He dug himself into a hole and exposed himself to be naive. Our redoubtable Capt. Fogg of The Swamp Zone does a smashing job of exposing Paul for the confused and misdirected candidate that he is:
Capt. Fogg writes:
"Rand Paul is not Ron Paul and I'm not flattering him by saying it. There is a difference between principle and bull-headed intransigence and Paul the younger seems as unclear about that as he is not quite up to the task of successfully debating Rachel Maddow about his distaste for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Asked whether he thought a restaurant had the right to refuse service to black customers, Paul commenced a rather evasive dance around the subject by trying to describe regulation as ownership.
"What about freedom of speech?" asked the less than candid Candidate. "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?'" Paul replied. "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."Unfortunately, more than just being grammatically confused, he's wrong. He's equivocating and the debate is, of course, entirely about practical matters. Can we agree, for instance, that being black in a restaurant is fundamentally different than carrying a gun in a bar and if so, his analogy is defective and a fallacy of distraction? Certainly a speed limit is not Government ownership of my car, health regulations imposed on food producers aren't the equivalent of owning the family farm nor is forcing Woolworth to stop creating two Americas with their policies isn't Marxism."
The rest of tCapt. Fogg's excellent post as well as another incisive one by bloggingdino is here.
And this:
Questions For Rand Paul
Ezra Klein has a few:
UPDATE:
"Amidst the hullaballoo over Republican Rand Paul's upset victory in the Kentucky GOP primary for US Senate, one of the few journalists to raise the issue of Paul's somewhat uncomfortable proximity to Christian Reconstructionism has been Alternet's Adele Stan, who observes that Rand Paul's father Ron Paul is personal friends with one of the bigger names in the Christian Reconstructionist movement, Howard Phillips, founder of the US Taxpayers Party -- now re-branded as The Constitution Party. But there's much more direct evidence tying Ran Paul to the Constitution Party, whose national platform declares,
Can the federal government set the private sector's minimum wage? Can it tell private businesses not to hire illegal immigrants? Can it tell oil companies what safety systems to build into an offshore drilling platform? Can it tell toy companies to test for lead? Can it tell liquor stores not to sell to minors? These are the sort of questions that Paul needs to be asked now, because the issue is not "area politician believes kooky but harmless thing." It's "area politician espouses extremist philosophy on issue he will be voting on constantly."
UPDATE:
"Amidst the hullaballoo over Republican Rand Paul's upset victory in the Kentucky GOP primary for US Senate, one of the few journalists to raise the issue of Paul's somewhat uncomfortable proximity to Christian Reconstructionism has been Alternet's Adele Stan, who observes that Rand Paul's father Ron Paul is personal friends with one of the bigger names in the Christian Reconstructionist movement, Howard Phillips, founder of the US Taxpayers Party -- now re-branded as The Constitution Party. But there's much more direct evidence tying Ran Paul to the Constitution Party, whose national platform declares,
"The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations... The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law"
[SKIP]
As it's said, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. In a May 21, 2009 appearance on the Alex Jones Show, Rand Paul affirmed that his political beliefs were extremely close to those of his father Ron:
Alex Jones: "You're basically what I would call a chip off the old block. Your policies are basically identical to your father, correct?"
Rand Paul: "I'd say we'd be very very similar. We might present the message sometimes differently.. I think in some ways the message has to be broadened and made more appealing to the entire Republican electorate because you have to win a primary." [Rand Paul on Alex Jones, 5/21/09]So it isn't altogether surprising that Rand Paul could be found, in April 2009, at a rally held by a political party that's been heavily influenced by a movement whose founder, Rousas Rushdoony, advocated executing homosexuals by stoning, wanted to reimpose the institution of slavery, and maintained that the Sun rotated around the Earth."
12 comments:
I LOVE it. I'm laughing so hard I have to hold my sides. What a complete moron.
Jesus H Christ!
If I were "Ron" Paul, I'd change my name to Homer Simpson so people would take me seriously after this buffoon speaks.
I wonder what Paul thinks of the bans on smoking in restaurants. I would suppose that he thinks that restaurants have a right to force employees and other customers to smoke against their will by having others smoking there.
Yet again, I've never been impressed at all with Ron Paul. He's been caught on occasions using antisemitic slurs cribbed from neo-Nazi groups, and he wants to deny citizenship for Americans whose parents are/were illegal aliens.
What people are missing is that Paul's views are the logical conclusion of his Libertarianism. He believes, at least as I understand it, that government has no business telling an individual who he has a right to serve in his private business.
And then the the "market" can make the decision as to whether or not that business survives.
I may not like or agree with Rand Paul, but at least he has had the courage to stand up for his convictions, a quality many other politicians seem to be lacking these days.
Let me add this...
As we hear more and more about Paul, his views become incredibly "out there."
I wonder how dear Ms. Palin is going to deal with this since she endorsed him in his run.
Will McConnell rescind his endorsement? What will the state and national GOP party do?
Do these people, and their party believe Rand Paul, and his views are good for the GOP and for America?
If they do, then, like Paul, they should have the courage of their convictions and stand up for their beliefs. If they do not, then likewise, I hope they have the guts to say so and not hide behind dodges like "we don't always 100% agree" with our nominees but the people have spoken.
UNBELIEVABLE! Here is Rand Paul saying Obama Sounds 'Un-American' For Criticizing BP Over Gulf Oil Spill:
"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business," he said. "I've heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it's part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it's always got to be someone's fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen."
From a sheer political standpoint, defending an oil company that has caused a massive amount of economic and environmental damage along America's coast seems like a tricky proposition -- even for a candidate from a landlocked state. (Though at least two Kentucky residents have sued the oil company over the current spill).
Even BP itself wouldn't go as far as Paul, declining to comment on its relationship with the Obama administration except to say, through spokesperson Mark Salt, that it continues "to work with the government on every aspect of the response."
Substantively, Paul seems to be arguing that sharper regulatory oversight, or legislation that raises BP's liability cap, are both redundant. BP, after all, has pledged to make full payments. And as for future spills, well, "accidents happen."
It's an element of libertarianism that may be ideologically pure but probably doesn't prove all that comforting for those affected by the spill -- or, for that matter, the national Republican Party.
Is this guy stupid beyond belief … in the aftermath of the worst environmental catastrophe in American history … or am I having one of those Kafka days?
Dave,
It doesn't appear that Paul has the courage of his conviction where his pocketbook is concerned:
"Tea party darling Dr. Rand Paul won an upset victory in Kentucky’s Republican Senate primary by running on a “resolute pledge to balance the federal budget and slash the size of government.” In an interview following his win, Paul explained that his campaign was “all about federal spending” and the “tea party message.” Republicans “need to regain our believability as fiscal conservatives,” he added. But as former Bush speech writer David Frum noted, “Paul’s libertarianism stops where his pocketbook starts.” Frum highlighted a Wall Street Journal story from last week in which Paul said he doesn’t want to cut Medicare payments to doctors like himself, because “[p]hysicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living“:
But on Thursday evening, the ophthalmologist from Bowling Green said there was one thing he would not cut: Medicare physician payments.
In fact, Paul — who says 50% of his patients are on Medicare — wants to end cuts to physician payments under a program now in place called the sustained growth rate, or SGR. “Physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living.
In an interview on FoxNew.com’s Freedom Watch, Paul vowed he would never give up his “tea party values,” which apparently include pushing for self-serving legislation. As the Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky noted, Paul likely already makes a “comfortable living,” as the average salary for an ophthalmologist is $256,320."
Source
8PUS,
Thanks for posting that. I'm afraid RP is having an Alice in Kafkaland moment.
dmarks,
Do you have a link I can go to where Paul's antisemitic slurs are documented?
Shaw, he is in great company with the other non MTP'ers...
Rand Paul 'stands up for his principles'.
Thanks for the chuckle. After whining about the press not allowing him a 'honeymoon' and cancelling an appearance on 'Meet The Press' I'm breathless to see him stand up again. Soon.
Rand Paul's an embarassment just like fraudulent fake war veteran and anti-Native American racist Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal. They sort of cancel each other out.
Dave: Sorry, I won't admire someone for standing up for his convictions if they are nutty.
Shaw: The antisemitism problem I was referring to is Ron Paul's, not Rand's. I don't know a lot about Rand Paul yet.
The particular quote, which I found a few months ago when arguing with a Ron Paul supporter, is one I can't find right now. I will keep looking. In it, Paul was using quasi-neo-Nazi language about the Jewish problem or Jews controlling the media or something like that.
On the way, I found this quote from Ron Paul on the "Black Menace"
"“we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”
Well apparently he stood up, before he backed down. At least his dad did not shy away from his positions.
But, again, at least he has said it. Most other folks who hold these views never own up to them. Think the rest of the tea party...
I am just waiting to see what the GOP is going to do. This will be harder for them than the David Duke fiasco was.
Post a Comment