After his appearance on 'Rachel Maddow' last night, Rand Paul, the Tea Partier who just trounced opponent Trey Grayson in the Kentucky Republican primary Wednesday night, must have felt a little like Mike Tyson after his night with Desiree Washington. Man, what a bad decision.

Maddow and Paul went back and forth on Paul's views that government should play any role in desegregating private institutions. Paul feels that there should be a limit to the role the federal government has in private industry.

An excerpt of this debate is below:Maddow: Do you think that a private business has a right to say that "We don't serve black people?"

Paul: I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can't discriminate based on race, but do discriminate.

But I think what's important in this debate is not getting into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question, "What about freedom of speech?" Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior, because that's one of the things that freedom requires is that
we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it..

Paul challenged Maddow on her questions, saying they were abstract and weren't "practical." Then Maddow asked Paul to tell that to John Lewis and all the others who got their asses kicked in the name of civil rights:

Maddow: ... How about desegregating lunch counters?

Paul: Well, what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant, even though the owner of the restaurant says, "Well, no, we don't want to have guns in here." The bar says, "We don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each other." Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion.

Maddow: Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen's lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership. This is not a hypothetical, Dr. Paul.

As the First Amendment that Rand Paul loves so much states, we all have the right to express our views, and I would like to take this opportunity to express my own horror at Rand Paul comparing black people to guns, which by their very nature, are dangerous and can kill people. Sure, private businesses can ban guns, or dogs or whatever instrument may pose an inherent threat to other citizens.

I would agree that the federal government should not be involved in those types of private decisions; however, when there is a compelling state interest, a la the civil rights of human beings and the resulting restriction of a free and fair marketplace, the federal government has every right to intercede on behalf of all Americans.

So, as oft happens (at least with most of us the morning after), Paul started damage control first thing Thursday morning. He admitted feeling regret -- though not about what he said -- but for his decision to be interviewed on Maddow's show.

He also apologized for upsetting the coloreds. Just kidding, I made that part up:

"It was a poor political decision and probably won't be happening anytime in the near future," Paul said on the 'Laura Ingraham' show 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.

"These are settled issues in the Civil Rights Act," Paul continued. "I have no intention of bringing up anything related to the Civil Rights Act. ... I think [segregation] is sort of a stain and blight on our history -- so, no, I have never really favored any change in the Civil Rights Act or any of that, but they have seemed to unleash the loony left on me."

Rand Paul's campaign has now issued an official statement about his views on the Civil Rights Act, highlighting his statement that "I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Uhhhh ... thanks?

He goes on to state:

"I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

...

"This much is clear: The federal government has far overreached in its power grabs. Just look at the recent national health care schemes, which my opponent supports. The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state's rights must stand up to it."

"These attacks prove one thing for certain: The liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign."

When all else fails, blame those damn liberals. Paul faces Democrat Attorney General, Jack Conway in the general election to replace Republican Congressman Jim Bunning on November 2.

In D.C. there is a saying that, in politics, the definition of a gaffe is when someone accidentally tells the truth. You've seen the tape, you make the call.