Rand Paul puts other foot in mouth

[Name Lips]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37273085/ns/politics-decision_2010/

OK, so first he was dancing around the Civil Rights Act, refusing to say he would have voted for it, saying he didn't think the federal government should be able to tell private businesses they can't discriminate based on race, and so on.

Now he's accusing Obama of being anti-American because he criticized BP after the oil spill, saying the President is just playing the blame game and sometimes accidents "just happen."


Paul blamed the 24-hour news cycle for the controversy, a point his father, Rep. Ron Paul, emphasized.

In a sometimes testy exchange with reporters in the Capitol, he said liberals were treating his son unfairly and reporters were hoping to stop his political momentum with a "gotcha" based on out-of-context remarks.

"Making something out of nothing is just not fair," he said.
Welcome to politics! It ain't fair, but to be honest, it never has been. My response is: Why would you make such statements when there is a 24-hour news cycle waiting to exploit them? It's not like it was a surprise attack. If you make a damaging remark, it will be repeated ad infinitum, usually out of context. Happens to everybody, which is why politicians are such greasy bastards these days, sticking only to safe, meaningless soundbites.

[TiQuinn]

Anti-establishment pols sound great until they become the front runners and start actually vocalizing their thoughts.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

This is why Libertarianism, or really any rigid ideology, generally doesn't succeed in politics. Their opinions might be able to stand up to debate in a seminar or classroom, but not in a soundbite. Well, guess what Mr. Paul? This isn't a symposium at the Heritage Foundation.

[Aloysius]

[
Now he's accusing Obama of being anti-American because he criticized BP after the oil spill, saying the President is just playing the blame game and sometimes accidents "just happen."


If I understand correctly Rand Paul, private corporation must have all the advantage of physical persons (fredom of speech notably) but none of their responsibilities. It reminds me a psychiatric study of the corporation, which concluded that the typical psychological profile of a corporation, if you admit that they are persons, is a psychopathic one. I guess it may be true of their most stalwart defenders, too.

[Name Lips]

Libertarians are very simple creatures. They think the function of the government is to defend its people from military threats.

They want no government regulation or interference in businesses, people's private lives, or anything along those lines. No regulation, incentives, taxes, subsidies, grants, social services, usuary laws, environmental laws....

Not sure where they stand on police/fire/emergency services, infrastructure, or public schools.

[tleilaxu]

i think we need to acknowledge this is one of the biggest environmental catastrophies in history. i mean, we're talking a chernobyl level event. and no one has a goddamn clue what to do about it. we should all be ashamed for allowing a system like this to continue (crony capitalism where the buck stops nowhere and no one is at the switch). obama says BP will pay. how can you put a price tag on killing the gulf of mexico? there isn't enough money in the world to pay for it. and don't be fooled, they still have no idea how they are going to stop it. people need to wake the fuck up and grow the fuck up.

[Name Lips]

This isn't the oil spill thread, but Emerald read an interesting and frightening bit of trivia.

We're constantly comparing the Gulf spill to the Exxon Valdez spill, because it's our best method of comparison. We don't want it to be that horrible!

But we tend to only care about spills off the coast of first-world countries. There is a major spill as bad as the Exxon Valdez off the coast of Nigeria on average once every single year. But who gives a shit about Africa? We don't even bother reporting it.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

Libertarians are very simple creatures. They think the function of the government is to defend its people from military threats.

They want no government regulation or interference in businesses, people's private lives, or anything along those lines. No regulation, incentives, taxes, subsidies, grants, social services, usuary laws, environmental laws....

Not sure where they stand on police/fire/emergency services, infrastructure, or public schools.

Exactly, and I've never met a single Libertarian who seriously was against government intervention in all of that stuff. Everyone has a few things they want government to take care of. In this case, I understand fully what Paul was referring to in the Civil Rights Act, but then, I understand Libertarians. Most Americans probably don't. Especially when all they will see is a sound-bite. I'm not defending Paul, though I agree with some Libertarian ideas, but then don't we all? Of course we do.

[TiQuinn]

Exactly, and I've never met a single Libertarian who seriously was against government intervention in all of that stuff. Everyone has a few things they want government to take care of. In this case, I understand fully what Paul was referring to in the Civil Rights Act, but then, I understand Libertarians. Most Americans probably don't. Especially when all they will see is a sound-bite. I'm not defending Paul, though I agree with some Libertarian ideas, but then don't we all? Of course we do.

I would say every Libertarian idea that I've seriously listened to just seemed overly simplistic to the point that it ignored reality. They remind me of people who think they have the answer to everything..but if they were ever truly handed the reins of responsibility, their principles wouldn't hold up as a practical matter.

[Name Lips]

In terms of a political ideal, libertarians make very little sense. But then so does pure conservatism and pure liberalism. They're the most viable third party out there, and would be an interesting foil to the other two.

Thing is, a pure libertarian in the House or Senate would probably vote against most things, no matter what they are. A guaranteed nay-vote for almost everything -- almost like part of the government had just been turned off. If instead they decided to form a bloc with the republicans, they'd just be another conservative, and would lose identity as a distinct party.

So while they're the most viable third party... they're still not very viable. Their philosophy is either rigidly stupid, or they turn into republicans. Either way people would tire of them quickly if they actually got elected.

[Harry]

I saw this earlier, linked to a story about Paul:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-m0HiB4gjE

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

I would say every Libertarian idea that I've seriously listened to just seemed overly simplistic to the point that it ignored reality. They remind me of people who think they have the answer to everything..but if they were ever truly handed the reins of responsibility, their principles wouldn't hold up as a practical matter.

As a nation we have already passed the Rubicon regarding small federal government. That simple fact makes the Libertarian agenda largely an academic exercise.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

Paul made a pretty bad gaffe (Puerto Rico is a country), but I get a kick out of his candor in admitting "I don't care what it is." :lol: Classic Libertarian. The kind of guy you shoot the shit with at a bar or something, and you think "hell yeah, THIS guy is right on!" But then you think about it more and realize he may be fun to bullshit with, but you don't want him making decisions that affect your life.

[Enk]

...They remind me of people who think they have the answer to everything..but if they were ever truly handed the reins of responsibility, their principles wouldn't hold up as a practical matter.

This is true of any true believer.

If Obama was actually the person he represented himself to be during the election (instead of the smooth Chicago machine operator he is), you'd be saying the same about him.

[Limper]

This isn't the oil spill thread, but Emerald read an interesting and frightening bit of trivia.

We're constantly comparing the Gulf spill to the Exxon Valdez spill, because it's our best method of comparison. We don't want it to be that horrible!

But we tend to only care about spills off the coast of first-world countries. There is a major spill as bad as the Exxon Valdez off the coast of Nigeria on average once every single year. But who gives a shit about Africa? We don't even bother reporting it.

Brown people don't need an environment and we all know they live better in filth.

[Coco Nutkin]

Zing! :heh:

The National Republican Senatorial Committee, apparently in agreement, appends the Paul statement to one from committee communications director Brian Walsh, who attacks (not by name) Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.):

As a side note, I would point out the irony – which seems to have been lost in some of the news coverage -- that the same party seeking to manufacture this issue today, is in fact the same political party which led the filibuster against the Civil Rights Act in 1964. In fact, the sitting President pro tempore of the Senate, elected to this leadership position by his current fellow Senate Democrats, was one of the leaders of this filibuster.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/rand_paul_explains_himself_civ.html

[Hatter]

Zing! :heh:



http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/rand_paul_explains_himself_civ.html

That is pretty funny.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

Zing! :heh:



http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/rand_paul_explains_himself_civ.html

:lol:

[tleilaxu]

fair enough, but the quote neglects to notice the reason the south doesn't vote democratic anymore, and the reason racists have flocked to republicans since 1964, is exactly because of the passage of the civil rights act.

and in the interest of facticity, president pro tempore of the senate is not an elected position, it is simply the longest serving senator. the previous president pro tempore was another racist, strom thurmond (who turned from (D) to (R) because of the CRA).

but don't let that ruin y'alls fun.

(edit: wiki says, "The President pro tempore is elected by the Senate and is customarily the most senior senator in the majority party." you get my point anyway)

[Name Lips]

That would be a fun bumper sticker: "There's a reason racists vote Republican."

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

That would be a fun bumper sticker: "There's a reason racists vote Republican."

Racists vote Democrat too.

[TiQuinn]

This is true of any true believer.

If Obama was actually the person he represented himself to be during the election (instead of the smooth Chicago machine operator he is), you'd be saying the same about him.

Obama always struck me as practical during the elections. In fact, I thought he did a good job of striking a balance between idealistic and practical.

[Enk]

Obama always struck me as practical during the elections. In fact, I thought he did a good job of striking a balance between idealistic and practical.

People who payed attention "got it" - it was hard for someone who watched his campaign closely enough to miss his saavy. But, if you listened only to the soundbites and will.i.am the same picture didn't emerge.

[bunny]

People who payed attention "got it" - it was hard for someone who watched his campaign closely enough to miss his saavy. But, if you listened only to the soundbites and will.i.am the same picture didn't emerge.

Well, what good ever came of listening to Will.i.am for political advice? :)

[Dr. Paragon]

People who payed attention "got it" - it was hard for someone who watched his campaign closely enough to miss his saavy. But, if you listened only to the soundbites and will.i.am the same picture didn't emerge.

But that song/video kicked ass!
Mostly because the speech the song samples is one of the best pieces
of modern oratory I have ever heard or read. As in in the top 10 best
but not the best.

I agree, if you get all your information "McNugget style then your grasp
of the bigger game and the players of it is rather simplistic at best.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

Obama is basically a European-style soft socialist.

[Random Encounter]

In terms of a political ideal, libertarians make very little sense. But then so does pure conservatism and pure liberalism. They're the most viable third party out there, and would be an interesting foil to the other two.

Thing is, a pure libertarian in the House or Senate would probably vote against most things, no matter what they are. A guaranteed nay-vote for almost everything -- almost like part of the government had just been turned off. If instead they decided to form a bloc with the republicans, they'd just be another conservative, and would lose identity as a distinct party.

So while they're the most viable third party... they're still not very viable. Their philosophy is either rigidly stupid, or they turn into republicans. Either way people would tire of them quickly if they actually got elected.

The few sane Libertarians I've spoken with have a more reasonable view of their party's goals. Some of which I agree with.

The basic premise behind all their political beliefs seems to be less about the abolishment of large government, and more about the decentralization of government such that domestic matters are handled at the state or local level with only international issues and disputes between states addressed by the federal government.

I think that's an overly simple view that ignores how interconnected local and international issues have become. But as an ideal I don't find it lacking any more than the core tenets of the Republican or Democratic parties.