There has been so much Rand Paul train wreck in recent hours, that instead of trying to cover it all, each post will focus on one aspect. This post addresses the argument that Rand Paul isn’t at all racist, he’s just being pure to his noble libertarian ideals. That comment has been flung around defensively in the past 36 hours quite a bit.
Paul said
“Yes. I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form,” Paul said at the beginning of a lengthy answer in which he likened the question to one about limiting freedom of speech for racists. “I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things freedom requires.”
For someone who glibly says he doesn’t want to be “associated with those people”, Rand Paul has a deep and long record of being associated with “those people.”
Keep in mind that the entire mechanism and existence of Rand Paul’s campaign has been predicated on appealing to his father’s national base of donors online. Because of Rand Paul’s intentional directing of his entire campaign toward his father’s funding and supporting mechanisms, the sins of the father are especially relevant to understand the bigotry of Rand Paul. Also keep in mind that the examples listed below are simply a skimming of the Rand Paul and Ron Paul racism over the past several months and years. This is a small sampling, not a comprehensive inventory, and is organized in a loosely chronological manner.
Rand Paul compared Barack Obama to Adolph Hitler in October 2009 during a Lexington rally.
Of course, Rand Paul also benefited early in his campaign, picking up the all-important endorsement of White News Now.
Rand Paul’s primary campaign spokesman wrote about how he enjoyed wearing Ku Klux Klan gear.
In January, unlike Trey Grayson, Jack Conway or Dan Mongiardo, Rand Paul’s web page did not even acknowledge the existence of Martin Luther King Day, which is understandable, since his father Ron Paul voted against the national holiday.
And that vote by Ron Paul wasn’t some principled libertarian stand. It was the product of a racist world view. The same sort of view that leads Ron Paul to spew things like this:
Then he takes a rather un-presidential jab at the appearance of many TSA screeners, a workforce heavily populated by minorities and immigrants. “We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked,” he says. “Most of them are, well, you know, they just don’t look very American to me. If I’d have been looking, they look suspicious … I mean, a lot of them can’t even speak English, hardly. Not that I’m accusing them of anything, but it’s sort of ironic.”
This is not the first time Paul has veered into potentially insensitive territory. In 1992, a copy of his newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report, criticized the judicial system in Washington, D.C., before adding, “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” Under a section headlined “Terrorist Update,” the following sentence ran, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”
————————————————————————————————————-
As recently as Tuesday, Rand Paul’s white supremacy group fan club was cheering his candidacy.
So to those that claim Rand Paul is taking a principled position, that is theoretically still possible. But the never-ending pattern of his racist words, deeds and connections strongly suggests that if it is a principled position, it is nonetheless a principled position being taken by a shockingly racist candidate.
Is this the best the Repugs can do?
I’ve been bouncing around all over the Web looking for pieces on Rand Paul, and the general consensus seems to be that he is somewhere between unpleasantly bigoted and full-bore out of the shell bullgoose loony. Most writers can’t quite seem to determine which he is. But very few, even the Repugs, can find very much good to say about him.
I fully expect him to get worse as the campaign progresses. He’s not the type who will do well at concealing his looniness – in his heart of hearts, I would imagine that he doesn’t see a need to conceal it, and therefore will just put it out there for all to see.
But it would be well for us (read: Jack Conway) to remember that he and his followers are without restraint. Jack is going to have to be ready to turn on a dime every time Paul goes off another deep end. Which I would suspect would be about every 36 to 48 hours from now till November.
I’d like to think that all that will be required for Jack Conway will be simply to present Paul’s lunacy to the voting public, and that will be enough – Paul will unelect himself! But sadly, it’s gonna be uglier than that. Because Paul is going to go negative on Conway’s sorry ass any minute now, is my guess. Jack will have to keep his wits about him if he’s going to come away with anything like his dignity intact.
I fully expect the character assassination to start any day now. The best Jack can hope for, I think, is maybe 24 hours of respite some time in Sept. or Oct., if he’s lucky.
I’d like to think that Kentuckians are smarter than this – that a man like Paul has already ruined his chance because we’re so smart here in the Bluegrass. But as I have that thought, I’m compelled also to recognize that Kentucky elected Jim Bunning – TWICE!!!!
And that realization makes me think that maybe a lunatic like Paul actually does have a chance. And that if HE does – WE don’t.
This guy makes Bunning look sane and sensible, and thats a major accomplishment. Now he is scolding President Obama for holding BP responsible for the mess THEY made. We each and every one need to work hard to make sure this fruitloop gets sent back to planet LooneyTune.
Rand Paul, the gift for KY Democrats, he just keeps on giving and giving.
And a big thank you to all the Teabaggers who nominated Rand Paul.
Don’t neglect paul’s WAY of thinking. Without regulation and reporting there is no news of defalcations. He’s going to blame regulation for unemployment, and on the surface, a case can be made. If there are thinkers in the crowd, they will be shouted down by the shear inertia of stupidity. Bad ideas like bad money always drives out good.
Paul says he’s tired of talking about his views on the Civil Rights Act of ’64. So what? Who cares WHAT he’s tired of? Nail his ass, KY press corps. Maybe he’s so tired of talking about it that if he’s asked often enough, he’ll eventually do something really stupid. Or really stupider than all the stupid stuff he’s done so far.
I don’t know – this might be a piece of cake. Paul might do all the campaigning against him that needs to be done. Certainly he’s off to a good start so far.
I would like to ask LumberJock a question, though: what “case can be made” for regulation to be blamed for unemployment? I can’t figure out how that works.
I didn’t say the argument would hold up under intelligent scrutiny. I didn’t say I would make it. It is a view widely haeld in financial economic sectors that regulator mandates result in lower employment immediately and eventually new technology employs displaced workers. Three falacies:
1. The labor pool has expanded in the interim
2. There is no retraining of displaced workers in the economic plan
3. There is no connectivity between the industry of the lost jobs and the new technology.
Just as there is no salt & pepper on this economic thought, there is no frosting on their cake either – a perfect example having cake and not wishing to eat it at all. They [nameless & faceless 'they'] know this is a morally bankrupt economic projection, but the General: Mills, Foods, Motors, Electrics & Whatever will pay for this and these guys & gals want to pay their bills. Moral bankruptcy never occurs to them.
Happy now?
.