Apparently Rachel is to Rand Paul what Katie Couric is to Sarah Palin. Dr. Dr. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) copped to feeling regret -- not over his comments, but rather his decision to be interviewed by Maddow in the first place.
"It was a poor political decision and probably won't be happening anytime in the near future," the Tea Party endorsed Senate candidate said on the Laura Ingraham show on Thursday morning. "Because, yeah, they can play things and want to say, 'Oh you believed in beating up people that were trying to sit in restaurants in the 1960s.' And that is such a ridiculous notion and something that no rational person is in favor of. [But] she went on and on about that."
Another case of a bigoted person letting the world get a glimpse of who they really are and what they really believe. Once they themselves have let the cat out of the bag they want to shoot the messenger.
There is an update from his campaign stating his views on the Civil Rights Act. You can read it at the posted link. It is however Blah Blah Blah cover-your-ass statement. We know that when he spoke with Rachel he spoke his true feelings. Just a case of speaking them to someone smarter than him with an audience who could see through what he said and wasn't buying it.
Posted in the comments below by Eric Nelson:
In case you're wondering about his progressive cred, Conway is Kos's candidate, and about as liberal as a statewide politician can be in Kentucky. Rand Paul has the national media attention, and a small lead in the polls, but both candidates can credibly claim to be a change from the norm (especially if Rand keeps going around praising the departing Bunning for stunts like blocking unemployment filing extensions) and there's months of digging up crazy shit the Pauls have said yet to come.
James Clyburn weighs in "He is not good for this Country".
I was absolutely appalled... I happened to be watching his victory speech and I could not believe that he was holding his victory party in a private, member's only club where the vast majority of people who just finished voting for him would not even be welcome. I couldn't believe that. And then on the next day I hear him making these statements about not believing in the efficacy of the Civil Rights Act. Here is a man who is answering 14th amendment questions with second amendment responses. This is absolutely appalling. And now today, he's put out a statement that limits his acceptance to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I want to say to him that voting rights are found in the '65 civil rights act, that fair housing, which is private, in the '68 civil rights act and not until 1972 did we outlaw discrimination in the public sector. So once again, he is parsing his words, he is saying things, sending signals that I hope the vast majority of the people who voted for him would reject and I am sure that come November, they will.