Rand Paul just can’t make up his mind.
The Republican nominee for Senate in Kentucky, fresh off a much-discussed appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show last night in which he defended his past criticism of the Civil Rights Act, continued his walkback-turned-runback on CNN this afternoon by declaring that not only does he not favor a repeal of the Civil Rights Act, but that he would have voted for the landmark legislation had he been around at the time.Wolf Blitzer asked Paul whether he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act if he was a Senator or Congressman in 1964.
“Yes, I would have voted yes,” Paul said.
Blitzer later asked if a private business like Woolworth’s should have had the right to segregate its lunch counter.
“I think that there was an overriding problem in the South that was so big that it did require federal intervention in the 60s,” Paul said. “There was a need for federal intervention.”
Paul also chided the media as being “out of control” for seizing on his Civil Rights Act comments over the last 24 hours.
“I thought I was supposed to get a honeymoon. When does my honeymoon start after my victory?”
Wolf Blitzer answered: “No such thing in politics.”
While Paul told Blitzer that he would have supported the Civil Rights Act, he still seemed uncertain about the Americans With Disabilities Act.
“I have some questions about it,” Paul said, before launching into a hypothetical example of a local, two-story business being required to build an elevator to the second floor for a handicapped employee.
“I think that sounds like common sense that maybe you should be allowed to give them a first-floor office,” Paul said.
So you’re not sure you support ADA, Blitzer asked?
“Yeah, I mean I’d have to look at it and see,” Paul answered, before explaining that his office is open to the handicapped.
“It doesn’t always take government for people to do the right thing,” Paul said. “Sometimes government has to step in in extraordinary circumstances. But I think a lot of times that the private world can step up and do the right things. Or we can find local solutions over federal solutions. So it’s not always whether you oppose something. It’s about where the solution should arrive.”