Paul gave two interviews this morning, for Fox and CNN.
Paul isnt a racist. Some may argue that he is TOO principled, but it is just that.
When questioned about his writing in a book that taxpayers should not pay for the healthcare of AIDs patients, Paul stated that its not the responsibility for citizens to pay for the bad habits of others. It is for the health insurance company to decide what the rate for that individual would be, as it is for smokers or drinkers or for pregnant women. Its not the governments role to dictate to people.
On a similar excerpt concerning sexual harrassment where Paul says the victim bears some responsibility, Paul states that the government does not need federal inntervention simply because someone says "He said I looked sexy" (my paraphrase) at work. Paul says that if there is rape or physical contact or some other actual threatening conduct then that is different, but that there is a lot of "harrassment" that does not need federal intervention....
On the CNN interview, the woman asks him about his stating that the Civil Rights Act did not enhance freedom for minorities. Paul states that Jim Crow laws should have been repealed, but that government cannot eliminate racism. He says that the only thing with the Civil Rights Act he does not approve of are the parts where private property rights are taken away because it leads to the government having the authority to legislate what happens in the bedroom, ultimately.
He isnt for racism, but Paul indicates, to me, that if someone wants to be racist, it is their right, as long as it doesnt infringe on the personal freedom of someone else. I dont know if that includes public establishments, or just private property for private use. No one has specifically asked Paul that question, but Paul makes it clear he is against racism, but laws cannot get rid of it. Its the same with the war on drugs. It doesnt eliminate the drugs and doesnt eliminate people being able to get them.
