his words and not lib spin. .
http://www.tnta.us linqignquannnn

Look http://www.tnta.us
http://www.thecobraslair.com Cobra

Michelle F writes:

“He’s only toast in the eyes of people who want to misrepresent what he said. I watched it to. The lib media will do everything they can to spin it into something it wasn’t, that’s just what they do. Those who are capable of thinking for themselves will listen to what he really said and agree or disagree based on his words and not lib spin. “

For once I agree with you. There are PLENTY of mostly White Conservatives in America (particularly on this blog) who would agree with Rand Paul that private business owners should be able to discriminate against Blacks and other minorities. Those same folks want to celebrate Confederate History Month in Virginia without mentioning slavery, or demand citizenship from brown people they have “reasonable suspicion” about.

Yes, MichelleF, Rand Paul indeed is not “toast” with a sizable segment of today’s GOP.

–Cobra
http://www.thecobraslair.com Cobra

College lib,

Do you support the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Yes or No.

Simple question.

—Cobra
http://www.youtube.com/cmdrgmh cmdrgmh

There is no gray area here people. You never ever ever trust a business before the 60′s in the south mostly to allow blacks at the time eat at lunch counters and other businesses without the Federal Civil Rights Act. Not part of it, the Whole thing. Why do you think it was done??? You all know the answer to that. If you have a wannabe congressman who thinks that any part of the Civil Rights Act is debatable in any way shape or form, then there is a Big Problem, and thats exactly what this guy is saying. Some things are NOT debatable and this is one of them. Anyone that thinks that Civil Rights are debatable, are pure idiots.
CollegeLibAdultConserv

Yes – There, and so does Paul. He just can’t say it because he’s sticking to what he should, and truly conservative position.
CollegeLibAdultConserv

Civil Rights are not debatable, cmdrgh. But to polarize a politician’s viewpoint of the constitution is not going to forward a discussion on the issues that is really on Paul’s mind…the 2nd amendment.
http://www.thecobraslair.com Cobra

CollegeLibAdultConserv says:

“Yes – There, and so does Paul. He just can’t say it because he’s sticking to what he should, and truly conservative position.”

Rand Paul did NOT answer “Yes” when posed the same question. If the “truly conservative position” on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is “No”, then why would anybody who believes in Civil Rights for all Americans vote for a “true conservative” like Rand Paul?

If Paul is “afraid” to say he would support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it’s “politically inconvenient”, then what the hell else is he afraid to say about his beliefs?

–Cobra
CollegeLibAdultConserv

He’s very brave, in fact, to not allow an interviewer to polarize his position on the role of government in single issue. He said he would have brought more debate to the Civil Rights Discussion if in gov at the time. If Maddow was not trying to trap him into yes or no on that issue, something of substance might have come from the interview to broaden our understanding of his stance. I took that his view was not racist, but in protection of the 2nd amendment. But, here we are, talking about it, so I guess something did come from it.
http://www.thecobraslair.com Cobra

CollegLiAdultConserv writes:

“He’s very brave, in fact, to not allow an interviewer to polarize his position on the role of government in single issue. “

The “brave” answer would’ve have been to say he would’ve voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on civil libertarian grounds.

CLAC writes:

“He said he would have brought more debate to the Civil Rights Discussion if in gov at the time. If Maddow was not trying to trap him into yes or no on that issue, something of substance might have come from the interview to broaden our understanding of his stance.”

“More debate”, means what? DEBATING that private businesses operating in the public should have been allowed to continue to discriminate against Blacks and other minority groups. Well, yes, that would’ve certainly been a “brave” political position to take in 2010 America.

Again, I’m not ruling out how popular a position that would be among White conservatives in the GOP. David Duke was elected to the Louisiana State Legislature you know, and Kentucky is a Red Southern State. But throw that in with abolishing Social Security, Medicare, the Department of Education and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and I think Jack Conway has a few angles to work on here, don’t you?

—Cobra
CollegeLibAdultConserv

Cobra, I’m sure we agree on a lot about this. Though I have many Libertarian views, I have lots of liberal (dare I say socialist) views too (I’m a mixed bag of ideology). The problem I have is, I haven’t heard that question asked: “Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?” I don’t have a transcript, so if that question was asked, my bad. I would think he would (or should) have answered, “Yes, if discussion was had on the the potential precedent being set to infringe on free speech, and lucid points were made as to why this particular vote would not set that precedent…yes, I would have voted in favor.” Now, please understand, my disdain comes from a poor interview that, in my view, attempted to polarize and pidgin-hole Paul as racist. He’s not a racist, but believes in limited government and strict adherence to the constitution.
The Real Royal King

I’ve been to enough country clubs like the one at which Paul had his celebratory feast to know that civil rights is just not an issue. All of the African American waiters and cleaning staff are very happy in their jobs.
The Real Royal King

I assume Paul also wants to repeal the Voting Rights Act. After all, why shouldn’t one of those dear sweet old Republican women was run the polling stations be able to refuse to deal with African-Americans?
http://gordonbloyershow.com gordonbloyershow

RRK, when will you read anything other than Das Kapital or Mao’s Red Book?
Cubby

CollegeLibAdultConserv: You seem to be the kind of person who can respectfully debate the issues without being a jerk; someone who can state your case in a rational and mature way, yet still find common ground with people. My point is – WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING HERE? Don’t you know we’re in the middle of a culture war? PICK A SIDE!
Rogue-Comic

The Real Royal King says:
May 19, 2010 at 11:27 pm
“I’ve been to enough country clubs like the one at which Paul had his celebratory feast . . .”

By your own words, your no better than what you accuse Paul of.
puck30

I watched the last half of it, funny Maddow never brought this up before when she had Rand Paul on, why?
Rand Paul is not toast as any clear thinking person would think about this.

As Maddow and those on the left would love to take us back to the 60′s, anybody that opened a lunch counter today and only wanted to serve a certain color. It would spread like wildfire through the internet in no time, and that place would not be open very long.

I had an Uncle who worked for a vending co. in the 60′s & 70′s in Newark. He had to go to some places early in the morning because being white meant an automatic beatdown. Does segregation still go on today? You would have have your head in the sand to say no, and also it still cuts both ways. The difference between today and the 60′s & 70′s is a lot of people have come together and said this is BS.

What Rand Paul is trying to state is, I might not agree with you but you have a right to do with your ‘Private’ buisness as you see fit. And let’s get real, how long would a ‘White only’ or ‘Blacks Only’ or ‘Spanish Only’ or your choice Resturant stay open? Go ahead open one, see how long it lasts.

I didn’t hear if the question came up with the “Do you support Civil Rights 64″ but something was said about Rand supporting 9 out of 10 things with the bill and this part he thinks should have been discussed further, and that’s what Maddow tried to drive home. Yes Rand, your pal just hit you with the knife in the back.

It was a great interview, I think what Rand has to worry about is neither party wants a Libertarian in Congress.
as we will probably see tomorrow night on ‘The Factor’.
puck30

The Real Royal King says:
May 19, 2010 at 11:29 pm
I assume Paul also wants to repeal the Voting Rights Act.

It would be nice if you watched the interview before dropping that dribble. That statement is flat out ignorant, thank God there are the world is filling up with open minded folks that see through crap that your pals at MSNBC or FNC prime try to push.
MichelleF

Cobra,
Take your racist bile somewhere else, it’s getting old.
MichelleF

CollegeLibAdultConserv, I wouldn’t try reasoning with Cobra, it’s not possible. All he’s knows how to do is project his racist feelings onto others. You will not be able to have a rational discussion with him, I’ve tried.
http://www.thecobraslair.com Cobra

Puck30 writes:

“I watched the last half of it, funny Maddow never brought this up before when she had Rand Paul on, why?”

Rand Paul brought this on himself with his answers in both the Louisville Courier-Journal and the NPR interview posted on this blog. Do you dispute this?

Puck30 writes:

“Rand Paul is not toast as any clear thinking person would think about this.

As Maddow and those on the left would love to take us back to the 60’s, anybody that opened a lunch counter today and only wanted to serve a certain color. It would spread like wildfire through the internet in no time, and that place would not be open very long.”

What makes you think that in a nation of 320+ million, you couldn’t succeed as a niche market exclusive lunch counter? Hell, given some of the posters to this blog, I would think a Whites only lunch counter would be quite popular. The fact is, Rand Paul, and his father Ron believe that such lunch counters are constitutional. Don’t take my word for it. Read or listen to Paul’s answers.

“I didn’t hear if the question came up with the “Do you support Civil Rights 64″ but something was said about Rand supporting 9 out of 10 things with the bill and this part he thinks should have been discussed further, and that’s what Maddow tried to drive home. Yes Rand, your pal just hit you with the knife in the back.”</i"

You still don't get it. That's the same argument that LOST back in 1964. "Discussed further", means that Rand Paul would've more than likely have supported the fillibuster led by Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats to prevent the CRA of 1964 from coming to a vote.

Now, the big secret plot that nobody wants to mention about private businesses having the ability to discriminate on race, ethnicity, gender etc is that by and large, Conservatives are on this "shink the size of government and privatize EVERYTHING" kick. It's more than just "lunch counters." Take for example, HEALTH INSURANCE. The overwhelming MAJORITY of conservatives are against government run health insurance, claiming that the "private sector" should run everything. Without the CRA of 1964 edict on private businesses, what stops ANY private insurance company from discriminating against groups? I can see it now…

"Blacks, on average, have higher rates of high blood pressure, which makes them less profitable, so let's discriminate against them."

Apply that to Bank lending, real estate, private universities, and you start to see the big picture Puck. Despite your claims that America would never tolerate racial discrimination, it damn sure tolerated it from 1776 to 1964.

–Cobra
http://www.thecobraslair.com Cobra

CollegeLibAdultConserv,

As an aside, I enjoy your posts. and agree with Cubby…you are thoroughly reasonable in your opinions and statements. I’m sure we could find PLENTY of points to agree with.

MichelleF,

Do you support the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Yes or No.

–Cobra
MichelleF

Cobra,
Are you a racist? Yes or No. Can a black person be a racist? Yes or No. I’ve been asking you those questions for a while and am still waiting for answers.
BowenIsland

MichelleF says:

“I wouldn’t try reasoning with Cobra”

I’m waiting for him to try and draw a link between now between SB 1070 , Jan Brewer , Rand Paul and the vast right wing conspiracy.

Frankly , I’m cuckoo for Cobra Puffs.
MichelleF

And I forget, Cobra, did more Republicans or Dem’s support the Civil Rights Act?
puck30

Michelle here’s the point they miss. Because of smaller government, more states rights and individual freedom they can go to a town and have the freedom to open up a ‘I Hate Conservatives’ restaurant as a private buisness and they would be fully protected to do so.

They could check ID’s at the door and if your voting card didn’t say liberal they could refuse to let you in.

Wonder how long that would last? But they would have the freedom to do it.

The one difference, they couldn’t get a federal government grant to open it. Now if the state they lived in was very liberal. Then I suppose they could get a state grant or a local grant.

It would be a form of segregation, but they would be happy. I think.
MichelleF

This is the problem with Libs. Rand was trying to make a larger point, but libs aren’t capable of doing that. They immediately jump to “you’re a racist”, “you’re a homophone”. They can’t have a discussion of anything beyond the surface. It’s too bad they have no confidence in their positions and have to rely on identity politics to try to win voters. Well, I’m through banging my head against the wall for tonight. As I’ve said before Cobra, I hope one day you can let go of all your hate. Let it go man!
puck30

Apply that to Bank lending, real estate, private universities, and you start to see the big picture Puck. Despite your claims that America would never tolerate racial discrimination, it damn sure tolerated it from 1776 to 1964.

–Cobra

I guess you just love living in the past, to bad blind hatred makes you not see the big picture. Take any of those buisnesses but replace it with something other than white. Guess what pal, you have the right to do it.
Other than people who want to live in the past and keep everybody divided for your own means. See how long that Bank or that Restaurant or whatever stays open.

Or is it what you are saying that people other then whites are to stupid to do these things? Cause what you just said is that anybody other then whites are too stupid and without the help of Government can’t stand on their own. You’ll have the freedom to open up whatever you want. Go ahead Cobra, open up your F**k All Conservatives Restaurant.

And who is the backward racist here?
puck30

MichelleF says:
May 20, 2010 at 12:57 am

As I’ve said before Cobra, I hope one day you can let go of all your hate. Let it go man!

I really doubt it Michelle, he’s a fringe hater and thats where he wants to live. To me he’s just like the Pawn Vannity zombies. It’s just he lives down on the other end of the street. Matthews Lane.
puck30

BTW: I’m done I’m out of here.

Later All.
yinyin

FASHION CLOTHING,JERSEY,NFL WASHINGTON REDSKINS,NFL TENNESSEE TITANS,NFL-ST LOUIS RAMS,NLF-SEATTLE SEAHAWKS,NFL-SAN FRANCISCO

49ERS,NFL-SAN DIEGO CHARGERS,NFL-PITTSBURGH STEELERS,NFL-PHILADELPHIA EAGLES,NFL OKLANDRAIDERS,NFL-MINNESOTA VIKINGS,NFL

MIAMI DOLPHINS,NFL KANSAS CITY CHIEFS,NFL-DENVER BRONCOS,NFL DALLAS COWBOYS,NFL CLEVELAND BROWNS,NFL CINCINNATI BENGALS,NFL

CHICAGO BEARS,NFL CAROLINA PANTHERS,NFL BALTIMORE RAVENS,NFL ATLANTA FALCONS,NFL ARIZOA CARDINALS,

NFL NEW YOUK JETS,NFL GREEN BAY PAC
http://www.fashionsports.org
notsofast

I love it!

Right out of the gate, the demturd plays the race card!

So predictable!
notsofast

MichelleF says:
May 20, 2010 at 12:49 am

Cobra,
Are you a racist? Yes or No”

You have to ask? He is one of the biggest racists here!
http://www.thecobraslair.com Cobra

Michelle F writes:

Are you a racist? Yes or No. Can a black person be a racist? Yes or No. I’ve been asking you those questions for a while and am still waiting for answers.”

What’s your definition of “racism”, Michelle?

Dictionary.com has this:

racism /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled[rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

If THOSE are the definitions we can agree upon, then I’m not a “racist.” I don’t believe that I, as a Black person am superior to Whites, Asians or Native Americans nor they superior to me. I don’t believe that government or private businesses operating in the public domain should be allowed to discriminate against people based upon race or ethnicity. I don’t hate other races. I’m not intolerant of folks who are different.

I support the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

“In 1964, the United States passed one of its strongest civil rights laws in history, the Civil Rights Act. The act bans discrimination because of a person’s color, race, national origin, religion, or sex; it primarily protects the rights of African Americans and other minorities. Major features of the Civil Rights Act include the freedom to vote and use hotels, restaurants, theaters, parks, and all other public places. The law also encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the withdrawal of federal funds from programs practicing discrimination. Other major features included the prohibition of job discrimination and the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission.”

America PRACTICED those types of racial discriminations for centuries, Michelle, before this Act was passed. You can argue with me about my philosophies all you wish. You have a right to your opinion. You don’t have a right to your own facts about American History.

MichelleF writes:

“And I forget, Cobra, did more Republicans or Dem’s support the Civil Rights Act?”

More Democrats…because there were MORE Democrats in Congress at the Time.

“House of Representatives:
Democrats for: 152
Democrats against: 96
Republicans for: 138
Republicans against: 34

Senate:
Democrats for: 46
Democrats against: 21
Republicans for: 27
Republicans against: 6″

Rand Paul would’ve been an “AGAINST” vote. You understand that, Michelle?

What would YOUR vote have been? How about you, Puck30? Notsofast?

This blind allegience to Party affiliation some of you folks adhere to doesn’t reflect well on your arguments.

–Cobra
writer

Once again, Cobra, you ignore that percentage-wise, more Republicans voted for civil rights. And while you’ll gladly condemn all present day Republicans for any negative votes cast forty years ago, you don’t do the same with the dems. It was the dems who were filibustering against the civil rights bill, and a republican who broke the filibuster. But just forget all of that. A handful of Republicans voted against the bill? Hold it against the entire party for a lifetime. Dems filibustered against it? Forgive and forget.
The_Reasonable_Lib

writer says:
May 20, 2010 at 11:15 am
And yet the people that are running in the Republican party now are the ones that say that they oppose or would oppose it. Ronald Reagan ring a bell? Yeah, I thought as much. Stop trying to ride in on the same old ticket. If you tell your spouse what you did for them ten years ago they’ll ask you what have you done for them lately. NOTHING!!!! Under Clinton, unemployment amongst blacks and hispanics was the lowest on record. Welfare rolls were lower. Bush gets in office and they both go up, so who’s really making people dependent on them?
http://www.tnta.us lixiaolongnnnnnn

Look look look http://www.tnta.us/index.asp
Nachi

Uneducated GOPster hillbillies who never grow.