Rand Paul Goes to Howard

[TruthOut10]

The Republican Party is struggling with its future. Will it be a regional, Congressional party fighting a last-gasp battle for a shrinking base in a David and Goliath war against ominously expanding federal government? Or will it become a national, presidential party capable of adapting to a new American reality of diversity and expression in which the government serves an essential function in regulating public safety, providing a safety net and serving as a safeguard against discrimination?


Senator Rand Paul is trying to find a balance between the two. The same week that a dozen defiant senators threatened to filibuster any new gun control legislation, Paul ventured across Washington to historically black Howard University and gave a speech aimed at outreach and bridge building.

The man is mulling a presidential run after all.

The speech was a dud. It was a clipped-tail history lesson praising the civil rights record of the pre-Southern Strategy Republican Party, while slamming the concurrent record of the Democrats.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/opinion/blow-rand-paul-goes-to-howard.html?_r=1&

 

[TruthOut10]

So please quit posting multiple threads asking why Blacks voted for Obama and not the Republicans, this article gives plenty of examples of why we didn't vote for Romney or '08 for McCain.

So please stop whining already!!

 

[TruthOut10]

"It's a mischaracterization of my position. I've never been against the Civil Rights Act, ever, and I continue to be for the Civil Rights Act as well as the Voting Rights Act. There was a long, one interview that had a long, extended conversation about the ramifications beyond race, and I have been concerned about the ramifications of certain portions of the Civil Rights Act beyond race, as they are now being applied to smoking, menus, listing calories and things on menus, and guns. And so I do question some of the ramifications and the extensions but I never questioned the Civil Rights Act and never came out in opposition to the Civil Rights Act or ever introduced anything to alter the Civil Rights Act."

— Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), during a speech at Howard University, April 10, 2013

There’s an old rule in politics: If it’s too complicated to explain, you are probably in trouble.

Paul, a potential GOP candidate for the 2016 presidential election, gave an interesting speech on Wednesday to historically black Howard University, but his remarks were overshadowed by his attempt to explain the controversy over his 2010 comments on the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“I have never wavered in my support for civil rights and the Civil Rights Act,” he said in his speech. “The dispute, if there is one, has always been about how much of the remedy should come under federal or state or private purview.”

But then Paul expanded on his remarks in the question-and-answer period, saying in response to a tough question that he had been concerned really only about the “ramifications and extensions” of the Civil Rights Act. We sought an explanation from Paul’s staff but did not get a response. So let’s go to the video tape!





The Facts


The Civil Rights Act was pushed by President Lyndon Johnson but likely would not have become law without the shrewd legislative gamesmanship of then-Senate Republican leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois. Dirksen figured out a way to bring along wavering Republicans, in order to break a lengthy filibuster led by Southern Democrats, by carefully tweaking a House bill to reduce federal intervention in local matters — but not enough to force a rewriting of the whole bill in the House.

As an interesting history by the Dirksen Center notes: “The substitute gave higher priority to voluntary compliance than the House bill. It encouraged more private, rather than official, legal initiatives.” Indeed, thanks to Dirksen’s leadership, a larger percentage of Republican senators than Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act — 82 percent (27 in favor and 6 opposed) versus 69 percent (46 in favor and 21 opposed).

The problem for Paul started when the Louisville Courier-Journal placed on its Web site an April 17, 2010, interview between Paul and the paper’s editorial board. Presumably that is the extended interview that Paul referenced. We have embedded the relevant section below and have highlighted the key sections.

Rand Paul?s rewriting of his own remarks on the Civil Rights Act - The Washington Post

 

[TruthOut10]

Tea party titan Rand Paul, visiting Howard University on Wednesday, told students that he had been called “either brave or crazy to be here” at the historically black college.

Probably some of each: brave, because he’s trying to sell himself and fellow Republicans to African Americans, a singularly resistant demographic; and crazy, because he based his pitch on revised history and airbrushed facts — and the Howard kids weren’t fooled.

“No Republican questions or disputes civil rights,” the senator from Kentucky proclaimed. “I’ve never wavered in my support for civil rights or the Civil Rights Act.”

Howzat?

As a candidate in 2010, Paul questioned the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act’s Title II, which prohibits private discrimination. “I don’t want to be associated with those people,” he said when MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow asked him about private businesses that refuse to serve black customers, “but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things freedom requires.”

Asked by the moderator to explain his claim that he never spoke out against the Civil Rights Act, Paul provided the creative rationale that he was talking “about the ramifications of certain portions of the Civil Rights Act beyond race, as are now being applied to smoking, menus, listing calories and things on menus and guns.”

Paul acknowledged that his wooing of African Americans “is an uphill battle,” and his hour with the students confirmed this. Talking about the Republicans’ historical support for civil rights, he said: “I’ll give you one example. The first, one of the African American U.S. senators was a guy named, uh, I’m blanking on his name, from Massachusetts — ”

“Edward Brooke!” several in the audience called out.

“Edwin Brookes,” Paul repeated.

The students broke out in hysterics. The laughter had barely subsided when Paul posed a question. “If I were to have said, ‘Who do you think the founders of the NAACP are?’ . . . would everybody in here know they were all Republicans?”

“Yes,” several could be heard grumbling. “Of course they would,” one woman informed him.

Paul dug himself in deeper. “I don’t know what you know,” he said.

Dana Milbank: Rand Paul goes to Howard U in peace, receives quiet - The Washington Post

 

[ABikerSailor]

Quick question...................wanna talk about how Rand Paul supports segregation for small business?

Apparently, if you own your own place, you can tell the blacks to get out if you don't like them.

I hope Rand Paul loses every election he has from this day forward.

 

[TruthOut10]

Ron Paul's fans finally got what they wanted -- the media has stopped ignoring Ron Paul -- but it hasn't been as fun as they hoped. Like every other serious candidate, Paul has to suffer through people digging up every weird in his past. Anyone following the Republican presidential primary knows Paul wants to end the Federal Reserve and get out of Afghanistan. But not that many people know his pitch to potential subscribers to his newsletters back in the 1990s warned of a "coming race war."

Reuters' Mark Hosenball and Samuel P. Jacobs report Friday that the letter explain that Paul's newsletters offer tips on "how you can save yourself and your family" from the IRS once "New Money" is issued. It was written in the '90s -- not the 1890s! -- and it's signed "Congressman Ron Paul." Some really interesting passages from the eight-page letter, posted in full by Reuters (the highlighted bits on their scanned original):



And then there's the part that mentions the "race war":


Ron Paul Discovers the Downside of Media Attention - Elspeth Reeve - The Atlantic Wire