If Rand Paul didn’t exist, he would be dismissed as a strawman.
While the GOP Congress has ignored the president’s self-enrichment, refusal to disclose his tax returns, and clear violations of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, some have expressed willingness to investigate his opaque ties to Russia. Paul is not one of them. And not only does he see no need for investigation on Russia, Paul has staked out a stance against any investigations, period, on the brutally frank grounds that it would impair the party’s legislative agenda. “I just don’t think it’s useful to be doing investigation after investigation, particularly of your own party,” he told “Kilmeade and Friends.” “We’ll never even get started with doing the things we need to do, like repealing Obamacare, if we’re spending our whole time having Republicans investigate Republicans.”
I remember hearing so many libertarians advocating for Rand Paul back in 2015 and 2016 when the most recent libertarian moment was about to arrive.
I just don’t think it’s useful to be doing investigation after investigation, particularly of your own party. We’ll never even get started with doing the things we need to do, like repealing Obamacare, if we’re spending our whole time having Republicans investigate Republicans. I think it makes no sense.
That’s Rand Paul standing on principal.
It’s not a conflict of interest for Rand Paul to vote for the “doc fix” that sets the reimbursement rates Doctor Paul receives-but it is a conflict of interest for Obama to carry out his duties as written in the constitution?
Does Rand Paul understand that the bulk records collection and all the other awful programs that people are objecting to are defended by the NSA and others as being activities “towards our enemies.”
It’s really hard to tell if he is naive or disingenuous.
Greenwald also questions Paul’s larger strategy here of trying to tie up loose, dovish ends on foreign policy: “I don’t get his strategy: he’s never going to attract GOP hawks, so why dilute what makes him interesting/unique?” That’s the big strategic oddity hanging over all of Paul’s shifts to the right on foreign policy. There are now several politicians considering presidential runs and 501©(4)s being set up solely for the purpose of combating Rand Paul’s allegedly “isolationist” views, even as Paul has fallen in line behind the GOP’s more traditional, hawkish foreign policy. Why is Paul shedding what makes him unique and interesting on foreign policy, when the party’s hawks aren’t buying it anyway?
One posibility is that he, like his father before him; is a complete fraud and cares little to nothing about his rehtoric about freedom and liberty.
Spencer’s own philosophy can safely be described as genocidal libertarianism. In Social Statics, the book Rothbard raises up as the “greatest single work of libertarian political philosophy ever written,” Spencer argues that “[i]nconvenience, suffering, and death are the penalties attached by nature to ignorance, as well as to incompetence.” They are also, he adds, “the means of remedying” these traits. “By weeding out those of lowest development” Spencer explained, “nature secures the growth of a race who shall both understand the conditions of existence, and be able to act up to them… . Nature demands that every being shall be self-sufficing. All that are not so, nature is perpetually withdrawing by death.” Rather than proving nature’s cruelty, Spencer believed that this deadly game “purif[ied] society from those who are, in some respect or other, essentially faulty.” If a man or woman is “sufficiently complete to live,” then they should live. But if “they are not sufficiently complete to live, they die, and it is best they should die.” Needless to say, Spencer saw no place for what he labeled “[a]cts of parliament to save silly people.”
The good old days when libertarians didn’t bother to pretend to care about the poor. These days they pretend that government programs are the cause of poverty. Because poverty didn’t exist in pre-new deal America. And something-something didn’t you read Atlas Shrugged?
The standard defense of this is to claim that that isn’t libertarianism or to claim a straw man. Or that the free market magic will somehow prevent this.
Paul said that in his vision for America, “Any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color is repealed.” The problem is that that describes pretty much every law that incarcerates a lot of people in America — the nonviolent drug offenses Paul often rails against, sure, but also violent crimes and property crimes.
For those playing at home, Mr. Paul just called for adjusting the law based on the race of the accused. Let’s see if libertarians call him out on this. My guess is no.
Paul’s problem is that he doesn’t really see anything wrong with what he said — or at least he won’t admit it. In the tweet showing his booster shot, he commented, “Wonder how the liberal media will misreport this?” It’s the same victim complex he displayed the last time he jousted with the media. In late 2013, multiple reports pretty clearly showed plagiarism in Paul’s speeches and book. Paul’s response? Play it off, blame the “haters,” and issue a non-apology apology.
The people who quoted him correctly and in context are haters.
I keep being told that anti-vax stuff is left wing. Why the flood of right wing vaccine truthers?
Put simply, if Sen. Paul’s commitment to his small government vision extended beyond the GOP’s usual hatred of taxes, throwing himself into the CIA torture scandal by vocally and repeatedly demanding the summary’s release would be the perfect way to prove it. If Paul’s libertarian rhetoric is just a branding exercise to separate him from the rest of the 2016 presidential pack, however, then going after the “patriots” who tortured “evildoers” for George W. Bush is not in his best interest.
I predict that the 2016 GOP pack will come out strongly for the use of torture. I expect Rand Paul to take a lukewarm stance against
If Paul really wanted to help the cause of reining in the NSA, critics say he could have broken with his party and voted to let the bill move ahead — a headline-grabbing moment that would make him stand out from the rest of the Republican presidential field. Instead, the Kentucky senator — the GOP’s most famous libertarian — voted to block the bill from even being debated.
Rand Paul, not a friend of civil liberties.
For those playing at home, there are two wings of the GOP. One that claims the Dems are War Mongers and another that claims they are Gutless Surrender Monkeys.
Does Mr. Paul think armed drones are not an example of militarized police?
“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”
I think the use of an armed drone in the case of an robbery is an example of militarized policing.
From the article:
If I had been told to get out of the street as a teenager, there would have been a distinct possibility that I might have smarted off. But, I wouldn’t have expected to be shot.
That’s called being white. When I was a teen, I had zero fear that I would be arrested, let alone shot. I did not realize how different my experience was until I was much older. As an middle age white dude, the police are polite to me. Even deferential at times.
He went on to say that when it comes to the GOP, “the party can’t become the opposite of what it is” on social matters.
Paul is basically admitting that once the homophobes and bigots in the GOP base start dying off, the GOP will have to change its stance in the culture wars. Liberals have been saying this since the start of the southern strategy.
But his son and progeny Rand Paul also has a close aide who is a huge racist, reports Alana Goodman. Jack Hunter, author, with Rand Paul, of The Tea Party Goes to Washington, is not just kinda bigoted in an uncomfortable, old-guy sort of way. He's a serious neo-Confederate.
Why does this keep happening?
Rand Paul has gone from wanting guarantees that we wouldn’t use drones against American citizens on US soil to advocating the use of drones against American citizens on US soil in record time.
Ron Paul and Rand Paul think Social Security and Universal Health Care are like slavery. I think hyperbolic analogies are like Hitler.
The National Science Foundation would lose 62 percent of its budget because Paul argues that private industry and the states, not the federal government, should be paying for research. But there's no evidence that industry wants to foot that bill, and the states are already financially strapped.
So Rand Paul budget doesn’t ethanol and farm subsidies but does cut the science budget. Fund ethanol, not science. After all, how could science be more important to American’s future than artificially cheap corn? Because funding the NSF distorts the market for science while subsidizing ethanol is market neutral. After all corn is a infinite resource while human intellect severely limited.
From Op-Ed Columnist - The Principles of Rand Paul - NYTimes.com
No ideology survives the collision with real-world politics perfectly intact. General principles have to bend to accommodate the complexities of history, and justice is sometimes better served by compromise than by zealous intellectual consistency.
This was all that Rand Paul needed to admit, after his victory in Kentucky s Republican Senate primary, when NPR and Rachel Maddow asked about his views of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Like many outside-the-box thinkers, they re good at applying their principles more consistently than your average partisan, but lousy at knowing when to stop. (Hence the tendency to see civil rights legislation as just another unjustified expansion of federal power.)
Ross Douthat dissects Rand Pauls gaffe and demonstrates why libertarian ideologues do a disservice both to their cause and to open honest policy debate in general.