National Review on "Rand Paul, Libertarian Extremist"
Did you a need another Monday morning reminder of why Republican politics and libertarian ideals go together like a hearse and carriage? Read Andrew C. McCarthy's latest in National Review on "Rand Paul, Libertarian Extremist." First paragraph:
The Tea Party's limited-government, constitutional heart is in the right place. But it needs much better guidance about how the Constitution works in wartime.
More:
In my humble opinion (okay, okay, not so humble — but one I've spent years developing), historians will look back on the democracy project as the most damaging national-security development in the post-9/11 era. For one thing, it will be seen as the policy that vested such dangerously misplaced Tea Party credibility in libertarian extremists such as Senator Paul and Judge Napolitano, who, under the Orwellian guise of "constitutionalism," seek to vest our wartime enemies with the rights and privileges of American citizens (to the full peacetime extent of those rights and privileges).
Favorite line in the piece:
Could a president abuse such power? Of course — all power can be abused.
Reason is considerably more enthusiastic about Rand Paul; read all of our coverage here, and watch our Reason.tv interview with the senator at this link or click below.
UPDATE: At NRO, Rand Paul responds.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hey fucking Andy McCarthey, we havent been at war since 19 fucking 45, you fucking moron.
[Pent up rage from idiotic BCS voters]
McCarthy's worse. The BCS voters were just following orders from their ESPN overlords. McCarthy is intentionally stupid.
Nick Saban voted OSU 4th.
First, him even being allowed to vote at all is horribad, then to give a giant finger to the system is even worse.
wasnt it saban who said (some yrs back at LSU) that a team that didnt win it's conference should NOT play for the national title ?
Any team who can't beat Iowa State shouldn't play for the title, either.
If losing by a field goal proves that you can't beat that team, then Alabama can't beat LSU and the title game is pointless.
OSU lost on the road in double OT on the day of a campus tragedy is better than losing at home to the tean you're about to play. We need a no rematches rule for the BCS.
First of all, I'm very sorry the women's basketball coach died. Second of all, I'd be very surprised if any player on that football team knew her personally.
And lastly, Alabama also has a tear jerking story...you know, the one about the entire town being torn apart by a tornado in April, ~50 people being killed, Carson Tinker, the long snapper, being hurled through the air for a few hundred yards and regaining consciousness to find his girlfriend dead a few yards away.
I personally don't really want to see a rematch, but I don't think there's another team in the country that can actually give LSU a run for their money.
We need a no rematches rule for the BCS.
The two best teams should play for the championship. Whether that's happening here or not is another argument, but there's no reason to put #3 in the championship game.
IT'S A FAAAKE!
Though it doesn't surprise me that a mouthbreather such as you gets all his "newz frum teh facebookz"
He never said that. Though it's fairly indefensible that he was allowed to vote, that his vote counted, and that he voted OSU 4th.
I would think that a loss to Iowa state compared to a loss to Oregon could justify voting Stanford number three.
Only if you ignore the other 11 games.
Looking only at "who you lost to" is idiotic.
If two teams both go 11-1, then the one that played the toughest schedule should be ranked highest, regardless of which of the 12 teams they lost to.
If OSU had beat down Iowa St and lost to OU in 2OT, that makes them better? How? That makes them exactly the same as they are now.
I'm sorry, I just don't see why the Big 12 love from the computers. That conference sucks this year. And where was that Yellow Jacked beat down you guaranteed a couple of weeks ago?
27-3 OOC, the only 3 losses were Arizona St, Georgia, Tech and Arkansas.
That is why the computers love the Big12.
remove comma inside Georgia Tech
Every Game Counts.
(except Ala vs. LSU during the regular season)
Or any played by USC.
If we had a playoff system, teams that played each other would show up in the title game fairly often. So what?
Personally, knowing how great defense almost always kills even great offense, I think Alabama is about the only team likely to have much chance of beating LSU.
That said, we need playoffs. Since there's no longer any argument about "tradition" being preserved, I think the bullshit is so exposed as to make it hard for the bowls, networks, and NCAA to continue trying to block playoffs.
He is mocking an argument that is made to support the current system, that is why "So what?"
While I think Bama might be "better" than OSU, OSU has the better resume with the same record and thus "deserves" to be ranked 2nd.
But, yeah, a playoff fixes it all and if a rematch happens, it happens.
The Tide did not have a win like Okie State's beat down of Oklahoma. IMO, that counts more than the loss to Iowa St. compared to Bama's loss to LSU.
What bothers me more is the SEC worshipping. Let's see how LSU or Bama would fare playing on the blue grass.
Kellen Moore is 5-0 against BCS schools, including Boise's beat down of the Dawgs earlier in the year. Boise, unlike LSU, was not held without a first down for an entire half.
Agreed. ESPN has a network deal with the SEC, and then acts like we should all believe they don't hype that conference over all the others.
More and constant fellating "objective coverage" leads to easier recruiting.
Sorry, but they'd crush Boise State.
Hey fucking Andy McCarthey etc. fuck etc.
If you say "fuck" enough times he'll probably answer you.
You are like a dangling turd that refuses to fall into the bowl.
Ironically, the American Spectator has a positive article on Rand today. Probably why I read it more than NRO these days.
More irony - there is a "Ron Paul Is Right" on the drug war right below the Rand Paul is wrong article.
Looks like NRO authors are a mixed bag too.
could you post a link to the Ron Paul is right article, please?
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....ona-charen
Reading the comments is fun. My favorite excerpt:
I feel really, really sorry for that guy's poor neighbors. He probably calls the cops every time they let the dog out to take a shit.
Or tells them they should paint their house blue because he doesn't like yellow.
Nothing ironic about it; Rand has pretty much always been better liked by various stripes of Republicans than his father, in good part because he doesn't attract the kind of certifiable lunatics to his cause that his father does (except by association; for instance, Stormfronters sometimes mention Rand while gushing about Ron; that's not enough to hang him even in trial-by-media).
Rand's social and economic positions are virtually identical with his father's, but his foreign policy is far more pragmatic and sensible. I can't stand Ron, but if Rand were running for President, he would have my vote.
The ironic part is that they reversed it today. They are bashing Rand and praising Ron.
From my reading, the article on Rand sounded more like a blow-by-blow recounting of his week than a praise or a bash. Both assessments it gave of him at the end are accurate: he is still his father's son, and he has been a better team player than his father.
Rand is my senator and I voted for him, but I prefer Ron.
Ron has a much more pragmatic and sensible foreign policy. So pragmatic and sensible that Washington used it.
Yes, I'm sure we know all know how pragmatic Israel-bashing rhetoric that draws every 9/11 Truther, neo-Nazi, and anti-semitic conspiracy theorist nutjob within a ten-thousand-mile radius to your campaign is as opposed to sticking to one's message about smaller government, less spending, and less foreign aid in general the way Rand does.
Rand opposes foreign aid to Israel too. It just doesn't fit in your retarded narrative. Btw, opposing aid to Israel is not anti-semitic. Especially when both of them oppose ALL foreign aid.
If one supports giving a penny to Israel, one is, by definition, a real nutjob.
In a free society, there is no room for taking property from the productive in order to give to a foreign cess pool with a history of violence and mass murder.
They did fuck up the Canaanites.
That's right, Libertymike. Remind us all how Ron's followers always project the worst faults of their violent, murderous, despotic terrorist buddies onto the productive representative republic of Israel. Ron's suicide cult deserves no better than anti-Semitic hypocrites like you.
The difference is that Rand stayed on message: he opposes all foreign aid. The only time he ever mentioned Israel specifically was when a hostile reporter asked him if his opposition to all foreign aid included Israel and he said it did. If he said "all" he means "all" right?
The reason Ron gets so much flack for anti-Semitism is because of your retarded narrative: opposing aid (to everybody and) to Israel is not anti-Semitic, opposing aid to Israel (and oh, by the way, everybody else if you ask, but not if you don't) is anti-Semitic. Your pathetic "but Ron opposes aid to everyone" post-de-facto rationalization doesn't change the fact that all of Ron's rhetoric on this subject is about Israel whereas all of Rand's is about foreign aid. That's why the accusation sticks to Ron, and not to Rand.
Of course, first impressions are also important. What was our first impression of Ron and Rand on Israel? From that Weekly Standard article I linked:
Ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner. Rand comes off sounding like a pragmatist. America loves a winner--and a pragmatist. Ron comes off sounding like a paranoid kook. America hates a loser--and a paranoid kook.
Ron's rhetorical style has always been weak, but in the end, its just rhetorical style. His actual ideas and actions in the house have been pragmatic and sound.
His actions have been just as stupid as his words. His scurrilous attacks on our nation's allies have only served to destroy his already tattered credibility further.
Yes, such great allies that we have exactly 0 treaties with them.
God you are fucking stupid. They both oppose all foreign aid and they both when asked include Israel. Implying one is different than the other is way fucking retarded.
So now you're reduced to swearing at me because you know I'm right and you've lost the argument. None of this lip service about foreign aid from Ron or from you can distract the voters from his blatant Israel-bashing.
That's why crazy Ronnie continues to lose, you see: with defenders like you, he hardly needs detractors. His tactic and yours of trying to change the subject when caught bashing Israel, blaming America for 9/11, and otherwise making a total fool of himself doesn't work on moderators and audiences who don't worship him the way you losers do.
the Orwellian guise of "constitutionalism,"
This is some meta shit. The first time I've ever seen the word Orwellian used in an Orwellian fashion.
I was thinking the exact same thing. These guys do not know the meaning of the word "irony."
The SCOTUS' decision against aff action inspired some in the outrage industry (formerly known as the civil rights movement) to brand "orwellian" Roberts' phrase "the way to end discrimination is to stop discriminating".
That caught my eye too. I immediately thought of Inigo Montoya.
You detained my father. Prepare to get away with it.
It really is a giant "fuck you" to anybody able to read. His argument boils down to WAR IS PEACE and those who dare to call for unpersons to be tried in a court are labeled 'Orwellian'?
McCarthy had a warm up post over the weekend taking on Napolitano, in which he basically called him a crank because he thinks the Constitution is still relevant.
What a fuckstick.
Yeah, this is shockingly fucked up. Both TEAMs really have a hard-on for marginalizing that annoying document.
Wait, so affording basic rights to the accused is Orwellian now?
What Orwell noted about the word "fascism" is happening with his own name.
++orwell
With SB 1867 on the table, the Teams are poised to turn America into the martial-law paradise they've sought for decades.
They're just waiting for a good excuse... say, massive violent unrest from a large, semi-organized group like the Occutards... to pull the trigger.
Fifty/fifty odds on which Team has their collective finger on that trigger.
Nah, it'll be another mass casualty event that does the triggering. Where and with what, I've no idea. When it happens, most of America will be ecstatic to trade the promise of security for any freedoms that they weren't going to use anyway.
I can't see the Occutards changing their tune from "hang out in the park" to "hang them from lampposts." It'd ruin their fundraising for one thing. Where did all of those donations to OWS go anyway?
Half was spent on seitan, the other half on tempeh.
I used the Occutards-going-massively-violent scenario as one possible trigger event, Ghost. It could just as easily be "Tea Party protesters showing up somewhere and NOT being violent", or "massive non-violent protest for drug legalization at the wrong place and time".
But a good ol' fashioned massive casualty (or massive natural disaster) would work just as well. My point is, it doesn't matter which Team is in charge - when that event happens, the Team In Charge - and the one in the minority - will fall over each other to hit the Martial Law Easy Button.
BTW, it's a wonder Occutards *haven't* gotten violent. I was kinda hoping they'd revert to their base nature and burn down some McMansions, instead of just shitting in the streets and demanding free food from Wendy's.
My head just just exploded... what a mess.
I suggest Andy McCarthy move to North Korea since he hates freedom so much and wants to live in a state that properly reacts to permanent states of war.
And of course, we're at war permanently, per the new Bush II/Cheney model. Assholes.
Everywhere! Thanks Lindsey!
+ the Double down by Obama.
Sory, but anyone who talks about terrorism as the primary driver of their political decision-making has no credibility with me. What fucking terrorism is left in the post-Iraq world? Idiots being recruited by government agencies to say they'd bomb aomething. Fuck yeah, let's build the security state over that!
But, see "Idiots being recruited by government agencies to say they'd bomb aomething" is a sustainable model for the Total Security State. With the government producing terrorists, you can be sure they won't ever run out.
Exactly. No more having to fabricate wars everytime they need an excuse to pilfer people's savings. Fabricate a single, constant war and you can pilfer whenever you want.
The government does not produce terrorist. Where do people get these conspiracy theories?!...try reading serious journalist for your news instead of rumors on the interweb.
next you'll be saying the 9/11 commission was lied to by the CIA!
wow, a blast from the past. You are still a marked improvement over Manic Rectal. It's good to see you're still a Truther - sticking with your roots and all that...
Show me the proof that the government conspricay theory is right, go ahead, show me the incontrovertible evidence upon which the true believers, like yourself, make your case.
All you can do is devolve into the ad hominem.
'No, it is real. The Brotherhood, we call it. You will never learn much more about the Brotherhood than that it exists and that you belong to it. I will come back to that presently.'
'It is unwise even for members of the Inner Party to turn off the telescreen for more than half an hour. You ought not to have come here together, and you will have to leave separately. You, comrade' -- he bowed his head to Julia -- 'will leave first. We have about twenty minutes at our disposal. You will understand that I must start by asking you certain questions. In general terms, what are you prepared to do?'
There will be terrorism as long as there is democracy.
Of course most terrorism isn't best countered by war.
"We need to detain you until hostilities have concluded."
"But in a 'war on terror,' when do hostilities conclude?"
"By definition, never. Sucks to be you, sunshine."
Dear Andrew C. McCarthy,
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
goldwater also warned the GOP to NOT combine w evangelicals.
McCarthy would be attacking him, too, today if he were alive.
probably for not wanting to bomb the USSR.
How could anyone think the Evangelicals wouldn't turn the "Big Tent" into a revival?
Rand Paul voted for Iran sanctions. You'd think that would buy him at least a handy from NRO.
That's disappointing. Source?
The Senate.
How dare you vote to punish Iran for car bombings and Katyushas against Iraq and Israel, Rand! How dare you vote to support the Big Shaitan and the Little Shaitan against the inexorable rise of the world Caliphate! Have you at last no shame, Rand Paul? Have you at last no shame!?
But it needs much better guidance about how the Constitution works in wartime.
...which means, forever more. There's no plausible future state of events that would cause McCarthy and his ilk to say the War on Terror is over.
I would like for this bozo to explain that under what conditions the "war" will be over, since he obviously cannot, he is like those tin pot dictators that have their country under a state of emergency for 40 years.
He was pretty good in Weekend at Bernie's II, though.
Ok guys, freedom is all well and good- but there are people that don't like us because of it. To fight these people, we have to get rid of freedom. See, to beat the bastards, we've got to give them what they want. No, that's not letting them win. NO, it's not letting them win. It's simply adopting a tactic we need to beat them. Yes, we'll give the freedoms back when there is no longer anyone who hates us for having them.
Wow. I didn't think people actually believed that "they hate us for our freedom". Sure, lots of people say it, but I didn't think anyone actually believed it.
(I have a hard time noticing sarcasm sometimes. Don't mind me)
Like "the troops are defending your freedoms".
See, if we don't get rid of those freedoms, it'll cause blowback from terrorists who resent us for having those freedoms and taking them with us wherever we go. So we've got to get rid of your freedoms.
Andy McCarthy's a neocon? I'm shocked!
Not really if he doesn't embrace nation building. Still an idiot though.
The power-worshipping NR types have invested in the Reasonable Coercion Model so beloved of religious do-gooders. ("If only better people were in charge!" Yeah, right, you servile toady.) They have always been part of the problem. The Republican party as an organization is infested with power suckups and gamers. In order really to gain anything in the push-back against the statist fungus, the Republican party must be destroyed.
ok what if a muslim extremist had a nuclear suitcase bomb in Manhattan?...I guess you guys would just say he has the right to blow up NY until he is proven guilty of blowing up NY?
What?
Either people know about this person, in which case they should try to arrest him. Conventional arrest and confinement should work as well as anything to stop him blowing shit up. Or they don't know about him, in which case he does what he wants to. In either case, ignoring the rule of law and rights of the accused would not have helped.
That is called troll fisting
This is a spoof, right?
The War-Cons arguments are especially stupid because the US was engaged in continuous low grade hostilities up until the 1870s agains native Americans and were somehow able to say things like He who would trade liberty for security deserves neither and created the freest country on earth.
These War-Cons are fucking fear mongering traitors.
Until the 1870s? The Little Bighorn was June 25, 1876 while Wounded Knee was December, 1890.
My fusionism is full of fffuuuuu
National Review has authors with a reasonably wide variety of views. Some of them are particularly annoying.
Rand Paul's use of asking for a vote on Thursday was great, even if Sens. Levin and McCain and others had a gentleman's agreement to strip the pernicious amendment during conference.
Rand is just flummoxing the Senate with his insistence on crazy things like debating and voting, instead of backroom deals.
ya...William F Buckley was at the National Review and he was awesome!
He was the last real free market republican that knew how to stand up to the joo hating conspiracy nutz that love muslims.
That is awesome that RdP shamed the Senate in to flushing that floater.
The Judge is on a non libertarian's radar? That's awesome.
It's pretty sad that the existential threat he speaks of is spearheaded by a freshman Senator who's usually on the losing side of every vote, and the host a little-watched show on a little-watched channel.
Yes, interesting how threatening a movement to gut Leviathan really is, isn't it?
Team America: World Police? Fuck yeah!
Fuck, he said that? His positions DO make more sense if he thinks America is just another empire that can only prosper by keeping everyone else down by force.
We became the strongest economy in the world while we were, by and large, isolationists.
For one thing, it will be seen as the policy that vested such dangerously misplaced Tea Party credibility in libertarian extremists such as Senator Paul and Judge Napolitano, who, under the Orwellian guise of "constitutionalism," seek to vest our wartime enemies with the rights and privileges of American citizens (to the full peacetime extent of those rights and privileges).
Here is the true enemy of the state.
But it needs much better guidance about how the Constitution works in wartime.
Really? So how does it "work"? I don't remember a clause in the Constitution that says "if the President decides we're in a war this Constitution shall be regarded as null and void".
Now, it's true that historically the U.S. government has restricted liberty during wartime. "Historically" is not the same thing as "rightly".
Wartime creates special situations under the third amendment and the suspension of habeas corpus.
Great. Now just get a valid declaration of War from Congress as provided in the Constitution and you might have a leg to stand on.
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
libertarian extremists such as Senator Paul and Judge Napolitano, who, under the Orwellian guise of "constitutionalism,"
Holy fuck.
This.
The Constitution is Orwellian? I think saying that is what's Orwellian.
Does Andrew McCarthy send these articles in by teletype from a fortified underground bunker? If he's this overwrought about the threat posed by Teh TERRRISTZ, I cannot imagine how he could possibly copewith the risks inherent in walking on a crowded sidewalk, or (Gadfrey!) riding in or driving an automobile, or eating food prepared out of view by a person or persons unknown in a restaurant.
The world is a scaaaaaary place, little man.
I think saying that is what's Orwellian.
Nice smokescreen, you thought criminal.
It would be nice if we had a culture that valued truth more than spin.
How Islam and the Left Sabotage America
Seriously?
What a despicable cunt.
In my humble opinion (okay, okay, not so humble ? but one I've spent years developing),
In other news, Andrew McCarthy has completely wasted years of his life.
"Could a president abuse such power?" Could a President??? Hell yes, I did it!
Come on, I took rights away from citizens. Therefore, ipso facto, minimizing the rights of foreigners should be easy.
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
The Constitution is so... so... un-Constitutional!
You guys should read the actual law and what was in it from Day 1:
S.1867 - SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY
b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
You should maybe not repeat the same bullshit talking point over and over again. Can you distinguish between a "requirement" and a "power"?
"Could a president abuse such power? Of course ? all power can be abused"
Our government has consistently abused every power it was given.