Rand Paul Under Fire For Views on Civil Rights Act

Rand Paul, the son of Texas congressman Ron Paul and the newly minted Republican nominee for Senate in Kentucky, came under fire this week from Democrats and others after media appearances where he refused to fully embrace the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the law that legally ended segregation in the United States.

Paul defeated Republican opponent Trey Grayson on Tuesday. During his victory speech, Paul said he was bringing a "message from the Tea Party," which expected him to "take our government back."

Controversy broke out after Paul was interviewed on NPR's "All Things Considered" Wednesday and refused three times to say whether or not he would have voted against the landmark civil rights law.

"A lot of things that were actually in the bill I'm actually in favor of -- everything with regards to ending institutional racism," Paul said. "So I think there's a lot to be desired in the Civil Rights -- and indeed the truth is, I haven't read all through it, because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn't been a real pressing issue on the campaign on whether I'm going to vote for the Civil Rights Act."

In an April interview with the editorial board of the Louisville Courier-Journal, Paul said he "abhors racism," but "believes in private ownership." He explained that allowing businesses to discriminate based on the owner's prejudices is "the hard part about believing in freedom."

Paul appeared Wednesday night on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, where he extolled "local solutions" to problems like discrimination. He said it was a "stain on our history" that it took so long to desegregate the South, and said he supported Martin Luther King, Jr.'s opposition to legally sanctioned racial discrimination. When Maddow pressed Paul on whether or not he believes government action was necessary to end private discrimination, he said he would have had a problem with "one of the titles" -- presumably Title II -- of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits business from discriminating based on race.

"I think it's important debate, but it should be an intellectual one. It's really tough to have an intellectual debate in a political sense, because what happens is it gets dumbed down, and they'll try to run on this entire issue. I think if you listen to me, I think you should understand ... Am I bad person? Do I believe in awful things? No, I really think discrimination and racism is a horrible thing."

Maddow asked Paul if he would support the right of Bob Jones University, a private Christian college that banned interracial dating until 2000, to tell students they couldn't date someone of another race. Paul evaded the question, saying it was "about more than that."

The Democratic establishment exploded Thursday afternoon with denunciation of Paul's views. The Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee sent out a slew of e-mails with links to Paul's media appearances and transcripts of his remarks.

"Rand Paul's endorsement of policies that would result in a segregated America is indefensible," DNC chairman Tim Kaine said in a statement. "I was a civil rights attorney for 17 years, and I know first-hand the critical necessity of fair housing, equal access, and equal opportunity laws. But Rand Paul doesn't understand that necessity. He thinks our civil rights laws represent 'government overreach,' and he would tolerate a country which allowed separate lunch counters and discrimination in housing and employment based on the color of someone's skin."

Responding to critics, Paul released a statement saying "I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws." He added, "My opponent's statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false. I hope he will correct the record and retract his claims." Paul also noted that constitutional questions were raised by sections of the Civil Rights Act, but acknowledged that the issues have since been settled by the federal courts.

When the controversy dragged on into Thursday evening, Paul tried to put it to rest by telling CNN's Wolf Blitzer he would have voted for the Civil Rights act if he had been in the Senate in 1964. "Wolf, I thought I was supposed to get a honeymoon," he complained. "When does my honeymoon start, you know, after my victory?"