I posted this in the comments section of the race baiting article on infowars. I first put forth the disclaimer that I had to look up the section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to see if I could think of a better way Rand Paul could have handled this and based on my non-professional interpretation he could have answered yes. It's too late for him to change his answer on this issue now though.
"To be clear I’m a Rand Paul supporter; but, I think he messed this one up big. The debate they are having centers around a specific interpretation of title 3 of the 1964 civil rights act. You can read it here.http://uspolitics.about.com/od....._act_3.htm
Specifically the debate is actually about the interpretation of the term “public facility.” No where in the law does it actually say anything about regulating private enterprise. It’s the expansion of the term “public facility” to private establishments such as restaurants and bars that allows the application of title 3 in what could be an unconstitutional regulation of private enterprise.
Thus, if Rand Paul were a senator at the time he could have voted for the 1964 civil rights act and not be granting unconstitutional powers.
I realize that technically someone voting for the *text* of the civil rights act would have to be aware of the legal context that would allow it to apply to private enterprise. However, the MSM audience is not sophisticated enough to understand these legal nuances.
Based on this interpretation Rand Paul could have, and should have answered with a concise, unequivocal YES, when asked if he would have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act in its entirety. The liberals and neo-cons would thus be denied the sound-byte of him saying “no” or dodging the question (which he actually chose to do).
The more sophisticated supporters of Rand Paul would understand this tactic of dealing with the MSM’s attack and continued to support him and Paul would emerge from it unscathed.
That’s how I would have advised him anyways. Gosh, politics is an ugly business."