MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews pressed Paul during a TV appearance on whether he would have voted against the '64 law, a landmark piece of legislation that took strides toward ending segregation.
"Yeah, but I wouldn't vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws," Paul said. He explained that he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act "because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws."
It's not a new position from some in the Libertarian party:
"This gimmick, it's off the wall when you say I'm for property rights and for states rights, and therefore I'm a racist," said the Texas congressman. "That's just outlandish."
Paul appealed to the free market, and argued that if a business owner were to post signs declaring segregation in his or her business, people wouldn't patronize it.
"For you to imply that a property rights person is endorsing that stuff, you don't understand that there would be zero signs up today saying something like that," he said. "And if they did they would be an idiot and out of business."
That written, there are quite a few postings out there labeling Paul as a racist for this position. He really had two choices, support his free market theory and have some label him a racist or say he would have supported it and then be called a hypocrite for not believing his stance on the free market ...