In April 2010, Rand Paul was asked if he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and he answered,
“I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.”
But,
“I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners — I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant — but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind.”
A few weeks later he clarified,
“I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. … But I think what’s important about this debate is not written into any specific ‘gotcha’ on this, but asking the question: What about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? I don’t want to be associated with those people, 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 is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it.
Had I been there, there would have been some discussion over one of the titles of the Civil Rights Act, and I think that’s a valid point and still a valid discussion, because the thing 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?”
So he might have, depending on the discussion. But a yes vote was not a sure thing.
His final statement on it, which left out the discussion he would have had, was,
“I would have voted yes.”
Of course, perhaps, of course.
Commitment
Four years later when he was asked by MSNBC about his flip flopping on the Civil Rights Act question, he rewrote what was clearly on video and told MSNBC,
“I’ve been attacked by half a dozen people on your network trying to say I’m opposed to the Civil Rights Act and somehow now I’ve changed. So I’m not really willing to engage with people who are misrepresenting my viewpoint on this. I have never been against the Civil Rights Act.”
Perhaps, of course, perhaps.
In 2011 Paul said the United States should stop offering federal aid to Israel, a position he held and defended when he first became a senator, but then later said he had never supported.
Paul claimed he was a believer in restraint on military matters, and when it came to Syria said,
If you do not know where help is needed, start by calling your local Salvation Army, Goodwill, or a church and tell them you want to order cialis pills help spread happiness. They are generally reserved for patients suffering from various diseases cialis buy in addition of treating ED. According to the paper, thirteen doctors have pleaded guilty to federal charges as part of the long-running investigation, and a 14th is expected to buying levitra online plead guilty next week. Things side effects viagra such as work requirements, stress, the demands of children, or tiredness can be blamed for whatever may be occurring in their sex life. “There’s no good case for U.S. military intervention now”, urging caution in using airstrikes in the region. “ … While we may not completely rule out airstrikes, there are many questions that need to be addressed first. What would airstrikes accomplish? We know that Iran is aiding the Iraqi government against ISIS. Do we want to, in effect, become Iran’s air force? What’s in this for Iran? Why should we choose a side, and if we do, who are we really helping?”
As a result of the backlash to his isolationism, his attitude shifted to,
“While my predisposition is to less intervention, I do support intervention when our vital interests are threatened. If I had been in President Obama’s shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS. I would have called Congress back into session — even during recess. This is what President Obama should have done. He should have been prepared with a strategic vision, a plan for victory and extricating ourselves. He should have asked for authorization for military action and would have, no doubt, received it.”
In 2014 Rand Paul was against any bombing in Syria until he decided he was for it.
When it came to the biggest, bestest, never before seen in history Trump tax cuts, Paul had tweeted,
“I cannot in good conscience vote to add more to the already massive $20 trillion debt. I promised Kentucky to vote against reckless, deficit spending and I will do just that.”
But, yep, he voted for it.
When it came to Mike Pompeo for Secretary of State, Paul said,
“You really want a diplomat to be in charge of the State Department, not someone who is advocating for war. I frankly think that Pompeo’s positions are too much of an advocate for regime change, really everywhere. I don’t think our policy ought to be for regime change, so I think Pompeo really isn’t a good fit to be a diplomat.”
He held off til the last minute, getting a lot of attention and television time, and then changed his mind.
“President Trump believes that Iraq was a mistake, that regime change has destabilized the region, and that we must end our involvement with Afghanistan. Having received assurances from President Trump and Director Pompeo that he agrees with the president on these important issues, I have decided to support his nomination to be our next Secretary of State.”
And now Rand Paul opposes Gina Haspel for head of the CIA.
“She oversaw an illegal black ops operation in Thailand that included torture. I don’t think torture is what America is about.”
“I’ll do whatever it takes [to stop her], and that includes filibuster.”
“I don’t have the power to stop her nomination. There’s enough votes she’ll eventually win. Few things in life . . . [are] worth standing up saying ‘enough is enough.'”
“We are not a people that should be so fearful or vengeful that we think that torture is somehow acceptable. On what level could torture ever be acceptable? We should make a stand on this. She should never lead the CIA.”
So that will be a “yes” vote.