Campaigns/Elections

Everybody Loves Rand

Can a single Senate candidate be the savior of the small-government movement?

|

In what Politico called "the first clear statewide victory by the disparate national tea party movement," Rand Paul, a Bowling Green ophthalmologist and the son of libertarian-leaning Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), smashed his opponent Trey Grayson in the Kentucky Republican primary for November's Senate race.

Grayson was the chosen favorite of the party establishment, with supporters ranging from Kentucky's own Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to neocon foreign policy mavens Rudolph Giuliani and former Vice President Dick Cheney. None of that meant much to Kentucky Republicans, however, who, in a low-turnout election, gave Paul 59 percent of their vote.

In his victory, Paul won not only the enthusiasm of Kentucky GOP primary voters. He was a national Tea Party favorite, and also beloved by a widespread libertarian audience, with 77 percent of his fundraising coming from outside Kentucky. Conservative activist leaders from old-school right-winger Richard Viguerie to the more modern Matt Kibbe of FreedomWorks were over the moon about Paul's victory in interviews this week, arguing that his victory meant good times for the small-government cause in the months and years to come.

Paul's victory, Kibbe thinks, marks a burgeoning "small 'l' libertarian takeover of the old party establishment that is both structural and philosophical. We no longer need the old fashioned party mechanism to turn out votes in primaries, so the McConnell endorsement [for Grayson] didn't matter, all the establishment types who endorsed him didn't matter. What matters are activists on the ground who get information from multiple sources. It's a perfectly Hayekian decentralized movement that enabled local knowledge about candidates to spread. And I think it's the tip of the iceberg of what is coming."

Even if he doesn't presage a major change in how electoral party politics works, Paul's appeal goes beyond even state-shrinkers of any inclination. He inspired lefty journalist Robert Scheer to cheer Paul—in language that ought to appeal to principled progressives of all sorts—as a "principled libertarian in the mold of his father, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and we need more of that impulse in the Congress. What's wrong with cutting back big government that mostly exists to serve the interests of big corporations? Surely it would be better if that challenge came from populist progressives of the left, in the Bernie Sanders mold, but this is Kentucky we're talking about." At the same time, and equally encouraging for Paul's bonafides as a political good guy, he earned the obloquy of staunch defenders of the Radical Middle: From the right side, David Frum found Paul's victory "depressing" and "ominous," while on the left, Matthew Yglesias dubbed Paul, without explanation, a "lunatic."

Paul deliberately eschewed the libertarian label, calling himself a "constitutional conservative" instead. He won an endorsement from Sarah Palin and from Focus on the Family founder James Dobson. He even ran ads identifying Iran as a threat (after being accused of denying it), and told Bill O'Reilly at length that we should not take nuclear attack off the table as an option in dealing with them. And despite the reservations expressed by one long-time libertarian movement hand that Rand Paul might be more "Christian conservative" than all-around fan of small government, Politico identified two points where Rand was certainly not a full-bore populist-conservative: "his hesitation over building a fence along the southern border with Mexico and over endorsing a federal ban on same-sex marriage." (But he also strongly believes in a government role in protecting the life of fetuses.)

More than anything, as detailed smartly by David Weigel at the Washington Post, Rand Paul was both a careful (in his reluctance to turn off any sizable GOP constituency) and a remarkably diligent candidate, which means that other candidates who don a roughly libertarian Tea Party mantle should not expect a similar result.

But while radical libertarians (doubtless not a huge Kentucky constituency) and hardcore populist Tea Partiers might each have reasons to regret aspects of Rand Paul's message, it's hard to imagine that either constituency is going to have a chance to vote for a more salubrious senator. In Rand Paul's America, as the Washington Post summed up:

the federal government would no longer hand out subsidies to support farmers. The retirement age would be raised to make Social Security solvent. Senators could only serve 12 years in office. Congress would have to delay voting one day for every 20 pages of text in a bill so the public would have time to read and understand it. A section of every law passed would have to include an explanation of what part of the Constitution empowers Congress to act on the issue.

Members of Congress could not pick out parks or roads in their districts to fund, according to Paul's platform. Congress would have to balance its budget every year, a move that could result in billions of dollars in cuts to politically popular programs. Lawmakers would simply send money to states for education, instead of imposing a variety of rules on schools through the U.S. Department of Education, which Paul wants to eliminate.

Still, many libertarians are finding it hard to love Rand Paul as much as they love his father. Among radical noninterventionist libertarians there's a strong fear that if the anti-state energies of today's Tea Party activists and other dissatisfied voters becomes unmoored from a principled noninterventionist foreign policy, then a great opportunity will be lost.

Not everyone shares this fear. Phil Blumel, president of U.S. Term Limits (and an old college friend of mine), who has known Rand since the two of them worked on Ron Paul's 1988 Libertarian Party presidential campaign, is confident that Rand shares at the very least a general understanding that the U.S. military ought not to be running the world, even if Rand doesn't exactly share his father's passion on the subject. As Blumel concludes, "What U.S. Senator is as libertarian as Rand Paul?"

But as just one senator out of 100, what Rand might actually accomplish is likely to be less important than what he is perceived to be standing for. Will his opponents be able to saddle him with his radical libertarian position that private discrimination shouldn't be the government's business? Will he merely be framed as an apostle of "anger," or will he be seen as representing the only sensible path forward to reform a government tht is spending way beyond its means?

That he won the primary is, in and of itself, encouraging. That he won as the Tea Party outsider against the likes of McConnell and Cheney is even more heartening. But we won't know how encouraging Paul's rise really is until we see if he functions as a leader or inspiration for dozens more candidates and for a mad-at-government movement whose dominant concerns remain up for grabs.

Senior Editor Brian Doherty is author of This is Burning Man (BenBella), Radicals for Capitalism (PublicAffairs) and Gun Control on Trial (Cato Institute).

NEXT: First Man-Made Genome Boots Up

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. It will be interesting to see where the numbers go now that he has reversed his stance on the CRA.

  1. Among radical noninterventionist libertarians there’s a strong fear that if the anti-state energies of today’s Tea Party activists and other dissatisfied voters becomes unmoored from a principled noninterventionist foreign policy

    Umm….i think Obama unmoored that ship already.

  2. Uh, the way politics works today your going to need 60 small government senate candidates, I mean people who are REALLY serious about it, before you even start thinking about things changing. Only 59 more to go.

  3. So he’s more of a paleoconservative than a libertarian. BFD.

    1. Exactly.

    2. Do you mean libertarian in the vein of classical liberal, or in the vein of anarchist?

      If you think an anarchist is getting on the national stage any time during this millennium you’re not living on earth.

      1. Libertarian anarchism is part of classical liberalism. Libertarian anarchism is the only consistent political theory out there, btw.

        1. Try getting elected on your ‘consistent’ theory, moron.

    3. Without a doubt.

  4. Cowards?! Where’s Muhammad???

    1. Good question!

      Here’s mine: http://twitpic.com/1pbran

      (And yes, rather than attempt a free-hand, I did a photo manipulation, using the face of comedy legend Tommy Chong for source material.)

  5. Here’s my predition about the November elections:

    What we’re seeing unfold is a kind of Ned Lamont scenario for Republicans.

    I believe that the November elections will be a rout for incumbent Republicans and a relative non-event for incumbent Democrats.

    The Republican base is very angry about a particular single issue: The bailouts. Putting aside all the other problems and disagreements libertarians and liberals might have with the GOP on myriad issues ranging from immigration, civil rights (papers please) and foreign policy, rank and file Republicans have one issue where they’ve got moral high ground: aversion to bailouts and corporate welfare. The Republican leadership has lost this moral high ground. As a result, it’ll be like I stated above, a reverse Ned Lamont.

    Remember Ned Lamont was the principled Democrat politician who supposedly reflected what rank and file Democrats felt about the generally single issue of the Iraq war. Democrats had moral high ground on this issue, and they were energized and excited about it.

    Net Lamont lost.

    I feel the Republicans are headed into similar territory. The Republican base is energized on a series of issues they feel strongly about, but when they go up against ‘mainstream’ Democratic candidates in the general election come November, they’re going to look like extremists, and in the end, they’ll lose the general election causing Republicans to actually lose seats in November. Democrat rank and file members aren’t particularly averse to corporate welfare, especially if there’s an employee somewhere in the mix wearing a Union Yes! pin on his lapel. So rank and file Democrats aren’t going to vote against their leadership the way Republicans will (and are).

    1. Ned Lamont lost to the guy he beat in the primary (Lieberman).

      1. I know, but I’m not sure how that invalidates my theory. Ned Lamont beat a guy in the primary that he couldn’t beat in the general election.

        1. More specifically, Ned Lamont energized the Democratic base, but Lieberman still came off as the mainstream, most appealing candidate in the general election. Clearly, Lamont’s district wanted someone who was “tough on terror”. I believe that as hard as it is for me to admit this, we live in a nation of people who are largely apathetic towards corporate welfare, except for so-called Tea Partiers and principled libertarians. After that, you’re left with ‘moderate republicans’ and the entire Democratic party who seem to have no issue at all with massive corporate giveaways.

          1. That would work now except that Congress and Obama’s approval rating among independents is awful.

            1. Can you link something, John? I can only find old polls on indy’s and Obama from last year.

              Is he really losing approval ratings with Independents, or is this another “Young people trust the government” poll which, when read in reverse showed young people only mistrusted government at a rate of 70%?

              1. See my link to the Gallup pole from May 14th below.

          2. The parallels are not as strong as you suggest. Rand Paul’s opponent is not the incumbent, with all the advantages that brings along with it even in an anti-incumbent year; also, CT Dems knew that even with if Lamont lost, the seat would stay in the D column. Also, Lamont barely beat Liebermann in the primary, in contrast to Paul’s rout of Grayson.

          3. Do you think the GOP candidate would have beaten Lamont if Liebermann hadn’t run in the general election? If not, you’re already admitting the situations are completely different.

            1. If Lieberman had dropped out of the race, Lamont would have cruised. Look at Connecticut this year. Once Dodd dropped out Blumenthal was a shoe in until the Vietnam lying came out. And he still may win anyway.

            2. Lieberman effectively was the GOP candidate.

              1. Uh, no. Connecticuters knew that a vote for Liebermann was not a vote for the GOP, as he would caucus with the Dems and held Dem positions on most issues. Kentuckians on the other hand know that voting for Rand Paul’s opponent gives the Dems an extra seat in the Senate.

    2. Interesting theory.

    3. Prediction, wishful thinking, what is really the difference? The economy is crashing. Unemployment is going up over 10%. The Congress passes one unpopular measure after another. There is a 1.7 trillion dollar deficit. Pelosi and Obama have been giving the finger to the electorate for two years. And you think they are “mainstream”? Whatever gets you through the night I guess. But no Congress R or D is going to survive with an economy this bad and approval ratings this low. An anti- war candidate losing to an incumbent Senator in 2004 doesn’t offer many lessons for now.

      1. An anti- war candidate losing to an incumbent Senator in 2004 doesn’t offer many lessons for now.

        I disagree. Arguably, anti-war fervor was at its peak in 2004. If an anti-war candidate couldn’t win then, when could he win?

        Don’t get me wrong, John, I would love to see a rout of all incumbents. The bloodier the better, I’m just not real confident it’s going to happen.

        I think when push comes to shove, most Americans don’t like to switch horses midstream.

        1. “Arguably, anti-war fervor was at its peak in 2004”

          But anti-war fervor never amounted to anything. George Bush won re-election and the Republicans picked up seats in the Congress. And even after 06, the war continued.

          Ant-bailout and anti-deficit fervor in contrast seems to have some teeth. That is the difference. The country really never was anti-war, or if they were they didn’t vote like they were. But, I think the country really is anti-bailout.

          1. Of course my comment below renders this moot, but keep in mind that John Kerry supported the Iraq war during the 2004 election too.

            And anti-war fervor reached its peak in 2006, not 2004.

            1. But still didn’t result in the election of any politicians who actually planned to end the war. If the 2006 election was about the war, why are we still in Iraq and Afghanistan two elections and complete change in power later?

              Maybe the Democrats played the country for chumps and ignored the reason they got elected. Or maybe the Democrats know they didn’t get elected to end the war. I am voting for the latter.

              1. I figured that would be your vote. But for better or worse facts are notoriously undemocratic.

            2. And anti-war fervor reached its peak in 2006, not 2004.

              That’s why I said “arguably”. It was certainly red hot in 2004, if not white hot.

      2. The Lamont/Liebermann election was in 2006, not 2004.

        1. That is right. That election was not about the war as much as it was about Congressional corruption. This election is going to be about spending, the economy and corruption.

          1. Speaking of narrative-framing….

    4. It’s the independents and Democratic moderates that will cause the deluge in November. The Democrats are acting like they expect it. That’s usually a good sign of what’s to come.

      1. NPR had an interesting report last night (Audio so I won’t link) about how the takeaway from Democrats from Tuesday’s primary was a sigh of relief. That they’re beginning to think that it may not be as bad as they thought.

        Hey, I’m not a “political junkie” so take my theory with a grain of salt. This is merely my reaction to Tuesday’s results after reading between the lines.

        Primary results mean little in the general election. Basically, I see Tuesday as a strong indicator about how Republicans feel about Republicans, but I’m much more circumspect about how the electorate writ large will feel in in November.

        Do we really see independent and moderate Democrats swinging to Tea Party candidates in November?

        1. Only 31% of the country thinks the country is on the right track.

          http://www.rasmussenreports.co…..rong_track

          Congress has a 13% approval rating among independents.

          http://www.gallup.com/poll/128…..dents.aspx

          The money quote from the gallup link

          “As a point of reference, 26% of Americans approved of Congress in November 2006, just before control shifted from Republicans to Democrats, and 23% approved in October 1994, just before control shifted from Democrats to Republicans.”

          This Congress is currently at 21% overall approval.

          1. Reading links now, John.

            However, from your money quote, run with me for a second on this:

            This ‘approval rating for Congress’ that always gets bandied about… is it possible that approval for Congress dropped when control shifted to Republicans because the public felt the amount of bickering went up? That most average Americans want Congress to get to the bipartisan business of “fixing the economy and lowering unemployment” through unfettered government planning, spending and stimulus?

            And on the off chance that you agree with that, which party do you think would benefit from that worldview?

            1. *shifted to Democrats*– typo sorry.

            2. I think most people thought they were getting a return to Clintonism when they voted in 08. Instead, they got a serious tax and spend leftwing Congress. Bush is not on the ballet. People look back on the 1990s time of divided government as a time of pretty sensible government. That is going to work against the Democrats.

              What are the Democrats going to claim? “Re-elect us so we can do more stuff you hate”? No. I think that people are going to want to give the Democrats some adult supervision and vote for a divided government in 2010.

              1. What are the Democrats going to claim? “Re-elect us so we can do more stuff you hate”?

                No, John. My fear is that Democrats are going to claim “Re-elect us so we can finally finish doing the stuff you love without those pesky divisive Republicans standing in our way”.

                I would like to remind everyone that our beloved Tony posted a poll which showed Americans were largely unhappy with healthcare reform because it wasn’t single-payer-ey enough. If that doesn’t give us pause, then we’re asleep.

                1. First, don’t believe Tony’s polls. Second, maybe utterly irrational arguments win. But not always. That dog is not going to hunt. If it did, the Congress would have better approval ratings right now. Seriously, you honestly don’t think that 77% of independents disapprove of Congress because they think the Democrats haven’t sufficiently ignored the opposition? That is just crazy.

                  1. It wasn’t “Tony’s poll”, it was a poll that Tony linked to. I beleive it may have been a Pew Research poll. either way, the results were disturbing.

                2. Considering the stuff that the Dems did do was massively unpopular, I don’t think that’s going to be a good tack. It’s not like the country was mad at Republicans for blocking popular bills.

            3. And if people actually wanted trillions in spending and unfettered government planning this Congress would be wildly popular because they certainly have achieved that.

        2. Whistling past the graveyard. I’m going to say it right now–record defeats are coming for the Democrats. What may be even more significant is that we may see some real incumbent disappearing acts this time around. That would be more heartening to me than a mere party switch.

          Too bad that the GOP sucks so much; otherwise, I’d be optimistic. Unfortunately, with a few exceptions (including, perhaps, Rand Paul), there’s really nothing in this like 1994, where some serious anti-government platforms were (temporarily) adopted.

          1. The Republicans are like a dog chasing a car. They will have no idea what to do with Congress once they get it. But, they will at least stop Obama from doing further damage. And who knows what kind of sleaze and corruption will be revealed once the Chicago machine has to face a hostile Congress.

            1. They could try listening to their members who know what to do with congress instead insulting them at every opportunity.

              1. But that would mean refraining from stealing once in power. And that is not something the GOP establishment is willing to do.

                1. stealing once in power

                  So they do know what to do. The dog catching a car analogy doesnt hold. We just dont like what they do once they get in power.

                  1. Sometimes dogs know exactly what to do when they catch the car….

            2. The Republicans were much more “effective” with a 54 vote majority in the Senate than the Dems have been with 60. They definitely know what to do with a Congressional majority…unfortunately.

              1. They were only more effective because they had broader support for their policies than the Democrats do. The Democrats rolled and voted for things like the Patriot Act because those things polled well. And things like No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D were Democratic ideas that had support from both sides. The contrast, the Democrats are trying to pass unpopular bills for which there is no political price to be paid for voting against them. That makes it a lot tougher.

                1. Medicare Pharma Welfare in on the Dems?

                  God damn – you are a fucking tool.

                  1. http://www.senate.gov/legislat…..vote=00459

                    There is the vote dipshit. It was 54-44 with Dems voting for it. That doesn’t even include the ones who voted to end debate knowing that would pass it.

                    I mean Jesus Shrike you the dumbest most unpleasant poster on here. You are just an ignorant asshole. It is shocking what a fuck you are. You can’t be performance art because no one could act like as big of a dickhead as you. You are without a doubt the biggest cock sucker I have ever seen on the internet. Troll is really too weak of a word for you. You need a new one just for you.

                    1. Bushy-boy lusted for it and signed it.

                      DeLay kept the House open until 3am twisting arms until it passed by one vote!

                      You suck the Big Government GOP dick.

                      I don’t.

                    2. And neither of them holds, or is likely to ever hold, office as a Republican again.

                      The arms deLay had to twist weren’t Democratic ones.

                    3. What will be interesting is to see what the remaining Democrats do if there really is a GOP landslide.

                    4. Who gives a fuck if Delay and Bush are gone?

                      The current GOP is still just as prone to BigGOV War and Power!

                    5. Who gives a fuck if Delay and Bush are gone?

                      The current GOP is still just as prone to BigGOV War and Power!

                    6. I feel screwed whichever party wins, but this rush to destruction the current government is in must be derailed. Gridlock is the only feasible solution, lacking a third party of any note or a sea change in one of the existing parties.

                    7. A Logically defense against either party.

                      “John” – on the other hand – is a Big Gov theocrat.

                    8. You suck the Big Government GOP dick, whereas I prefer the Bigger Government DNC Dick.

        3. NPR had an interesting report last night (Audio so I won’t link) about how the takeaway from Democrats from Tuesday’s primary was a sigh of relief. That they’re beginning to think that it may not be as bad as they thought.

          Did they provide some reasoning behind this belief? It sounds like narrative-framing to me. There were plenty of Democrat hacks on CNN that night talking about how the victory in John Murtha’s old district meant it was a great night for Democrats, but they weren’t terribly convincing.

          1. It’s NPR, so narrative framing is, alas, the core principle of journalism there. (see Young People Trust Government More than Ever!) But NPR wasn’t responsible for informing my opinion, they did help to confirm some suspicions.

    5. Lamont lost because he went head to head with a popular Lieberman, Rand Paul is running for an open seat. There is an important similarity, however, both the tea party and move on.org recognized the usefulness of putting your efforts into the primaries, rather than the general elections. The difference is that the moveon dipshits did so against a popular democrat who could run on his own and win. The net effect of their efforts was to alienate a strong democrat and expend their strength for nothing. The tea party guys are right to pick a winning candidate in an open seat, it makes their threat of intervention in the future more credible.

      1. Lamont lost because he went head to head with a popular Lieberman, Rand Paul is running for an open seat.

        And this is a really good point that I won’t deny. But we’re still talking about the election at large. We’re talking about incumbents in general. By definition, those aren’t open seats. How many incumbent Democrats will lose to Republican challengers? I suspect few.

        1. Is that why you led your original comment with

          Here’s my predition about the November elections:

          What we’re seeing unfold is a kind of Ned Lamont scenario for Republicans.

          There are a number of retiring Dems in the Senate; there are incumbent Dems who are in serious trouble like Harry Reid, Blanche Lincoln, and Arlen Specter would have been had he won the primary.

          1. My point was, if incumbent Republicans are routed by Tea Party candidates in the primary, then put up against “moderate Democrats” in the general, you’re going to end up with a thousand candidates who are going to be painted as extremists, either by media or by their own actions, running against seemingly reasonable, moderate Democrats.

            The Rand Paul hate from the left is already just a taste of what’s to come.

            1. My point was, if incumbent Republicans are routed by Tea Party candidates in the primary, then put up against “moderate Democrats” in the general, you’re going to end up with a thousand candidates who are going to be painted as extremists, either by media or by their own actions, running against seemingly reasonable, moderate Democrats.

              Are those “moderate” Democrats really moderate?

      2. ” The tea party guys are right to pick a winning candidate in an open seat, it makes their threat of intervention in the future more credible.”

        I don’t think there was/is a grand strategy in operation. RP just resonated with tea party concerns.

    6. Republicans are angry about the bailouts, yet offer no alternative other than letting everything to go hell in a handbasket. They aren’t bright enough to understand that if the banking system had collapsed, so would have the economy.

      The proper thing to do is SAVE the economy, FIX the systems that failed, and then PUNISH the bastards that were at the center of the problem. We got the first step done, but Republicans are fighting like hell to prevent the next two, for some unfathomable reason.

      The best way to prevent the bankers from being “bailed out” is to PUNISH them. Heads should have already rolled.

        1. As I said, Dems are the party of Corporate Welfare. It’s just that the corporate welfare wasn’t properly targeted.

          1. Funny that Chad would want to save the economy, being as he’s an anti-capitalist.

            1. Funny that Chad would want to save the economy, being as he’s an anti-capitalist.

              And would not a collapsed economy lead to less carbon dioxide emissions?

              1. That’s what makes Chad’s defense of the economy even more puzzling, Michael. Perhaps the lad is taking his meds at least once in a while…

      1. Republicans are angry about the bailouts, yet offer no alternative other than letting everything to go hell in a handbasket. They aren’t bright enough to understand that if the banking system had collapsed, so would have the economy.

        That is exactly the idea.

        Let those banks and other institutions go to hell in a handbasket so that others can take their place. Not all banks needed bailout; J.P. Morgan Chase was not bailed out. Neither was Farmers & Merchants.

        Should the government have bailed out A & P, Montgomery Ward, or Smith-Corona?

        The best way to prevent the bankers from being “bailed out” is to PUNISH them. Heads should have already rolled.

        Allowing them to fail would be sufficient punishment.

      2. They aren’t bright enough to understand that if the banking system had collapsed, so would have the economy.

        Or maybe some of us just don’t buy the lame justifications given for the bail outs. If dozens of large banks had gone under, there are plenty of other people and organizations with money available to lend responsibly. Get the government out of the way, and there would be even more — liberal do-gooders in government prevent Wal-Mart from acting as a bank, for just one example.

        The best way to prevent the bankers from being bailed out is to PUNISH them.

        Agreed. Without the bailouts, lots of banking executives would have personally felt the pain of their past bad decisions, and those fortunate enough to keep their jobs would be somewhat more hesitant to repeat the mistakes that created the crisis.

    7. He lost because the republicans didn’t run in the race at all.

  6. Is this man named after the prophetic Jewess whose false faith has more rules than Islam, or after the thinktank whose name the scholar al-Awlaki has bestowed upon “moderate,” Western, false Islam? Do you have a password for suicidegirls.com? It sounds like something I could jack to.

    Oh, right?

    SLAY THOSE WHO ARE KINDA LIBERTARIANS

    1. Randall?

      Yeah, not sure who he is named after.

  7. Yay! Rand Paul won the primary!

    Now let’s tear him to pieces! Yay!

    1. There must be something the Beltway “Libertarians” can latch on to discredit him . . . there must be, no matter how outdated or irrelevant.

      1. Can’t you hear the rats as they scurry-search the hallways?

        Ebeneezer’s Law: Libertarians are intent on remaining forever politically impotent.

      2. Well he is against abortion and for war. How’s that?

  8. Apparently, Rand has clarified that he supports the Civil Rights Act and doesn’t want to repeal it.

    1. I think the latter, not the former.

      1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37256695/ns/politics/

        updated 1 hour, 5 minutes ago

        In the wake of Rand Paul’s comments on MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show” Wednesday night questioning provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Kentucky Republican Senate nominee said Thursday he supported the law and would not favor its repeal.

        Paul also said that appearing on Maddow’s show “was a poor political decision.”

        In an interview with radio talk show host Laura Ingraham, Paul implicitly acknowledged that he’d given his opponents ammunition to assail him.

        It was a turnabout from Wednesday night, when Paul told Maddow, “You’re an intelligent person; I like being on your show.”

        In a statement released by his campaign Thursday Paul said, “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.”

        1. That statement supports my point. Which is in line with everything he said in interviews pre-primary too. Not sure why the Maddow thing is such a big kerfuffle when the other times he has said the same thing werent.

          1. In the wake of Rand Paul’s comments on MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show” Wednesday night questioning provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Kentucky Republican Senate nominee said Thursday he supported the law and would not favor its repeal.

            When I first caught this on Google News, I only saw the lead paragraph from MSNBC and I didn’t follow the link.

            It could be that MSNBC is somewhat misrepresenting Paul’s position again.

            1. The sentence from his statement does not show “support”. He may have made some other statement, but I will take that one as his official position.

              Which makes it exactly the same as his stated position on getting rid of the DoEducation.

              He knows he can never bring it to a vote even, so he wont even try. Instead, he has said he will try to go NCLB overturned.

              1. Randy Dandy probably supports the bill in total, but he clearly believes that certain elements are wrong, as do all true libertarians. In particular, he believes that private businesses should be able to discriminate against anyone, anywhere, for any reason.

                I’d actually respect him more if he had the balls to just say it. Instead, he just made pathetic attempts to dodge Maddow’s questions all night, using the standard tactic of answering an entirely different question.

                1. Yeah, I think his ball-less response, which still continues, will hurt him as much as the position itself. Here’s a summary of the Maddow interview, in which he never answered her simple question:

                  Do you believe that private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people or gays or any other minority group?

                  The Courier-Journal is a Democratic-leaning paper.

                  Do you believe that private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people or gays or any other minority group?

                  Government institutions should not be racist.

                  Do you believe that private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people or gays or any other minority group?

                  The South desegregated 120 years after Boston did, and that’s a stain on our history.

                  Do you believe that private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people or gays or any other minority group?

                  Black people should have the right to vote and have equal access to government facilities.

                  Do you believe that private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people or gays or any other minority group?

                  I personally would not belong to a club that excluded anybody for race.

                  Do you believe that private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people or gays or any other minority group?

                  Free speech is so important that we have to let people say boorish things.

                  Do you believe that private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people or gays or any other minority group?

                  I would have marched with King.

                  Do you believe that private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people or gays or any other minority group?

                  I like most of the Civil Rights Act.

                  Do you believe that private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people or gays or any other minority group?

                  A lot of times these debates get dumbed down.

                  Do you believe that private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people or gays or any other minority group?

                  I am not a bad person, and I do not believe in awful things. Racism is bad.

                  Do you believe that private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people or gays or any other minority group?

                  We should discuss whether people should be allowed to carry guns in a restaurant against the owner’s wishes.

                  Do you believe that private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people or gays or any other minority group?

                  This isn’t really being debated much these days. It’s a settled issue.

                  Do you believe that private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people or gays or any other minority group?

                  I am in favor of desegregating schools and roads.

                  Do you believe that private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people or gays or any other minority group?

                  This is a philosophical discussion.

                  Do you believe that private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people or gays or any other minority group?

                  I do not condone violence.

                  Do you believe that private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people or gays or any other minority group?

                  That question is a red herring and a political ploy. I am a good person.

                  1. You nailed it. That’s hilarous…and spot-on accurate.

                    I don’t know which is more embarrassing for libertarians: their ideology, or their hero’s pathetic attempts to hide it.

                    1. Libertarians are so cute when they try to live in this century.

                    2. Socialists are so cute when they try to live in this century.

                    3. He shouldn’t have hid it. FREEDOM of association is the hall mark of every free society. Are you against freedom? Bet you believe in stealing other people’s property at the point of gun.

        2. My question is, why the hell wasn’t he prepared for a question like that? It’s obvious what a Tea Party-favored candidate is in for on the Rachel f’ing Maddow Show.

          Of course, his dad had the same problem — being caught unprepared for the same obvious questions over and over again. His appearance on Russert’s show was an absolute disaster because he hemmed and hawed when asked about his support for earmarks, which was an OBVIOUS question given Russert’s well-known predilection for ferreting out hypocrisy. Either Rand has the same awful publicity staff or the same stubbornness as his dad; neither will serve him well.

          1. He want unprepared. He answered the same question in basically the same way in interviews before the primary.

            1. wasnt unprepared. typing hard.

            2. Paul told Maddow, “You’re an intelligent person”

              There’s the fatal flaw. I can stop supporting him now.

          2. Or maybe he just doesn’t think quickly on his feet? Some are good at that and some are not.

            1. And for those who aren’t good at it, preparation is key. Before interviews like that, he should sit down with a smart staffer (assuming he has one) and have that person absolutely grill him and try to make him look as bad as possible, with the understanding that no grudges will be held over the pseudo-grilling. This should be repeated several times, so that Rand gets good responses to the obvious tough questions into his muscle memory.

              True, there could be a devastating question lurking in the shadows that no one knows to prepare for — like the famous, “Mr Dukakis, suppose your wife were raped and murdered…” You can’t prepare for those, and that’s when thinking on your feet is going to be tested. But you certainly don’t want to be tripped up by questions that could be seen coming a mile away.

              1. You are right. This gaffe reminds me of some of Palin’s gaffes. It is the result of bad preparation and bad staff work as much as anything.

                1. A lot of times politicians don’t want to do something like that because they’re ego maniacs, and it’s like torture for them to have to endure that, especially if they can’t just classify the questioner as a partisan asshole and never speak to them again. (It’s obviously extremely important that the staffer grilling the boss trusts that grudges won’t be held.)

                  I hate Chuck Schumer with every fiber of my being but the man is an incredible interviewee. I’ve seen interviews on Fox News and the like where the questioner tries to make him look bad, and it never works. His demeanor is constantly friendly, calm, and rational (of course I disagree with his premises). Either the guy is incredibly quick on his feet, or he is unbelievably well-prepared for every interview. There’s no reason we can’t have someone like that on the side of liberty for a change.

                  1. I hate Chuck Schumer with every fiber of my being but the man is an incredible interviewee. I’ve seen interviews on Fox News and the like where the questioner tries to make him look bad, and it never works. His demeanor is constantly friendly, calm, and rational (of course I disagree with his premises). Either the guy is incredibly quick on his feet, or he is unbelievably well-prepared for every interview. There’s no reason we can’t have someone like that on the side of liberty for a change.

                    Have any interviewers asked him about his pistol permit?

            2. He should’ve had the guts to defend his position on freedom of association, he could’ve turned that question on its head and made Maddow look like the stupid cow she is. The 1964 Civil Rights Act had it right when it wanted to desegregate the public sector, if your a constitutionalist then this was right. However where it went to far was when it tried to destroy the one freedom a libertarian society is based on, freedom to associate with whomever you please. I am no bigot and in a libertarian society I would go out of my way to boycott a business or association that didn’t serve to people because of their race or sexual preference. However I don’t believe in enforcing my beliefs at the point of a gun on other people. The Big Gov mindset believes its OK to do this and Rand should’ve showed up the Cow for being a Fascist butt kisser.

          3. The problem is not his preparation. The problem is his position on Title II. He doesn’t like it. And it’s hard to get elected Senator when you wouldn’t outlaw “No Blacks Allowed” policies at public accommodations.

            1. You mean private establishments, not public. He already said he doesn’t think blacks should be banned from any public establishments.

              1. He already said he doesn’t think blacks should be banned from any public establishments.

                And the solution to “whites only” at private establishments is to authorize other private establishments to have “blacks only”.

  9. this article would be very awesome and accurate had it been published TUESDAY ****ING NIGHT. Good job Brian.

    Also, thank god the ****ing allman brothers are on our side. SOME BLACK GUYS BELIEVE IN WHAT I SAID SO ITS NOT RACIST. **** me Rand Paul is now going to be known as the “anti-civil rights guy” and all the national media that are just looking at his campaign are going to be picking that easy EASY fruit low-hanging fruit off the tree. It’s like wow a story about racist southern anti-Obama candidate. NOM NOM NOM

    Prepare for 3 months of this article:

    * Serious doubts about Tea Party Candidate

    * Paul is out of touch with the mainstream voter.

    * Civil rights comments radioactive, quote some democratic strategist. GOP crumbling to extreme elements, quote Paul Begala or some other taint tickler.

    * Hand wave at Paul’s distinction btw anti-government and anti-civil rights, cop out by saying it shows “insensitivity” or “opens the door for seedy elements”
    or “threatens to turn back the clock”

    * Is the Tea Party racist? I don’t know but here are some quotes from random ppl at Tea Party rallies that hate civil rights because of welfare queens, immigrants, black people with their big nostrils sucking up all the white ppl’s air, etc etc

    GG campaign

    1. Hey, you know what would eliminate all the controversy about his position on Title II?

      “I support Title II.”

      The problem is he doesn’t. It’s not a made-up controversy when the political candidate in question truly does not support the legal desegregation of lunch counters.

      It’s an astonishing position to have in 2010, and it deserves attention. And, of course, Paul deserves every opportunity to defend his position. So far he has refused those opportunities.

  10. Any respect he had from progressives seems to have been lost pretty quickly. My guess is that they saw him as “an enemy of my enemy”; and now that the establishment Republican is gone, they no longer need pretend to tolerate him.

    1. He never had any respect from them. They were just keeping their mouth shut until the primary was over.

      The funny thing is, they thought he would be easier to beat than Grayson. Polling is indicating they are wrong.

      1. Exactly. Any Republican seen as an “outsider” who is rocking the boat gets tons of love from liberals… until they are in a position to win, then they are obviously RAAAAAACIST!

        1. interesting thesis

  11. He won an endorsement from Sarah Palin and from Focus on the Family founder James Dobson.

    That is two strikes.

    1. In his favor! YES!

    2. Better two strikes than one shrike.

        1. Dobson nut-huggers.

          1. Dobson nut-huggers.

            Are those those tight jeans that hipsters wear that were made in NKorea?

  12. If you’re looking for a perfect Libertarian candidate…drive on. I do believe however he as close as we’ve seen lately. I also enjoy his seemingly detached monotone responses.

    1. Ayn Rand on Ronald Reagan:

      “I am profoundly opposed to Ronald Reagan. Since he denies the right to abortion, he cannot be a defender of any rights.”

      Same goes for this anti-liberty paleo-con.

      1. As I said “drive on” if you’re looking for perfect. You will never find your shining knight and fuck Ayn Rand.

        1. I agree that shrike’ll never find his shining knight, but it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if he did end up fucking Ayn Rand.

          1. Well her mummified corpse at least.

  13. The Republican base is very angry about a particular single issue: The bailouts.

    Paul, your theory only holds if it is only the Republican base that is angry about bailouts.

    I don’t think it is. Currently, at least, there is non-trivial minority of Dems who are unhappy about spending and the healthcare bill (not just bailouts), and (most importantly), a sizable chunk of independents.

    If this is true, then I think you are looking at big losses for Dems. And, we can hope, big losses for incumbent Republicans.

    1. Look, I’m a pessimist. I admit that. But the noise I seem to get from the Democrat base is not that they’re mad about bailouts in general, but they were mad about how they were targeted.

      So I still hold to my theory, that Republicans are going to take a serious thumping in November, and Democrats will lose surprisingly few seats.

      1. I agree but for a different reason.

        Its the ridiculous gerrymandering. Last cycle we were told the Dems did a clean sweep of the 20-25 truly contested seats in the House.

        The vast majority of House seats have been rendered “safe” by district.

  14. I don’t think the future of libertarianism or America shines out of Rand Paul, but I think taking this primary in context with recent results as diverse as those in Utah and Florida are cause for optimism.

    It’s how diverse all those places are that brings it home. Semi-Bible belt Florida, Utah, and now blue collar, Reagan-Democrat territory in Kentucky?

    Okay, it doesn’t include big cities in the Northeast, and the Tea Party and its sympathizers may never capture Massachusetts or New York–but we did see a surprise in Massachusetts recently.

    Yeah, I don’t think it’s about Rand Paul–it seems to be happening in places that don’t have anything to do with Kentucky or Rand Paul. It seems to be happening everywhere. …and that should be the lead.

    1. A racist, homophobic, sexist, violence against women supporting Teabagger already won a Senate seat in Massachussets.

  15. This is an admittedly horrible and small-minded thing to say, but being both horrible and small-minded, I will say it: Rand Paul’s awful toupee bugs me. It’s bad. Not James Trafficant bad, but still…

    1. Be nice to the baldies. At least he didn’t grow a stupid looking beard to make up for it. Bad toupe’s are acceptable in politics.

    2. Rod Blagojevitch bad?

    3. Rod Blagojevitch bad?

  16. As a tea party patriot and strident advocate of states rights Rand Paul has already lost my support. His retraction regarding support for the Civil Rights Act is cowardly, spineless, and disgraceful. If he wants to flip flop like this on day 1, how much will he change if he is elected?

    1. Was this a burning issue for you for many years? Seriously, WTF do you even care about this for?

    2. How did he flip? (I honestly don’t know)

      Does he support the Civil Rights Act NOW?

      or not?

    3. States dont have rights. States have powers, only people have rights.

      1. Supercilious prigs don’t have any rights either, robc.

        1. Actually, they do, the same ones as the rest of us.

      2. States have rights in regard to other states. As the people have the right to determine for themselves their own laws within their respective polity, the rights of the state are they rights against the people of other polities.
        Too often we get up in dissecting phrases which are used to only convey the essence of an argument, and cannot communicate the entirety of that argument. So let’s stay with digest and not the novel when possible.

    4. lol… God forbid a libertarian have to deal with pesky things like political reality.

      Most people think the civil rights fight is over, and you lost.

      1. The overturning of a bunch of populist Dixiecrat LAWS limiting the rights and freedoms of US citizens was a Libertarian defeat? Who’da thunk it?

        1. It also took the enactment of other LAWS forbidding certain private behavior, and nobody is against it except kooks like Rand Paul.

          1. What? You like “laws forbidding certain private behavior,” faggot boy?

          2. It also took the enactment of other LAWS forbidding certain private behavior, and nobody is against it except kooks like Rand Paul.

            Why did certain private behavior need to be forbidden?

      2. then why is it an issue for maddow to bring up?

        1. It wouldn’t have been an issue if he hadn’t made it one by acting like a complete flake about it.

        2. Because it proves that Randy Dandy, like all libertarians, puts more faith in freshman philosophy than he does reality.

          Get back to me when you hit sophomore.

          1. Because it proves that Randy Dandy, like all libertarians, puts more faith in freshman philosophy than he does reality.

            How does freshman philosophy compete with reality?

  17. strident advocate of states rights

    Is this code?

  18. Rand is NOT the change KY voted for! And it is equally disgraceful that Republicans are mum on defending him. His stance was correct. His retreat was an embarrassment.

    1. Yes he is.

  19. Scott Brown has just voted with the Demon-Kkkrats to support the bank bill, along with ice lesbians Collins and Snowe.

    Do you remember when people thought Brown was a champion of Tea Party values? That sure was temporary. It looks like more of the same with Rand. 🙁

    1. “ice lesbians”?

      LMAO! I love a good jab even if it has no foundation in truth.

    2. Do you remember when people thought Brown was a champion of Tea Party values?

      No. Because NO ONE ever thought that.

      1. I did!

      2. And once again I run against the grain here – I like Brown and would have voted for him.

        But here – on CONSERVATIVE reasondotcom – he is not conservative enough…..

        Really fucked up – this site is a rentboy jackoff site for GOP toe-tappers.

        1. You are such a dumbfuck, it’s amazing.

          1. He is the one commenter I would actually support banning. I would take lonewacko back before I allowed him to post.

            1. Someone needs to hack his system, and expose him. I also bet he has lots of porn on that hard drive. The “invasion” will pay for itself.

              “Extreme cases require extreme measures. Eliminate the Brutes, with extreme prejudice.”

              Dale Carnegie – US Steel / Self Help Author

              1. Dale Carnegie – US Steel / Self Help Author

                Dale Carnegie was not involved with the US Steel Corporation – you’re thinking of Andrew Carnegie. In fact, Dale Carnegie changed the spelling of his last name from Carnegey as a marketing move. The two men were not related to each other though.

            2. You’re a Christ-Fag theocrat anti-Liberty piece of shit, John.

              I speak for Liberty – you don’t.

              Other than that – you’re still a dick.

              1. theocrat

                IQ dropping… brain cells… dying… death comes… too slowly… rosebud…

              2. Liar. Liberals don’t speak for liberty, shrike.

        2. Shrike you are so wrong here.

          First of all, the ever-changing definition of ‘conservative’ renders most of your comment nonsense.

          Secondly, this place was a regular Brown lovefest for about a month. He was seen as the second fucking coming for some a lot of people around here. I argued that he was just a regular republican that got lucky with his opponents disastrous campaign, and the inevitable passing of health care reform.

          Furthermore, it was a rare poster who argued, correctly, that Brown would do nothing to increase liberty or even be able to halt Obamacare.

          I don’t like Brown because he is a run of the mill statist republican. I am by no means a republican, never voted republican, probably never will.

          I am curious as to why you favor Brown so favorably. It wouldn’t have anything to do with those cheesecake pics?

          1. Because Brown is easily better than Martha Coakley.

            And Brown wants to cut federal expenditures!

            And Brown is no Christ-Fag like John-boy here is – I fear a theocracy more than a 38% tax rate.

            John (the poster here) is a theocrat asshole (among others). He sucks off the Dobson and Pat Robertson and Scalia.

            This is the greatest affront to LIBERTY we have!

            1. …Brown, a state senator from Wrentham, picked up the support of the Massachusetts Citizens for Life in this race, based on his position on issues including abortion, stem cells, and federal health legislation. He also opposes federal funding for abortion, supports strong parental consent rules for minors, and supports the ban on what opponents call partial-birth abortion.

              “We’re behind him,” said John Rowe, chairman of the group’s federal political action committee. “The pro-life vote is very important at this point. It can make a big difference.”

              You were saying?

              1. Also, I don’t know why you have this fear of theocracy. Of all the various tyrannies that could happen in the US I think that state imposed religion is the least possible. A nanny state dystopia is probably the most likely, and inevitable.

    3. Um, no one thought Brown was a champion of tea party values. He was supported as better than the alternative and able to create a coalition of support.

  20. ” Demon-Kkkra ”
    Clever, like going to KKKFC for some ChicKKKen.

  21. What happened to draw Muhammad day?

    1. I’ll draw that backward piece of shit——

      (O)

  22. Maybe Rand is a Christian identity racist like his disgusting fuck of a father.

    1. Care to back up those lies, Max? Or are you going to continue to be a fucking prick?

    2. Some documentation on that would be interesting to both supporters and detractors, Beltway boy! 🙂

  23. How long was Obama a Senator before he ran for President? 🙂

  24. Rand Paul’s spokesman resigned in December. In addition to having a My Space post on MLK day that said “Happy Ni**er Day” he also had the following post:

    “So, I was in Rivergate Mall today in line to get some pizza and I noticed a group of Afro-Americans were looking at me with hate and whispering stuff. I was wondering WTF and procceeded to sit facing them and give them the “what the fuck are you looking at look”. Anyway after a few snarls they quit looking at me. I was like do these fuckers think I am someone else or what? Anyway I finished my food and went to find some new shoes. About 10 minutes later, another group of Afro-Americans are giving me the same looks, it then dawns on me, there has to be something on this hoodie that is pissing off the Afro-Americans. And sure enough when I get outside the mall I look and bingo. KKK …. LOL!”

    The communications director was named Chris Hightower. This is just another example of Rand’s spinelessness. The fist post was clearly satire, and came from a friend. The second is only offensive if you have the “PC Disease” – just as Rand Paul backed away from his Civil Rights stance, he backed away from Chris Hightower. Is that consistency you can believe in?

  25. “Johnny? Johnny?!? That’s it young man, no more internets for you!”

  26. I live in KY and have voted Republican for 20 years, and I absolutely refuse to vote for Rand Paul. I obviously won’t be voting for Conway, but Paul is as much of a nut as his father. Appearing on the Alex Jones show? What next, a refusal to give a direct answer when questioned about the perpetrators behind 9/11? Or maybe someone will uncover a cache of racist newsletters somewhere.

    I hate to say I agree with Joe Klein, but the Tea Party movement just jumped the shark.

    1. If it were up to you B, our politics would have no spice. I liked Rand Paul before he turned into a sell out.

      “By the courage of ones convictions – we go boldly into the night.”

      Winston Churchill – leader of England

      1. Thanks for telling us Winston Churchill was a British leader.
        Since you seem to think we are ignoramuses, you may have added he was Prime Minister during WWII and First Lord of the Admiralty prior to that.

        1. …and an incompetent strategist at Gallipoli.

          -jcr

  27. Is it too late to support that Gurley fellow? Perhaps a write in candidacy?

  28. Because Brown is easily better than Martha Coakley.

    And Brown wants to cut federal expenditures!

    And Brown is no Christ-Fag like John-boy here is – I fear a theocracy more than a 38% tax rate.

    John (the poster here) is a theocrat asshole (among others). He sucks off the Dobson and Pat Robertson and Scalia.

    This is the greatest affront to LIBERTY we have!

    1. Christ-fag? That is your problem with John?

      Where is your problem with Obama and his Church?

      Fuck off, dipshit.

  29. Because Brown is easily better than Martha Coakley.

    And Brown wants to cut federal expenditures!

    And Brown is no Christ-Fag like John-boy here is – I fear a theocracy more than a 38% tax rate.

    John (the poster here) is a theocrat asshole (among others). He sucks off the Dobson and Pat Robertson and Scalia.

    This is the greatest affront to LIBERTY we have!

  30. Sorry, but your little Randy Dandy is a weasel who can’t answer questions honestly, can’t stand up for what he believes in, and got his a$$ handed to him last night by Rachel Maddow. Of course, you weren’t watching…too busy watching Fox I suppose.

    1. Fuck off, gloating bastard.

    2. He didn’t get his ass handed to him. What he got was sandbagged by a mainstream media hack whom he had the naivete to think was “fair and unbiased.”

    3. got his a$$ handed to him

      Wishing doesn’t make it so, Chad. He did a fine job of fending off a rather sleazy attack. Maddow knows what the constitutional objections are to the 1964 act, and she also knows full well that Rand’s no racist.

      -jcr

      1. What is “sleazy” about asking him his position on something, and asking it again if he refuses to answer what you asked?

        The simple fact is that Randy Dandy is opposed to Title II of the Civil Rights Act. He (like you, probably), believes that private businesses should be allowed to kick out ni$$ers and Jews. He didn’t have the balls to admit it, and she called him on it.

        If you are going to have ignorant beliefs, this is the price you pay.

        1. The simple fact is that Randy Dandy is opposed to Title II of the Civil Rights Act. He (like you, probably), believes that private businesses should be allowed to kick out ni$$ers and Jews

          And whites and Muslims too.

          You seem to think that abolishing Title II will allow businesses to exclude black people, but not allow business to exclude white people.

        2. The government should also make a large federal bureaucracy to prevent citizens from picking their nose.

          Everyone agrees that picking your nose is disgusting. Also it can spread germs which could hurt someone you come into contact with. What we need is some legislation and an enforcement division, because we have got money to burn.

          Citizens get the benefit of walking on roads and sidewalks that were paid for by taxpayers. Therefore, it is only fair that they should support a bureaucratic expansion in favor of enforcing the nosepick legislation.

  31. So a guy who believes that freedom consists of one thing and one thing only, freedom from governmental constraint, and therefore can’t grasp that in some cases, such as anti-segregation laws, increase in government power can expand freedom, is the new great hope of Libertarianism?
    With candidates like that Libertarians don’t need enemies.

    1. So a guy who believes that freedom consists of one thing and one thing only, freedom from governmental constraint, and therefore can’t grasp that in some cases, such as anti-segregation laws, increase in government power can expand freedom, is the new great hope of Libertarianism?
      With candidates like that Libertarians don’t need enemies.

      How does an increase in government power expand freedom?

      1. We the people can give the power to our representatives to protect the freedom of minorities from the “liberty” of racists for example.

  32. I opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act on the exact same grounds as Rand Paul. Got me elected Governor of Georgia.

  33. Nice comments, though I would’ve liked to have seen Doherty take a stab at his recent deal with Rachel Maddow.

    Not saying he was wrong about what he said, only his political calculations over race are so strong, he still has a lot to learn.

  34. If we can get Peter Schiff elected to Senate in Connecticut, we’ll have 2 from the Ron Paul revolution, not just 1.

  35. So, now Maddow, Matthews*, and other leftist morons can just say “Rand Paul is a racist”, and the gullible amongst us will believe it verbatim.

    It’s intellectually lazy, but it’s a way for Democrats to keep striving for that one-party rule they’ve been lusting after.

    *BTW, Weigel’s appearance on Matthews tonight was a wasted effort. He didn’t do jack OR shit to help dispel the “libertarians are just as racist as all other non-liberals” template. Thanks a lot, Dave.

    1. No, I actually haven’t seen any lefty call him a racist, certainly not a mainstream one.

      We are all smart enough to know it is his libertarianism which is the problem.

      1. It’s more “hint hint wink-wink” than overt, Chad, but the implication is being made. Some on here are doing it, too.

        1. I don’t think he’s a racist. He’s just using the exact same rhetoric that racists in the 60s used to argue against the CRA.

          William F. Buckley basically sued Paul’s verbatim argument against the CRA. He later apologized for it.

          1. Tony, just because you and Chad don’t come right out and say “libertarianism is racist by nature”, doesn’t mean some fools on Kos aren’t saying it.

  36. Rachel Maddow doesn’t love Rand

    apparently being a supporter of limited government means you are racist

    1. YES! Politics has devolved into the sound bite, I think Rand was trying to give a quick dissertation on the ’64 CRA, but because it was an act by the fedgov. he was torn on how to answer. I don’t think Rand is racist at all, but it was uncomfortable for him to answer in the affirmative due to his core beliefs in limited government and allowing for the private sectors’ self determinism….

  37. . Lawmakers would simply send money to states for education, instead of imposing a variety of rules on schools through the U.S. Department of Education, which Paul wants to eliminate.

    No, the federal government wouldn’t be sending money out to the states for education, that money would stay in the states in the first place.

    -jcr

  38. But while radical libertarians (doubtless not a huge Kentucky constituency)

    Libertarians are not a huge constituency anywhere. The only thing adding the “radical” does here, is make the statement slightly more true than it would have been.

    Among radical noninterventionist libertarians there’s a strong fear that if the anti-state energies of today’s Tea Party activists and other dissatisfied voters becomes unmoored from a principled noninterventionist foreign policy, then a great opportunity will be lost.

    I loose all kinds of sleep over the thought that “radical noninterventionist libertarians” might not be perfectly, completely, happy with the world. I mean, there are so very many of them out there, and they’ve always made such a huge difference.

    For example, the only “victory” I’ve ever seen “radical libertarians” achieve, is that they always know how to make perfection the enemy of good enough.

    “Radical libertarians” — as opposed to what, pineapple-coconut libertarians? If what you mean is “anarchists” wouldn’t it be simpler to say so?

    But I think “radical libertarians” don’t need to loose much sleep yet (it’s all the other libertarians who should be loosing sleep right about now). Rand Paul still has ample time to prove himself inept. I hope he doesn’t. But the possibility hangs heavy in the air.

  39. >>>This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Kentucky was conducted on May 19, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports.
    What’s with the capitalization?

  40. Let’s look rationally at this whole Civil Rights Act thing. I certainly agree that when it was past, it absolutely was necessary to tell businesses they couldn’t discriminate against blacks. Now, not so much. Imagine a restaurant denies a black man service based on his race. Said black man goes to the media, media jumps on story, people picket outside restaurant. Even among people people who do hold racist views, most will not have the balls to actually be seen going into the restaurant. I mean the Klan wears hoods for a reason. Now there may be a couple of outspoken bigots who do patronize the restaurant specifically because of its racism. So, in that case the restaurant may stay open. But another restaurant could not do the same, as you’re dealing with a tiny customer base and rely on your restaurant being the only one of its kind to even get that. And of course, if it does stay open for that reason (that is of course assuming your place doesn’t just get straight up torched to the ground), black people will presumably start a business that does not allow whites.

    1. “Imagine a restaurant denies a black man service based on his race. Said black man goes to the media, media jumps on story, people picket outside restaurant.”

      This is quite true, which I think people over-reacted to his comments, as poorly chose as they were. However, can he spare us the McCarthy-esque “american/un-american” rhetoric. Given that Obama’s criticism of BP is (although at least one part showmanship) largely on the behalf of people whose livelihoods have been destroyed by the oil spill, I don’t think there is anything “unamerican” about it. BP can’t simply categorize this one as an “externality” and deny responsibility for damages wrought by their oil. If you believe that people should be held responsible for their actions, and inactions, that harm others, even if unintentionally, there is nothing “unamerican” about Obama’s comments. (Even though they also could have been more carefully worded.)

    2. I certainly agree that when it was past, it absolutely was necessary to tell businesses they couldn’t discriminate against blacks.

      Was it really necessary though.

      After all, if a business excluded black people, then black people were free to create a business and exclude white people.

  41. All in all though I’m hoping he’ll just shut up about that. Honestly it’s a restriction that I’m willing to deal with.

  42. Note that the most prevalent form of racism, affirmative action, is generally supported by all these Title II defenders.

  43. But the real problem is that the definition ‘Libertarianism’ and Republicanism has been blurred, at least ever since Barry Goldwater. Modern Libertarians are just Reactionary Conservatives?they want to go back to by-gone days, when there wasn’t so much government, and supposedly more freedom. But, why are the so reticent to admit to this deceit?

    Since the 1890s the term “libertarianism” has often been used as a synonym for left wing anarchism or libertarian socialism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism] –hence its original use was to describe a left-wing movement. If people like Rand Paul and his father, and their followers, are going to use the term, at least they ought to refer to themselves as Right-wing or Conservative Libertarians?to separate themselves from the Left-wing Libertarians who originate the term.

    After all, they do not actually believe in ‘liberte’ for all?as the the French origin suggests. Their leaders are generally against abortion?against women’s freedom in decision concerning the reproductive rights to choose an abortion; they make the case for free markets?but would place plenty of restrictions themselves upon the market as they deem necessary; they neglect to realize that when people are poor?and can’t pull themselves up by their boot straps?their freedom is singularly limited; similarly, the inability of some people to afford medical care or health insurance impedes their personal freedom.

    prescienceblog.com

  44. if Rand Paul doesn’t watch his words, in particular about the Civil Rights Movement controversy he’s found himself in these last few days, he’s gonna find his winning streak compromised.

  45. Jeez, sum it up, already:

    Libertarians Are Okay With Business Owners Keeping Minorities Out Of Their Businesses

    Which means it follows that

    Libertarians Are Okay With Apartheid

    Wear it!

    1. The second is imposed by government action. The first is not.

      1. The world where racists aren’t racists until the government tells them they have no choice but to be racists is a FANTASY WORLD.

        Wear it: Libertarians Are Okay With Apartheid.

        1. Orel Hazard you don’t make any sense. As Rand Paul specifically said, it was an abomination that it took 120 years for the south the desegregate, the MAIN reason it took that long was that the GOVERNMENT instituted the racism.

          Government has a role in our lives, telling us who we can and can’t associate with in our personal or business lives is not that place. Oh and only a racist bigot like yourself and Rachel Maddow would assume that without government intervention everyone would be some sort of race separatist.

        2. Orel Hazard:

          Wear it: You are utterly ignorant of both libertarianism and apartheid.

          Libertarianism has as much in common with apartheid as it does with Stalinism; i.e., nada.

  46. LOL!! Everybody loves Rand. Having just finished swimming in the HuffPo mire in an article by one Bob Cesca, I could only laugh upon seeing this article’s title.
    It’s ironic how so many progressives rail against corporations and the corruption that comes from them, yet fail to recognize all the wrongs perpetrated on the people by the biggest corporation, the federal government.

  47. While I appreciate Mr Rand Paul’s aim to make the government smaller, I’m quite disappointed and concerned about his embracing of the Imperialist ideologies of the Neoconservative establishment.

  48. Why does Rachel Maddow believe most Americans are bigots?

    In her view, the American people are all small-minded, racist, and only a piece of legislation keeps them from brutally oppressing one another.

    If I were Rand, I would use every attack by Jack Conway to suggest that Conway has a similar dim view of the people of Kentucky.

    1. Agreed. Maddow’s interview was the definition of a “gotcha interview”. She knew going in that Rand isn’t a racist, but since he’s consistent and logic in his views she used that to paint him as a racist.
      She insufferable.

  49. That’s so interesting.

  50. “That he won the primary is, in and of itself, encouraging.”it’s good

  51. That’s so interesting

  52. Even if he’s not a super strict libertarian and given the fact that his one vote probably won’t (but might) decide a bill, having him in the Senate is a huge positive step just by the interactions he will have with other senators on a day to day basis.

  53. In her view, the American people are all small-minded, racist, and only a piece of legislation keeps them from brutally oppressing one another.

    If I were Rand, I replica omega would use every attack by Jack Conway to suggest that Conway has a similar dim view of the people of Kentucky.

  54. Came across your blog when I was searching bing I have found the bit of info that
    I found to be quite useful. You can visit my site about

  55. Even if he’s not a super strict libertarian and given the fact that his one vote probably won’t (but might) decide a bill, having him in the Senate is a huge pos

  56. It will be interesting to see where the numbers go now that he has reversed his stance on the CRA.

  57. I dont suppose Ive read anything like this before. So nice to find somebody with some original thoughts on this subject. realy thank you for starting this up. this website is something that is needed on the web, someone with a little originality. useful job for bringing something new to the internet! Smoothie

  58. The Republican base is energized on a series of issues they feel strongly about, but when they go up against ‘mainstream’ Democratic candidates | RAN ran ran ??? ??? ??? |

  59. Good Artical.

    Thank you.

  60. Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon.

  61. The second is imposed by sbobet government action. The first is not.sbobet

  62. While I sbobet appreciate Mr Rand Paul’s aim to make the government smaller.
    The second sbobet is imposed by government action. The first is not.

  63. Wear it: You are utterly ignorant of both libertarianism and apartheid.

  64. Agreed. Maddow’s interview was the definition of a “gotcha interview”.

  65. Wear it: You are utterly ignorant of both libertarianism and apartheid.

  66. In every leat favorite character topic i have looked in, Rand has seemed to be a prime choice. Now he has that unhealing wound in his side, and in KOD at the very end (dont keep reading if you havent read it yet) he ends up with one arm as a knub. I may not like reading his chapters at times (they do tend to get filled with politics) but i am very happy with his over-all character. So why isnt everyone else? 👿

  67. Well as far as not doing nething since cleansin saidin, i think that its partly Min and Cadsuanes fault. He only really does something drastic when he has to and Min is in the way (sure she calms him down, but how much calming do you need) and Cadsuane just slaps his hand when he starts to do something partway interesting.

  68. might, r u a texas fan? Anyway, I think as far as him becoming distant and what not, he will realize eventually that he will probably die and that he should live it up while he can. I mean he has min elayne and avi, and being part aiel he can marry all of them, so instead of not geting connected and bieng a “rock’ he should come out of the losing his hand experience enraged and go kill all the forsaken, or, like the metaphorical calm before the storm, TG should come soon after this lapse in excitement with Rand.

  69. i like Rand and all, (even more so since he became hard and cold) and i don’t get why everyone hates him….

    He is simply now a no-nonsense-do-what-has-to-be-done-to-win kinda guy, i admire that

  70. I believe Julia can read, yes. What isn’t clear is that konteyner Julia is capable of understanding anything outside of her cocoon of comfort.

  71. It will be really interesting to see the numbers folks, really interesting.

  72. A small government movement will always be just that….small.

  73. thanks for the great post and information

  74. I wonder, what is going on with this Rand dude?

  75. i am not sure if i believe a small government will help our problems.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.