In an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews last night, Ron Paul (who just announced his second run for the presidency yesterday), told Matthews that he wouldn’t have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it was “unfair to property owners”:
MATTHEWS: You would have voted against that law. You wouldn’t have voted for the ’64 civil rights bill.
PAUL: Yes, but not in — I wouldn’t vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws.
MATTHEWS: But you would have voted for the — you know you — oh, come on. Honestly, Congressman, you were not for the ’64 civil rights bill.
PAUL: Because — because of the property rights element, not because it got rid of the Jim Crow law.
MATTHEWS: Right. The guy who owns a bar says, no blacks allowed, you say that’s fine. … This was a local shop saying no blacks allowed. You say that should be legal?
PAUL: That’s — that’s ancient history. That’s ancient history. That’s over and done with. [...]
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you this. We have had a long history of government involvement with Medicare, Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. And I think you are saying we would have been better off without all that?
PAUL: I think we would be better off if we had freedom, and not government control of our lives, our personal lives, and our — and policing the world.
Can we just say that this has to qualify as one of the dumbest quotes ever from a contender for a presidential nomination?
The bonafide lunacy of Randian disciples and their leader Ron Paul isn't exactly news, but given the embarrassing nature of the current Republican presidential field and the Libertarian under-current running through the veins of the Tea Party right now, Ron Paul could become a significant 3rd Party candidate if not the actual nominee.
Of course, I would love, love, love to see a third party Conservative candidate, or… let me be honest, I would also love to see Ron Paul as the GOP nominee!
Adding….I shouldn’t be surprised. Earlier in the day yesterday, Ron Paul called for eliminating FEMA.