Rand Paul - Buffoon, Racist or Moron? What's DU's Conclusion?

[bondwooley]

Run time: 02:15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vMBur0AOEc   Posted on YouTube: May 25, 2010 By YouTube Member: MaxFolger Views on YouTube: 4   Posted on DU: May 26, 2010 By DU Member: bondwooley Views on DU: 3513

 
It's too late to back-peddle, Mr. Rand!

We're strong believers in the rule of the marketplace, but you're jumping the shark.

The marketplace does a (somewhat) good job of regulating business policy - but it kept segregation alive for 100 years after slavery was abolished.

Take a look at what Rand Paul's world looks like through his glasses. Yikes!

And let's make sure he doesn't get to Washington, DU!

(Angry as we are, we hope you get a laugh out of this video.)

[Liberal Veteran]

1. I'm not sure that I've concluded that those traits are mutually exclusive of one another.

[bondwooley]

3. Maybe you're making a point that's going over my head....

... but which traits are you talking about? I'm being sincere in asking.

[Liberal Veteran]

15. Buffoon, racist, or moron. In Rand Paul's case, all three are possible at the same time.

[izquierdista]

2. How about clown?

[bondwooley]

4. Thanks, I'll take...

... Emmett Kelly in a paint-by-numbers set if you have it!

[bondwooley]

11. Oh, wait, I finally get it!

[saltpoint]

5. Something in Rand Paul is wounded, damaged, left askew.

There's an IQ at work --he's an eye doctor, isn't he? -- but there is also an impulse in him to withdraw, to isolate -- this long before Rachel tore him to bits the other night on television.

He is not brainless in the way Palin is brainless, and there is only a small percentage of self-congratulation in him, compared with the other Bagger types.

Sometimes he seems media-savvy, but then falls flat on his face in the next appearance or interview. A mixed-bag Bagger in that respect.

He a candidate for tea baggers who can spell but who probably can't govern.

In the Maddow interview, I sensed him thrashing around in slow motion for a response that would put Maddow on the defensive. He never found it and in the process made her questions far more famous and widely circulated than they might otherwise have been. Ever since, Rand's the one on the defensive.

His conditional endorsement of "most" of the Civil Rights Act evidently just played to his base, to people who likely already agreed with him on just about everything. Rand Paul is not lazy in the way Jim Inhofe is disgracefully lazy, and Rand is smarter than a large crop of waste-of-oxygen Republicans currently serving in the Senate -- we all know their names.

But he is the It boy of the Baggers at the moment, running on the GOP ballot slot. I'm casting strong vibes and a modest check to Jack Conway in hopes that he can raise some serious cash to give Rand Paul a whupping this November, and to restore my faith in the idea that if Rand doesn't have any more sense than he showed in the Maddow interview, he probably should not be serving in the upper chamber of the next Congress, and I hope a majority of voters in Kentucky are in agreement.

[bondwooley]

8. I hope your efforts to keep him from being elected ...

... are successful. Agreed, he's not a bimbo ... but I think he is a Palin type idiot who drank some Kool-Aid and is trying to force the effects on the rest of us.

[saltpoint]

14. Yes. He's one of the true believers. I'm curious to see about this

new "staff shake up" we're hearing about.

[bondwooley]

39. The staff shake up is a ploy ...

... does he really think that we'll fall for that? Your staff is reflection of your ideology and strategy, not the other way around. Unless you don't have an ideology or strategy....

[icee]

6. I'll take buffoon.

[NewJeffCT]

7. he's a racist, but

it would be unwise to underestimate him in the election.

[bondwooley]

37. True, he can't be underestimated, and he's got time to "recover" from this. n/t

[sharesunited]

9. Ideologue to the extreme. Just not a good fit for elected office.

[bondwooley]

19. I agree with that. nt

[Joey Liberal]

10. I'll take Moron. nt

[Alpha Numeric Wanda]

12. Giving Libertarianism a bad name

I get (I think) where Dr. Paul is coming from. You can make the argument that the US was founded as the ultimate free society and that government should be more like the Supreme Court is supposed to be -- i.e. less activist. But RP takes the issue too far. Which is too bad, because in this day of "too big to fail" and government and private interests so in bed together they might as well be f***ing like honeymooners, I'd enjoy a reasonable discussion of what the legitimate role of government is in private business interests. Saying that the Civil Rights Act of '64 (or for that matter the ADA) overreached is just setting yourself up for ridicule.

[bondwooley]

16. As far as activist ism goes ...

... that's the role of the legislature. If they hate what the SCOTUS or POTUS might try to do, they can veto, write a new law or amend the constitution.

OK, that's a kind of conservative take on the system, but it's true.

And now I can't remember what point I was trying to make! Back later.

[LaPera]

33. Libertarian ideology is a pile of shit, complete corporate greed, sickening, disgusting

lying racist motherfuckers.... Libertarianism ideology goes hand in hand with the republicans and the fascist, ruling class thugs, parties for the few, the wealthy, who hate paying taxes, and couldn't care less for the less fortunate..... Libertarianism support taxes only for the military machine for imperialism i.e. stealing of other countries resources for the rich & corporations..... Libertarianism is the complete opposite of democratic progressive socialism, which is for all the people, workers, not just the wealthy, socialist want a more fair compassionate free & tolerance society for all, striving for a more peaceful world.....certainly the rich would exists but not as rich & greedy as they would like, they would have to pay their fair share which they absolute do not under the Republican/Libertarian is the worst world that we have been evolving into since the Libertarianism of neocon republican Ronald Reagan thirty years ago.....and on it goes, and here come those Republican/Libertarianism fuckers, trying to lie smear, steamroll and distort to get it all now!!

FUCK all assholes! Libertarianism

[bondwooley]

38. At their best, Libertarians are so conservative that they're liberal...

... but more often, I suspect a ulterior motives behind their banner of "hands-off government" ...

[paulkienitz]

58. I've known libertarians... they're not greedheads, they're just unrealistic dreamers

They tend to be perfectly decent people on a personal level -- certainly more so than a lot of hate-filled conservatives. They just don't see the practical shortcomings of their idealized dream of a better world. They don't get, for instance, that a tiny and limited government has only a very short distance to go before becoming a corrupt and bought government.

The privileged are not libertarians themselves, though they may pretend they are because they do benefit when libertarianism snake-oil is bought by the nonprivileged.

[Grassy Knoll]

13. I'll take Racist for 1000, Alex....

[bondwooley]

17. HAHA! Good one. nt

[niceypoo]

18. He is a Libertarian

His politics are an abstract fantasy that fails miserably where the rubber meets the road.

[bondwooley]

20. I have to admit...

I have a soft spot for Libertarians ... they're generally so liberal that they're conservative. Or so conservative that they're liberal. And it leads to fun discussion.

But I want to keep them off the Hill.

[bondwooley]

41. Great description! n/t

[proReality]

21. Out of touch, misguided Libertarian.

[bondwooley]

22. OK, you're right. They're out of touch. I was trying to be nice. n't

[proReality]

23. Libertarians

I haven't run into one yet who doesn't live in a fantasy world.

[bondwooley]

24. It's the purist thing ...

... sounds great when you're stoned out of your mind, but doesn't work in practice.

It's like the the Golden Rule. It could work. But our parents forgot to tell us that unless *everybody in the world* lives by it, it falls apart. Leaving you screwed.

Well, just a thought.

[ConanTheDestroyer]

25. This is off base

While I think your post means well, it is short sighted and emotional. Rand Paul is neither a buffoon nor a moron. I think he is misguided. I think he believes in principles that work on paper and read as sensible, but don't work in practice. His point is that he does not feel that the government should interfere with private enterprise. If a business owner does not want to serve blacks, gays and women, he believes they should have that right. They also must deal with the backlash that may cause. On the surface it seems logical. If you want to refuse to serve people you risk negative impact to your business. Makes sense to me. Rand himself said he thinks it is a terrible business practice, but he supports the rights of private enterprise.

Kind of like I don't agree with what you're saying but I support your right to say it.

In practice, this just doesn't work. In my opinion, this is the fault of the business owner as well as the person that won't be served. If the person being refused service just went somewhere else, it isn't a big deal. The problem is we humans just can't do that. We get pissed. Even though there are plenty of other places we could go for similar goods and/or services, we cannot cope with being unjustly denied service. Both sides refuse to yield and things turn from a minor irritation into highly combustible.

I think too much is being made of this. But my point is that Ron Paul and his son, Rand Paul are not dumb people. They are not morons. I don't even know that they are racist. I think they are disconnected. Their beliefs will never fly in the mainstream. We are way to sensitive.

Additionally his timing is extremely poor. The last thing people want to hear about right now is unregulated enterprise. That has failed. Time for some new ideas.

[Alpha Numeric Wanda]

26. Disagree

Buffoon, racist, moron... misguided? Sorry but I'm not exactly buying "misguided". In this day and age, if Rand Paul doesn't realize that what he says will be read as race-baiting then he's, well, a moron. Misguided is beside the point. And saying that he thinks racism should be legal but he won't support racist businesses is about as convincing as saying "some of my best friends are Jews."

Too much is being made of this? Hardly. Rand Paul is currently the Tea Party's most prominent politician. The Tea Party stands for less government and lower taxes. Fine. But it's not too much to ask how far they want that philosophy to go.

[Alpha Numeric Wanda]

27. Great vid btw!

[bondwooley]

29. Just read your post...

And I agree. But i also agree with the other poster's last two sentences.

[bondwooley]

28. Your last two sentences...

... are, at least in my opinion, very astute and shed light on a lot of things. As someone whose job it was (way back when) to enforce the Civil Rights Act, I find Paul's inability to say something concrete about Title II inexcusable (leaving us to wonder if he's a moron or a racist).

And I agree that his timing is poor and that we need new ideas. I don't think new ideas are coming from him, thought.

[Enthusiast]

30. Sorry, Rand is way way off.

It is not the fault of minorities being discriminated against. And they should get mad, mad as hell.

[bondwooley]

47. I agree - mad as hell is right....

As you put it:

It is not the fault of minorities being discriminated against. And they should get mad, mad as hell.

[Raineyb]

55. Excuse you? Why the hell should anyone have to put up with being treated as a second class citizen?

Just go to another place? And if that one turns you away go to another, then another, the another. It's not that big a deal right? Easy for you to say since you apparently don't anticipate such a thing happening to you.

How very white of you as the saying goes.

Minor irritation? No it's not a "minor irritation" when you cannot procure necessities because no one will sell them to you. You're as big a moron as Rand Paul and his ilk and I daresay just as fucking bigoted.

[bondwooley]

59. Check out the link in post 54 about the racism issue... n/t

[LaPera]

31. Just another corporate greedy republican racist. - No two ways about it.

[apex nerd]

32. All of the above?

Is Buff-mor-cist a word?

[bondwooley]

44. Buffmorcist!

If it's not a word, it should be!

[Mosaic]

34. Definitely All Three

Being a moron and a racist go hand in hand, and being a moron and buffoon do too. Most of all Rand's a loser.

[SemperEadem]

35. the minute he started whining about the govt having it boot on BP's neck

was when I knew he was a buffoon--but a dangerous one. He is a snake oil salesman and there are a lot of people who are convinced that what he's selling is the answer to their prayers.

[bondwooley]

51. I just caught up with the BP statements ....

... and he's really going off the deep edge. Libertarians have a legitimate point of view. Not one that I agree with, but legitimate. But this moron is picking examples like civil rights and eco/corporate disasters like BP to make his point?!?!?!? I'm beginning to think he's a plant to bring down Libertarians.

[Alpha Numeric Wanda]

36. Someone help me figure Rand Paul out...

He's trying to come off as a Libertarian purist. So why is he against gay marriage?

The Tea Party is another thing. They've managed to bring some interesting (and some dangerous) questions to the forefront of the debate this election cycle. It's about anger, yes, and they don't want to pay a lot of taxes. I get that. But it seems they also want a showdown on every good idea of the last eighty years. (I almost said "liberal ideas" but then I remembered it was under Nixon that the EPA was created.)

Do they have any idea of the consequences of 100% unregulated business? Do they really want to return us to the 19th Century?

Sometimes I think I understand them and then I don't.

[bondwooley]

43. If you look two posts down, Jack Rabbit has an illuminating description of ideologues ....

... that snaps certain issues you raise into focus.

[bitchkitty]

40. You insult morons.

A moron is so stupid he can't help himself. You have to feel kind of sorry for them. He's just an idiot, a racist idiot. Dime a dozen.

[bondwooley]

45. I like your distinction. Maybe you're right - he deserve pity! n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

42. Rand Paul is an ideologue

I've had many libertarian friends in my life and, if they are any indication, very few libertarians are racists. However, they do believe in the primacy of the market, meaning that people with money should be able to run their businesses as they see fit.

Dr. Paul's remarks to Rachel Maddow came as no surprise to me. Although he would not answer the question, he most certainly would give Woolworth's the right to put up a "Whites Only" sign in front of their lunch counters. And then he would boycott Woolworth's. That is the same answer I would have gotten from any of my libertarian friends.

Dr. Paul believes that businessmen make rational decisions, and that it is clearly irrational to subject one's business to organized boycotts while at the same time cutting oneself off from a considerable slice of the market by refusing to do business with it. Even if a businessman doesn't like the color of somebody's skin, there is nothing wrong with the color of his money as long as it's green.

Of course, businessmen do make irrational decisions. If they didn't, Woolworth's would never have had a whites only policy at its lunch counters and Lester Maddox would have let his ax handle lay idle. I don't agree with Dr. Paul's views on the Civil Act of 1964, but I've never had a discussion about this with a libertarian where the victims of discrimination were disparaged.

Rand Paul is not a racist. He is an ideologue. I am much more concerned with his remarks about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a current problem, than I am about his remarks about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which he concedes is now settled law. The undersea blow out is not an "accident"; it is carelessness. Does Dr. Paul think there is any role for government to play in enforcing common-sense safety procedures? Or does BP (not to mention Shell, ExxonMoble, Standard Oil or Conoco) have the right to enforce its own safety rules, which may be subject to cutting costs? Is Dr. Paul's solution to boycott BP into submission? I'm certainly not against that, but it seems to me that what is happening in the Gulf is a crime. Other people, who have no connection to the oil industry other than to use its products, have had their livelihoods destroyed at least for now. There aren't very many of us who are going to eat Louisiana shrimp if it smells like an oil refinery.

Dr. Paul believes we shouldn't be so hard on BP. The free market is the American ideal of freedom to Dr. Paul. Never mind that we've seen how an unbridled, unregulated free market works and that it isn't pretty. Far from being rational, it is self destructive. Yet Dr. Paul, the ideologue, would march America and the world off a cliff in the name of that kind of freedom. That is what an ideologue is: An ideologue is someone who clings to an ideal so rigorously that it defies the boundaries of common sense and pragmatism. An ideologue is not a reasonable thinker. In fact, it is irrational to destroy the earth in the name of freedom and right to pursue profits. That is why Dr. Paul should be defeated in November.

[bondwooley]

46. Libertarians are an interesting group ...

... and I do believe in a lot of what they say. But there's there underlying presumption in their views that either "people will do the right thing" or "it's okay for the majority to screw the minority if they have enough money to influence the free market."

That stuff just doesn't add up for me. The marketplace is a great reality check for business owners - teaching them not to sell umbrellas in the desert - but it has no moral compass. And sometimes, a moral compass is in order. Ask all the people running from foreclosed property - thanks to a *misinformed* marketplace *created* by Wall Street.

[Alpha Numeric Wanda]

52. Very thoughtful analysis, Mr. Rabbit! ...

I've been struggling with some libertarian issues myself, mostly with the recent bailouts. I agree with the Libertarians that the bailouts were a nasty thing, and I would much prefer public and private interests to be a lot less intertwined. But unregulated, super-free markets are NOT the way to achieve this.

We're a country of people first, a free market second.

[bondwooley]

48. Just an update on the Kentucky race with Paul - ...

... The Libertarians are so upset with Rand Paul that they're now thinking of running their own candidate against him!

[Enthusiast]

49. Buffmorcist! nt

[paulkienitz]

50. Rand Paul is neither stupid nor racist: he's an ideologue.

Libertarian morality, strictly applied, does not permit any conclusion other than the one he has stated. He isn't willing to back away from his ideal vision of government as something that in essence does nothing but enforce property rights, and this debacle is the result.

[Alpha Numeric Wanda]

53. But hasn't he, in fact, backed away?

... once he realized that his extreme position was being feasted on by the press? I resent the spin he tried to give it, saying that the press was "lying" about him and saying that he wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act. No, he doesn't. I get that. But that's not what's on the table. What's on the table is whether the government has an interest, however limited, in private business affairs. The Civil Rights act may be "settled law", but what about the oil companies?

[bondwooley]

54. Beginning to wonder if he really *would* have voted for the Civil Rights Act ...

... the following article (and I don't know the author or how credible the reporting is) has some very interesting things to say about Rand, his father and his staff...

http://newstilt.com/newsguy/news/rand-paul-and-his-fathers

Snips include:

Last December his campaign spokesperson quit after it turned out that his MySpace page contained an image showing a lynching accompanied by the greeting, “Happy N***** Day.”

It was Martin Luther King Day. There was other racist material on the page, plus some Satanist commentary.

There is no proof that Paul knew anything about his young aide’s (Christopher Hightower was 37) peculiar on-line habits. And Paul quickly “accepted (Hightower’s) resignation,” which means he fired the guy.

and....

Like son, like father. The Pauls share not only a libertarian (or “constitutional conservative” as Rand Paul prefers) philosophy, but a weakness for allies and supporters who are both conspiratorial and racist.

In 2008, CNN reported that a series of newsletter that had gone out under Ron Paul’s name in the 1990s contained racist and anti-Semitic material, including attacks on the Israeli lobby, AIDS victims, and the “pro-communist philanderer” Martin Luther King, Jr.

[paulkienitz]

56. okay, maybe he is racist, maybe...

I'm just sayin that his libertarian positions are no evidence of that.

[bondwooley]

57. Hope I didn't write anything to imply that Libertarians are racist. n/t