Rand Paul is now the number one target of the Democrats
As much as Democrats dislike Republicans, they hate Libertarians even more. They cannot attack us on social issues, for the most part. But think about it. Democrats are all about growing the government. That is the reverse of what Libertarians are all about. And let’s not forget that too many Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats when it comes to spending and goverment growth.
But not Rand Paul. He might be the Republican nominee of for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky, but he, like his father Ron, is a Libertarian at heart.
And now he is in trouble. He made a classic mistake. He decided to appear on the Rachel Maddow show even though he had to know it was a trap.
She cited something he had written in the past about the Civil Rights Act. I heard her interview with him. What this comes down to is that he thinks the Civil Rights Act violated free speech by not allowing businesses to screw themselves by being racist.
Paul believes that if businesses were racist they would not thrive. Maybe. But why take the chance? I am not a doctrinaire Libertarian in this regard. I have no issue with the Civil Rights Act. And I fervently believe that racism is still a major problem in these United States.
But is Paul a racist? I don’t think so. However he has now been tarred with that brush, by his own words.
It should be noted that the Republican Party is awash in racism. Just look at the GOP gubernatorial candidates here in California, Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner. Both have spent small fortunes trying to become the top bashers of Mexicans. It is disgusting. And stupid. In the end the Democrats will win because California isn’t a state that will tolerate racism.
As for Paul, he might overcome this mess, but I hope he understands that he is the number one target of the Democrats – and the establishment Republicans. As the figurehead of the Tea Party he is dangerous to both groups. As a Libertarian-leaning Republican he is enemy number one to the Democrats. Tough spot to be in.
My advice to Paul and other such nominees is that when folks like Maddow call, blow them off. It is one thing to meet with newspaper reporters. It is another to meet with media personalities who have a partisan axe to grind.
Here in Orange County, I have been giving that advice to candidates with regard to both the Red County and Liberal OC blogs. If they call you, don’t talk to them. Just blow them off. They aren’t reporters and you don’t need that kind of trouble. Just ignore them! They might get pissed and rip you on their blogs, but hardly anyone reads their B.S., so what’s the harm?
It is too late for Paul, but if you are running for office, don’t let his fate befall you. You don’t have to talk to everyone who calls you. Just blow them off…
Ezra Klein asks some much more penetrating and important questions of this small-government-oholic;
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/05/area_politicians_has_some_spla.html
anon,
I read Klein’s op-ed. About what I would expect from a Dem. I didn’t see anything there worth citing.
Of course you wouldn’t cite any of his questions…because small-government-oholics don’t want to address the implications of their ideology.
anon,
Sorry, that won’t work with me. I already told you I am not a doctrinaire Libertarian. And no one fights harder for immigrants in the O.C. than I do.
I am a civil Libertarian first and a small-government Libertarian second.
That said, the thrust of this post holds true. Paul is a huge threat to Democrats and they will spare no expense to make sure they villify him to the fullest expense. They cannot afford to let him win.
You’re doctrinaire when it comes to small government. Rigidly so, and without the proper reflection on the implications of being so inflexible.
anon,
No, not true. I am not of the mind that we need to do away with government. But I do think it is alarming that most job growth is coming from federal agencies. And I do think that cities too often will hire workers when they ought to be outsourcing.
We need a good, responsive, effective government. We don’t have that, at any level.
I have found however that at the local level we can get things done by using our blogs to apply pressure to government bureaucrats…
Can the federal government set the private sector’s minimum wage? NO
Can it tell private businesses not to hire illegal immigrants? NO
Can it tell oil companies what safety systems to build into an offshore drilling platform? MAYBE, MAYBE DEPENDING ON POTENTIAL HARM TO ENVIRONMENT
Can it tell toy companies to test for lead? NO
Can it tell liquor stores not to sell to minors? YES
I love your blog Art but cannot agree with your final analysis. The problem with the albeit disasterous interview is that Rand waffled and did not control the conversation. We have to stand up to these bullies, not run from them.
The only reason that Democrats fear Rand Paul is that their failed Great Society/intrusive nanny state rhetoric is stale, old and tired just like an AMC Gremlin. Even though they complain about citizen apathy, they, like the Republicans, also depend on citizen apathy to maintain their political majority by throwing out their baseless charges of racism against those that may disagree with them on policy. I am willing to bet that most of the people who are throwing out the charges of racism at Rand Paul have not bothered to look at the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to understand his point of view. Or better yet, I doubt they have even read the legislation. Yet, these are also the same people that tried to ram a health care bill down our throats by telling us that we needed to pass it right away so we can find out what’s in it. The same can be said for the passage of the Patriot Act as well.
Art. If you think this “controversy” is huge, wait until June 29th when Thomas E. Woods’ latest book, “Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century,” hits bookstores. Next thing you know, both the Republicans and Democrats will accuse us libertarians and independent free thinkers of sedition and treason for supporting this book. And as usual, they probably won’t bother to read it. They would rather settle for bobbling their heads in agreement for Obama, Romney or whoever their cult of personality hero of the week who makes pretty speeches is rather than engage in a reasoned and civil debate. Because, after all, the state has all of the answers to the problems that ail us. Or that is what they want us to believe.
Art,
Where did I say that you believe we need to “do away with government”? Yeah right, I think you believe that we need to get rid of the government. Thanks for that straw man argument bro!
Art , using Rand Paul and your’ Libertarian logic.
A Homebuilder could build a bunch of homes……figure he could make more money by keeping it “white only” and exclude you from buying a house. You would be fine with that?
Because that’s the part of the civil rights bill, Rachel Maddow was hammering him on.
Maybe partisan, but in 2010, living in Costa Mesa, a “Rule of Law” city , it’s pretty relevant.
Anon,
Straw man?
You wrote, “You’re doctrinaire when it comes to small government.”
I know what you meant by that. Don’t be coy.
Gericault,
I think I made it abundantly clear that I am not a doctrinaire Libertarian and I support the Civil Rights Act.
I am a supporter of civil liberties, in fact I just renewed my ACLU membership.
The point is, Paul is being demonized for pondering something that could never happen in the first place. If it wasn’t this issue, the Dems would make up another one.
Carlos,
It isn’t running away. We have to be smart and pick battlefields of our choice.
Carlos A Rodriguez,
I’d suggest that you read some history on the commerce clause and general welfare clauses of the Constitution and court precedents in our history with regard to those clauses. Do that, and you’ll understand that Congress has the power to act in a way that answers each of those question in the exact opposite way than you think.
how does one “trap” someone with their own words? Are we not responsible for the things we say, even if, as in the case of Mr. Paul, the implications are inconvenient?
I think that I would be much more likely to listen to Libertarians if they were as intelligent as those that are here on this blog. It never ceases to amaze me how many times a party chooses the least qualified and least eloquent people to represent them. I don’t think that Rand Paul was the best choice. The best financed, maybe, but the best choice, no.
I consider myself a “green libertarian”/voluntaryist. I agree with some of the Green Party’s environmental stances but I believe that private individuals, not government, should take the initiative to help us become a more environmentally sustainable society. We do not need to have the government coerce us, with the threat of force, into being more environmentally conscious . This is where I part company with the main leadership of the Green Party. I believe human beings are good by nature and wish to do good things. When government tries to impose its will onto other people, whether its forcing people to recycle, purchase health insurance, etc, people will become eventually become resistant because they don’t like to be treated as little children.
As far as candidates go, I felt the same way about Bob Barr in 2008 and yes,sometimes even the anointed patron saint Ron Paul. I am a huge supporter of former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson who is against the Patriot Act, for same sex marriage, believes in a non-interventionist foreign policy and is for drug legalization. It does bother me some that he does not get as much play in small “l” libertarian circles as Ron and Rand Paul. I do hope that there is not going to be a split in the LP if Wayne Allyn Root is elected chair of the party. I know he has made some statements about supporting the war in the Middle East which goes against the non aggression principle that we have stood for since 1971. However while some fear a split, I think a split may turn out to be a blessing in disguise. That way, we can have a true libertarian movement, not one that is defined by former neo-conservatives and flag wavers for Ronald Reagan. A movement that will have more broad based appeal than it has now. We don’t need to be “Republican lite” or “Democrat lite,” we need to stand on our own and be libertarians
Rand Paul is the MAN, in my perfect world all legislators would be Ron Paul clones.