What happened to the straight-talking, no bullshit, hoot-from-the-shrip losertarian from the blue grass state? The real world is about to hit Rand Paul in the ass... Rachel just took the first swing.
It’s easy to run on libertarian dogmas and Davy Crockett ideologies when you’re in a Republican primary in a southern state like Kentucky. But winning, then running statewide in the bright national spotlight is something else again.
Tuesday’s elections were good for lefty activists who helped dumped glib chameleon Arlen Specter. (President Obama’s horses, and men couldn’t save the old reprobate. We’ve despised his slimy ass since his arch disingenuousness in the Clarence Thomas confirmation). Another lefty victory: throwing tortured weasel Blanche Lincoln into a tough run-off.
(Republicans lost big in PA-12, the only contest where R was pitted against D- in a district that voted for McCain. If the GOP tsunami was imminent… you da thunk it’ve at least riffled the waters on Tuesday. It didn’t).
Paul, a designated “tea party” candidate won dazzlngly. The RNC and the Republican established order got trounced.
“Tea party” is an adjective, not a noun. There is no Tea Party that can go on a ballot, run a candidate. The “tea party” movement is based on a set of policies/politicians that its followers are against. Many groups and individuals are vying to be THE Tea Party, the GOP is trying to co-opt it, and so far, no one's been successful. The movement has remained splintered by personalities, geography, and policies. They're proud they have no leader and little organization- they ought to be worried about that.
It reminds us a little of the lefty, anti-globalism motion of the late ’90’s. They were a collection of dozens of vaguely related policy interests who gathered in the streets in colorful costumes carrying funny, lens-hogging signage. They made teevee big time when they hilariously monkey-wrenched the 1999 Seattle WTO meeting. In the end, they were so splintered and unfocused they just petered out. They never trusted the system enough to put up candidates and get into the realpolitikal fray of party politics. They thought they could get power and govern from the streets.
We’re reminded of the quirky Ross Perot candidacy in he ’92 election. They also were too socially liberal for the southern conservative base, but bolstered by Perot’s money made it on enough ballots to spoil the election. We covered their so-called presidential convention in LA that year and it ended in screaming, and people walking out. They got consensus on nothing. After getting a third of the votes in November, and helping Democrats elect Bill Clinton, they crawled back into the woodwork, never to be heard from again.
(Can you imagine the tea partiers in a convention hall hammering out a platform? It could be tragic: many of these ornery oldsters open-carry side-arms).
Then there are the evangelicals, the religious right, who loom hugely in the Republican base. For them, abortion, gay rights and gay marriage are strict litmus tests for a candidate. You be agin ‘em or else.
Rand Paul’s people somehow convinced Dr. James Dobson, the Focus On the Family zealot - as well as Sarah Palin - that Paul was pro-life.
Yet Kentucky Right to Life, who know him well, still loudly opposed him, saying he has a long pro-choice record and that he obscured it for this race. He cannot hide it forever, and the tea party movement come out of their closet on the issue as well.
Just how socially conservative is the tea party goofs? No one can really say: Classic libertarians like Ron and Rand Paul are for de-governmentizing personal choices such as drug use, prostitution, marriage, pornography and abortion. The religious right will not compromise on these issues- and if we know the losertarians, neither will they.
So far, in these off-year elections they've dodged the question. They cannot coexist in the GOP. Before or during the 2012 election, these basic differences must play out.
This is where the re-treads hit the paving: can the right survive
without the long-tendered coalition of the religious right, and the
libertarians?
(Scott Brown, the much-vaunted “tea party” winner in Massachusetts is pro-choice, for gay rights and other liberalness including the Massachusetts heath care plan which is nearly identical to Obama’s).
Paul believes we should trust the tender mercies of the free markets to take care of economic injustice, and civil rights. The government should just butt out. He’d even repeal the American Disabilities Act. That is so far from the mainstream of US politics (and common sense) that he’ll be playing defense until November.
Ron Paul is despised by most national Republican leaders. His 2008 campaign didn’t tender many votes but pulled in shitloads of cash. It had all the earmarks of a populist movement except for the actual power-building. The regular R’s hated him for that and have never not cold-shouldered him.
The son has garnered a few more friends, but this too shall pass. The nut doesn't fall far from the tree, they say.
enough. I cannot endure listening ot this weasel to the end of the clip. He will not answer the questions. But he answered enough to let us know he stands shoulder to shoulder with our local wingnut Dori Monson in defending the right of Joe Racist to open a "whites only" diner, etc., somehting that has been illegal since 1964......disgusting...
Posted by: Tommy008 | May 20, 2010 at 12:07 AM
As a lib I love watching the GOP drift off into far-right crazyland. The bonus part is, they think this "phenomenon" is actually making them stronger. (rolleyes)
Posted by: tigsnort | May 20, 2010 at 01:47 AM
Has Maddow contracted MaddCow.
Not only did Paul deliver, he fully exposed MSNBC and Maddow once again for the race baiting trash that they are.
The fact that they openly support a racist hate group, and a criminal one at that.
A group which openly violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while criminally defrauding the American Tax Payers by illegally seeking and accepting federal funding.
A group which arrogantly violates numerous federal laws many bordering on treasonable acts.
A group which arrogantly and openly discriminates by not just race, but political affiliation. Both are specifically outlawed by the Civil Rights Act, both carry a mandatory disqualification of such an organization from receiving federal funding.
If the Congressional Black Caucus does not support the legality of the Civil Rights Act, then they as well believe that the Government should not have any say so, in matters of non governmental discrimination.
The CBC must be held equally accountable for their constitutional violations of federal laws.
The federal government needs to get out of the Race business. Either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must be repealed, or the CBC must go.
I prefer it be the latter. Right is Right, Wrong is Wrong, and Fair is Fair, no if's, an's or but's. Race baiting is deemed by law as potential grounds for a Hate Crime.
Until you address this organizations issue of racial discrimination, you have no right to demand it of others. To not do so Maddow, exposes you as the true Racist Bigot that you are.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
Posted by: Darfur Deng | May 20, 2010 at 05:13 AM
Halfway through this interview, I was wondering if Rachel was earnestly believing he would answer honestly if she just asked the question enough times, or if she was enjoying feeding him more and more rope with which to hang himself....
My favorite part was when he kept referring to her examples of racial prejudice in the 50's and 60's as "obscure" and "meaningless"
...also, his reference to Tiger Woods bringing golf to "urban people."
Sestak was on right after this and he said he would have loved to be featured along side of Rand so they could have debated a few issues.
Posted by: sparky | May 20, 2010 at 05:50 AM
A non-event which most people will not witness, both from a political as well as a broadcast point of view. Obscure would be apt.
Posted by: Duffman | May 20, 2010 at 05:58 AM
Well, I don't see him sweating. People have different points of view on what liberty means. He said he would argue one part of the civil rights bill. He is committed to supporting the rights of private business. I don't want to see "whites only" signs ever again but he doesn't sound stupid. He was pretty consistent I thought.
Crazy? i guess if you don't like his politics, you can call him crazy. If you look at Seattle schools, one has to wonder.
No, I probably wouldn't vote for Paul. But he has the integrity to be honest about his views. At least, I'd know what I was getting from him. He is right that this is a non-issue today.
Truthfully, I expected to see a greater degree of consternation from him. I saw more from Rachel trying to nail him on the idea of segregated lunch counters.
Posted by: joanie | May 20, 2010 at 07:08 AM
Where are the jobs (echo)...?
Financial markets plunging...
Tsunami underway.
Freedom 1/20/13
The experiment has failed.
Posted by: Obama is a black man | May 20, 2010 at 07:34 AM
Freedom from what? And what is going to be different after 1/20/13? You never answer.
That's why you are a racist.
Posted by: joanie | May 20, 2010 at 07:40 AM
Let's remember this folks; a joanie axiom: if you don't answer a question, you are a racist. Well, since she never answered my question as to any proof that OIABM was a racist, ergo...
Posted by: Duffman | May 20, 2010 at 07:50 AM
That's because your full of shit as usual, Dungman
Posted by: Rand Paul is a honky | May 20, 2010 at 08:03 AM
By your own definition.
[skipping school today?]LMAO
Posted by: Duffman | May 20, 2010 at 08:18 AM
Where do I begin:
1. Freedom from out of control government spending
2. Freedom from a government mandated health care system that will bankrupt the country
3. Freedom from higher taxes
4. Freedom by the mass elimination of government programs in a forced austerity event
5. Freedom from a ridiculous tax code that takes the average small business owner 150 man hours to prepare
6. Freedom from endless/goal-less wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
7. Freedom from government bailouts of banks, car manufacturers, railways, airlines, etc.
8. Freedom with a country that believes more in individual liberties
Posted by: Obama is a black man | May 20, 2010 at 08:19 AM
You and Dungman will find work soon. It's not our fault the well-educated president has a job and you don't
Posted by: Rand Paul is a honky | May 20, 2010 at 08:30 AM
YOU CAN'T allow private business that serve the public(lunchcounters, Canlis Restaurant, hotels,bowling allelys) to racially discriminate AGAIN, BECAUSE MANY OF THEM WOULD, given the first chance...people aren't that much better than they were in the fifties... that would be a huge step backwards....private businesses have rights, excluding black and brown folks (or whites like Dori) solely on basis of race isn't one of them.....i'm sure if the 1964 act ever got to the Supremem Court the judges would say the overall well-being and good of the nation and it's people outwweighs the rights of the privste racist who wants to hang a "whites only" shingle.
Posted by: Tommy008 | May 20, 2010 at 08:45 AM
stupid, stupid'er, stupid'est.
Posted by: Duffman | May 20, 2010 at 08:55 AM
That's true tommy, a lot of folks like Dori and Rand would like to go back the 50's. I could see Dori with a rebel flag license plate.
Posted by: Coiler | May 20, 2010 at 09:03 AM
"who is this vexatious, meddlesome little fool, yon Duffman?" -Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Posted by: Tommy008 | May 20, 2010 at 09:09 AM
I was in a pharmacy the other day. An old fashioned family business. It is in a diverse neighborhood.A well dressed young black man came in and went to the tooth brush display, a large half full rack. The pharmacist/owner says to me "watch him, one will go straight to his pocket". Sure enough, two of them went in to his inside sport coat pocket.
I asked him why he didn't stop the guy. He just said that it just wasn't worth it. That, although over half the brushes were missing from the display, he had sold maybe 20 of them. The rest were all stolen. He more than makes up the losses in sales of cigarettes, beer, malt liquor and general merchandise. Many of these people just won't pay for a tooth brush.
But, he has to serve them. Can't lock them out.
Posted by: Pharm Rep | May 20, 2010 at 09:18 AM
Obviously the government should be required to furnish everyone with a toothbrush and basic grooming needs.
We're probably not too far from that.
Posted by: Duffman | May 20, 2010 at 09:33 AM
anyone catch American Greed on CNBC last night , about the two L.A. grannies that killed homeless men and collected millions after writing 20 plus life insurance policies on each of them? The detectives though tthat surely they'd hired out the killings, but no. old Helen, the richer of the two , personally bumped them off with her automobile , in dark alleys. Like Monson, who believes in legalizing "whites only" diners again, they believed that homeless folks were worthless leeches, drains on the public services, or to use Dori's language -"human garbage". I'm starting to read the true crime book about them- "Signed in Blood". Should be a barnburner.
Posted by: Tommy008 | May 20, 2010 at 09:54 AM
How absurdly ridiculous to compare that to Dori Monson...you are one sick puppy; can't you find other ways to get your jollies. [and remember to use hand-sanitizer]
Posted by: Duffman | May 20, 2010 at 09:59 AM
yes, listen to fluffman, he knows about hand sanitizer.
Posted by: Coiler | May 20, 2010 at 11:19 AM
Does anyone know if this person has EVER had an 'original' thought.
Posted by: Duffman | May 20, 2010 at 12:24 PM
just in- civil rights leader on CNN JUST ADDRESSED Rand Paul's belief that Joe Racist being should be legally able to run a "whites-only" diner, (A VIEW SHARED BY OUR LOCAL kiro RIGHTWING WINGNUT DORI MONSON),- he calls that belief, "constitutionally illiterate".......
Posted by: Tommy008 | May 20, 2010 at 12:38 PM
Yeah, you know 'CNN' that bastion of fine forthright reporting...stratospherically right up there in the ratings ranking with Rachel Maddow.
Posted by: Duffman | May 20, 2010 at 12:53 PM
This is Obama's economy. Markets are in a slow and steady meltdown.
I have been warning all of you. Prepare yourselves.
The Tsunami is underway!
Posted by: Obama is a black man | May 20, 2010 at 01:07 PM
DOWN +370 POINTS!!!
But I'm sure tommy has covered himself...what with being such an astute investor and all.
Posted by: Duffman | May 20, 2010 at 01:12 PM
the last ten trades before closing bell on the only stock i'm holding right now were at 1.79 and 1.80 , with the stock's opening price being 1.78. In afterhours trading my stock is at %1.82, 2.25% above this morning's opening price......not all stocks move up and down with the DOW ...read and learn ....fool
Posted by: Tommy008 | May 20, 2010 at 01:28 PM
497 of the 500 S&P stocks were DOWN today. We have entered a very dangerous time. The downward momentum on global stocks is frankly chilling. Prepare yourselves for pain.
Posted by: Obama is a black man | May 20, 2010 at 01:33 PM
Knew it, just KNEW IT! Bhwahawahaha
Posted by: Duffman | May 20, 2010 at 01:34 PM
the markets are in correction mode, not meltdown mode... you are a financial illiterate...the stock market is touching 10000 for the first time legitimately since going over that mark many months ago. The dip below 10000 a couple weeks ago was due to the bogus, fluke 9998 point dropo....
Posted by: Tommy008 | May 20, 2010 at 01:35 PM
tommy, please tell me the market WILL NOT be at <9,500 in November of this year.
Posted by: Duffman | May 20, 2010 at 01:37 PM
correction 998 point drop if wed had a 9998 point drop even i would be concerned
Posted by: Tommy008 | May 20, 2010 at 01:39 PM
Mr. Tommy-I post my forecasts. I am 100% accurate. You post nothing.
Posted by: Obama is a black man | May 20, 2010 at 01:49 PM
I am not sure how Obama will package this nightmare economic scenario for the November elections. He continues to talk as if his actions pulled us back from the brink. He sure is taking an 'all in' approach.
The Tsunami is underway.
Posted by: Obama is a black man | May 20, 2010 at 01:56 PM
Tommy, where's an answer to my question and OIABM's challenge for predictions?...Hmmmm, perhaps he jumped in his Mercedes (or bike) and left his computer room (or library). Crickets chirp....as we wait...
Posted by: Duffman | May 20, 2010 at 01:58 PM
Found this article on Yahoo.com. It pours cold water on Madcow Maddow. Don't agree with a number of Ingraham's views but her credibility is higher than Rachel's.
"After an intense 24 hours, tea party darling Rand Paul — Kentucky's new Republican nominee for the Senate — is stepping back from his criticisms of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He tells conservative radio host Laura Ingraham that he does in fact support the historic legislation. And he tells CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he would have voted for it if he were in the Senate.
That statement came after he declined to say he supported the act in interviews Wednesday on NPR and "The Rachel Maddow Show" on MSNBC. In both those exchanges, Paul said that though he personally abhorred discrimination and believed it should be banned from government-funded programs, he disagreed with the provision in the Civil Rights Act that banned discrimination by private businesses. Paul, along with many libertarians, believes that the federal government should have a very limited role in the everyday lives of Americans.
But after a firestorm Thursday, Paul told Ingraham that it was a "poor political decision" to go on Maddow's show and declared that he supported both the ban on public discrimination and the ban on private discrimination."
Posted by: KS | May 20, 2010 at 03:51 PM
Joanie is still an idiot.
Posted by: Zounds | May 20, 2010 at 04:42 PM
Paul told Ingraham what he wouldn't say on Maddow, that he supports racist policies of the pre-60's.
Posted by: Coiler | May 20, 2010 at 04:55 PM
you lieing sack of dung. You are parroting MSLSD's and Randi's bullpucky talking points - have you ever had an original thought in your life ?
Posted by: KS | May 20, 2010 at 05:05 PM
You're the King of Shit. He dodged and evaded. Have you ever not depended on guvmint for a paycheck?
Posted by: Coiler | May 20, 2010 at 05:14 PM
Paul tried to misrepresent the part of the civil rights bill that he doesn't like as being some small minor portion of the whole bill, and makes a big production out of the fact that he supports the rest of the bill. As the civil rights leader pointed out on CNN, the whole civil rights bill was mainly about the "public accomodations" matters, the part Paul doesn't like. This was the key issue of all the civil rights protests , with sitins at lunch counters, and so forth. It is not about just"private businessess"- it is about the right to public accomodation at businesses that serve the public....the entire civil rights act of 1964 is long ago constitutionally settled law, and any objsection at this late date to ANY of it's ten titles is just an extreme AND BONEHEADED point of view, repulsive to MAINSTREAM AMERICA.
Posted by: Tommy008 | May 20, 2010 at 06:17 PM
He said on CNN that federal intervention was necessary re civil rights. He doesn't really know what he stands for.
Posted by: Coiler | May 20, 2010 at 06:21 PM
Good God, the Repugs new Great White Hope is this spineless, dodging weasel? yeah it's spineless to avoid telling what your true positions are on a key issue by hiding behind the excuse that it's just a "gotcha game", as Rand Paul did last night with Maddow. She was trying to get him to answer the question not play "gotcha".
Posted by: Tommy008 | May 20, 2010 at 06:25 PM
He dodged and evaded.
Posted by: Coiler | May 20, 2010 at 05:
Dipstick - As you show once again - never an original thought. Madcow is always out to play gotcha with conservatives and caught him off-guard - it was acknowledged. He rectified what Paul had said the night before here; "He declared that he supported both the ban on public discrimination and the ban on private discrimination." That is good enough for me to see that he isn't a racist unlike the hypocrite moonbat race-baiters want to believe. A non- issue - why are you afraid to talk about significant issues.
"Have you ever not depended on guvmint for a paycheck?
FYI - over 10 years. Have you ever not depended on a welfare check in your adult life ?
Posted by: KS | May 20, 2010 at 06:39 PM
Paul rectified what he had said the night before...
Posted by: KS | May 20, 2010 at 06:41 PM
rectified? is that like flip flopping?
Posted by: Coiler | May 20, 2010 at 06:50 PM
KS, that is the fourth time you have posted to Coiler, "never an original thought"?
How original is that????
Posted by: sparky | May 20, 2010 at 07:22 PM
Anyway, it's much bigger than racism. Is his position that government should not protect the rights of individuals or to promote the common good:
No equal pay for equal work?
No safe working conditions?
No minimum wage?
No overtime?
No family leave?
No clean air and water?
No safe food and drugs?
No safe highways and bridges?
No regulation of financial markets?
No guarantee of voting rights?
No right to health care?
No right to public education?
I'm sure there are many more, but if the discussion stays stuck on racism, we are missing the big picture.
Posted by: sparky | May 20, 2010 at 07:28 PM
he doesn't pass the "smell test".
Posted by: Tommy008 | May 20, 2010 at 07:39 PM