EXCLUSIVE: Rand Paul sounds off to Salon on race, 2016, Hillary and Republicans

[NACBA]

With an eye on a potential 2016 bid for the White House, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul continues to test whether his libertarian-leaning message can attract new voters to the Republican Party. His appearance on liberal commentator Bill Maher’s HBO talk show last Friday (along with this interview) helped fuel the notion that unlike most other key figures from either major party, Paul is willing to talk with audiences who may not be disposed to agree with him.

Of course, there are plenty who scoff at the idea of a Tea Party icon being the face of a sweeping coalition. Skepticism has been especially fierce — including at this site — when Paul has attempted to reach out to African-American voters, with critics noting Paul’s disapproval (as a Senate candidate four years ago) of a key provision of the 1964 Civil Right Act barring discrimination among private business.

On the other hand, for a younger generation of voters feeling ignored by Democrats, Paul’s present-day position on U.S. drug laws and criminal justice reforms have appeal:

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/20/exclusive_rand_paul_sounds_off_to_salon_on_race_20 16_hillary_and_republicans/

[NACBA]

When it comes to race, how do you explain to potential new supporters some past controversies – like your comments on the Civil Rights Act and a former aide’s neo-Confederate past — that you know Democrats and others will bring up should you seek the White House?

Well, I think that I simply point to my record. I don’t think there has been anybody who has been a bigger defender of minority rights in the Congress than myself, and that’s not saying others aren’t trying as well. But I think you can see a history and a litany of bills that I’ve put forward to not only restore voting rights, but to try to prevent people from the tragedy of losing their employability through felony convictions and other things.

People will always do things for partisan purposes, and I think some of that drummed up in the beginning for partisan purposes when I was running for office. But no, I don’t think there’s anything out there that people are going to say, “Oh, look at this, this means that you’re a racist,” or something, and I think if they do, they probably pigeonhole themselves as being unreasonable by making that kind of comment.

[philipped]

When it comes to race, how do you explain to potential new supporters some past controversies – like your comments on the Civil Rights Act and a former aide’s neo-Confederate past — that you know Democrats and others will bring up should you seek the White House?

It's come up two different times with two different people and it's specifically this. I attempted to explained private property rights to the best of my ability and explained Rand's position is NOT opposing the entire legislation. His position is stressing he thinks it's wrong GOVERMENT is forcing private business owners to work with who they prefer not too. During the time of the discussion for Rand was about the Civil Rights 1964 Act but this same thing can be applied today to those wishing to be married as homosexuals and church officials are choosing not too. Or earlier this year or late last year I remember hearing homosexual couples suing business owners for "discrimination" due to the owners refusing to have their cakes made.

Some see money for money, some see who they get their money from as part of the money. Any who allows GAY MARRIAGE to affect their lives is living with their heads in the sand. Even though the courts and all that are doing it one way, even if it was through legislation, if you're not gay, you're not going to get a gay marriage correct? Free country concept is still accepted so if you don't want to go or participate or assist in it taking place you don't have to.

People get private property rights but until I clarified it most took Paul's position out of context just like MSNBC wanted. Everyone in this forum knows it's not easy to distinguish or even begin the discussion that half a centuries worth of excessive govt. intervention is not in the individuals favor. But for the most part I'll say that I think Rand will just have to clarify that GOVERNMENT has no jurisdiction telling a private business owner who to choose to deal with. People act like govt. is the only entity that can do things that WE as humans can easily do. If the local cake shop refused to serve gays before I'd ask for government assistance I would personally attempt to suck their revenue streams dry by telling everyone.

Maybe I'm just being a naive young kid again :(

[torchbearer]

If you believe in the freedom of association, you believe in the freedom of disassocation.
Like forcing a baker to cook a cake for a gay couple. It is his freaking cake shop. He will suffer the financial pitfalls or rewards of such a decision.
But either way, no one has the right to force people to associate.

[eleganz]

Please just quote the entire piece and break the link so we don't have to clink on junk sites like Salon, Huffpo, and ThinkProgress to get Rand news.

[jmdrake]

It's come up two different times with two different people and it's specifically this. I attempted to explained private property rights to the best of my ability and explained Rand's position is NOT opposing the entire legislation. His position is stressing he thinks it's wrong GOVERMENT is forcing private business owners to work with who they prefer not too. During the time of the discussion for Rand was about the Civil Rights 1964 Act but this same thing can be applied today to those wishing to be married as homosexuals and church officials are choosing not too. Or earlier this year or late last year I remember hearing homosexual couples suing business owners for "discrimination" due to the owners refusing to have their cakes made.

Some see money for money, some see who they get their money from as part of the money. Any who allows GAY MARRIAGE to affect their lives is living with their heads in the sand. Even though the courts and all that are doing it one way, even if it was through legislation, if you're not gay, you're not going to get a gay marriage correct? Free country concept is still accepted so if you don't want to go or participate or assist in it taking place you don't have to.

People get private property rights but until I clarified it most took Paul's position out of context just like MSNBC wanted. Everyone in this forum knows it's not easy to distinguish or even begin the discussion that half a centuries worth of excessive govt. intervention is not in the individuals favor. But for the most part I'll say that I think Rand will just have to clarify that GOVERNMENT has no jurisdiction telling a private business owner who to choose to deal with. People act like govt. is the only entity that can do things that WE as humans can easily do. If the local cake shop refused to serve gays before I'd ask for government assistance I would personally attempt to suck their revenue streams dry by telling everyone.

Maybe I'm just being a naive young kid again :(


If you believe in the freedom of association, you believe in the freedom of disassocation.
Like forcing a baker to cook a cake for a gay couple. It is his freaking cake shop. He will suffer the financial pitfalls or rewards of such a decision.
But either way, no one has the right to force people to associate.

And ^that is how you actually explain Rand Paul's position on the CRA. Don't play the stupid Stossel game about blacks being forced to serve klansman. Talk about religious people being forced forced to participate, in some form or fashion, in gay weddings. Despite Obama's best efforts, blacks, as a group, are less supportive of gay marriage than whites. And even those who support gay marriage are more likely to be supportive of those who don't and don't want to participate. The CRA currently doesn't support sexual preference but I expect that to change eventually either legislatively or by the courts eventually deciding that sexual preference = gender or sexual preference = ethnicity. That said, Rand Paul never said he'd vote against the CRA even in part.

[jmdrake]

Please just quote the entire piece and break the link so we don't have to clink on junk sites like Salon, Huffpo, and ThinkProgress to get Rand news.

This.