Ron Paul’s son, Rand Paul, is running to replace crazy Jim Bunning in the U.S. Senate, and he just won the endorsement of Sarah Palin. The establishment candidate is Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson (no relationship to Alan). Now, I want to be careful to note that a son does not necessarily share the political views of his father (even if he was named for Ayn Rand). But it appears Rand Paul shares with his father that strange hybrid worldview than allows a libertarian to be anti-choice. I can’t quite wrap my head around the cognitive dissonance it takes to be an anti-choice libertarian, but whatever.
Looking at his issues page, it appears that Rand shares some of his father’s views on national security. He says, “I believe that when we must fight, we declare war as the Constitution mandates…” In other words, no more using the military to fight brushfire wars that Congress hasn’t explicitly authorized. This questioning of the bipartisan Cold War national security state is more common on the left, and it surely infuriates John McCain when it manifests itself on the right. I can only imagine how pissed off McCain is to learn that his running mate is now a Paulinite.
I know a lot of liberals who are attracted to elements of Paulism. They like his positions on our imperialism and the War on Drugs, to choose just two examples. But I know John McCain doesn’t agree. In fact, almost no Republicans agree. Yet, Palin endorsed Rand Paul over the establishment candidate.
To be honest, I don’t think Palin has a clue what kind of beast she is messing with. It was Bill Kristol and his friends who convinced McCain to pick Palin in the first place. Kristol’s whole universe is built around our empire. He must be pretty miffed to see Palin turn into a Paulist. I find the whole thing amusing. But it’s also somewhat dangerous. Ron Paul is right about a few things but he and his followers are basically insane. It will do no one any good if they start winning elections.
Rand Paul is a neocon regarding certain civil liberties. He also opposes closing Guantanamo.
I can’t think of a post that you have written that I have agreed with more than this one.
Also, has she endorsed Peter Schiff? He has until August to take away some leads. I doubt this will happen, but who knows? If she did, she’d be a really twisted neocon Paulite with all sorts of mixed views.
Peter Schiff and Rand Paul, two of the most dangerous people to approach the US Senate in a long time.
1 “Kristol’s whole universe is built around our empire.”
Most people will not grasp quite how true this is of Kristol and his neocon ilk. But you have nailed it: their universe, their world view, their theological leanings, all rest on the notion that
ourtheir empire is holy and infallible.2 Devil’s Advocate: Libertarians (Paulist ones anyhow) still believe the government should prosecute murder. They’re not anarchists. Since they sincerely, if possibly misguidedly, believe that life starts at conception, then it is logical that they could be both Libertarian and anti-choice. I’m not sure if I see how that is cognitive dissonance.
3 I really don’t think all of Paul’s “followers” are insane. That’s an extreme term applied very generally. I’m curious what you feel the biggest dangers from that camp are? Personally, I regret their willingness to subject the rest of us to the horrific adjustment period that would ensue if they somehow managed to hold the political power in this country and enact their agenda. That willingness is borderline sociopathic I guess. But what is it specifically that is so insane about them?
Ok, there’s lots of things that can be said about Walter Block.
One that seems most perplexing is that Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul types nod in Block’s direction as a Libertarian who has a civil voice in supporting some aspects of choice.
If you believe that abortion is indeed murder then a Pro Life position is perfectly logical within a libertarian (or any other) framework. If you don’t believe that abortion is murder then it wouldn’t make sense in a libertarian (or any other) framework.
.
Dr. Rand Paul was recently identified as one of the five most important candidates to support by Dick Armey, Freedom Works and the National Tea Party Movement. Dr. Paul has also received endorsements from Concerned Women for America, Gun Owners of America, Steve Forbes and RedState.com.
Ron Paul support
Rand has also established himself as a significant force in Kentucky politics. For fifteen years he has run Kentucky Taxpayers United, a group that rates the state legislature and promotes the Taxpayer Protection Pledge whereby candidates and office holders take a pledge not to raise taxes.
Ron Paul on Sarah Palin: She’s a “Country Club Republican”
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
“Ron Paul is right about a few things but he and his followers are basically insane.”
To be fair, the context is the race to succeed Bunning who has more than a few lose screws.
loose!
It’s worth noting that Ron Paul has a lot of support from segregationists/white supremacists. It’s entirely possible that Palin got the word that Rand was “OK” from her Alaskan secessionist buddies.
I really wish we would stop worrying about the candidates of the opposing party and start putting up quality candidates of our own.
Don’t tell me that out of all of Kentucky there is not one Democrat who can beat Rand Paul in the general election — should he get that far. Or Tray Grayson. Apparently the current Democratic candidates are big yawns.
Right on! I have only one candidate running in the primary here in IL-06. He is an anti-abortion “Christian” Blue Dog who claims to represent the “Moderate Majority”. He will square off in November against rabidly anti-abortion “Christian” Far-Right Peter Roskam. I suppose Booman will say I should vote for the Democrat anyway. I know Kos would.
There is no Green Party candidate. Unless I get up a petition and put myself on the ballot as a write-in, there will be no one to vote for. More of the legacy of Rahm Emanuel who cut the legs out from under Christine Cegelis. Now no progressive candidate dares run in this district which is right next to Rahm’s 5th district.
These are the stark choices facing American voters today. Either vote Right or Far-Right or don’t vote at all.
Re: “moderate majority” He is also anti-gay and a believer in the magic of markets.
Damn! The Hatch Act prevents me from running as even a non-partisan write-in in any election in which partisan labels are used. Maybe I can find someone else to file.
Isn’t it too late? The primary is today.
Too late for the primary, not the general. You have to file 61 days before the general election.
Blue Dog or Red Snake? What a choice!
“he and his followers and basically insane.”
I consider myself to be as sane and well informed as anyone here. But be that as it may. Each is entitled to their own opinion.
As to the topic at hand, Sarah Palin’s endorsement is a bit disconcerting. She ran as a neocon’s neocon in ’08 and I’m not sure if she’s seen the light or Rand Paul is edging away from his fathers policies that we Paulites love. Sadly, I’d have to bet on the latter but time will tell.
At the same time, Palin is an opportunist. She may very well sense that the Ron Paul movement has continued to grow since the campaign. That there are more people aware of the perfidious nature of the cartel of private banks in partnership with the government (AKA the Federal Reserve.) That there are people beginning to realize pursuit of empire will leave the United States broke.
And that there is some political benefit from associating herself with the movement that called all these things long ago.
is fairly strong over at Libertarian/Ron Paul supporting lewrockwell.com.
She’s probably sensing “opportunity” even though she sometimes confuses them with her blatant neoconniving.
Why is it that when it comes to criticism of Paul and his supporters, it comes down to ad hominem? That’s not good practice. Sure he’s been associated with this or that flavor of crazy, but that represents some very small fraction of money and of persons that might be comparable to pols of either party from certain parts of the country. There are tons of very normal looking, audi driving East Coast yuppies running around with Ron Paul stickers on their car ’round here.
The outright dismissal of Libertarian views and of Paul’s movement at this point is putting your head in the sand. It’s a organically growing movement with legs, unlike the Tea Parties and could take the latter organizations’ member and animus and focus it on starting a 3rd party that would actually win some congressional seats, and then.. and then…
…and then the darkies get put on boats.
Hey!! Watch it Boo! I’m one of those darkies. But you know I can’t stand that race hater Ron Paul and I’m sure his son is the same.
Your movement is an internet phenomenon, nothing more.
Wow, you and BooMan REALLY don’t want to get specific, do you?
Ron Paul and his followers
The trouble with Ron
Ron Paul vs. the New World Order
Man of the Hour
Six impossible things before breakfast
Return of the New World Order
The real Ron Paul surfaces
No fault of his own
Thanks for the links. Neiwert seems to have a great blog, which I’ll start reading. There are things about Paul that I can’t excuse, and I want that to be clear.
But I just don’t see “insane.” I guess one could argue that racism is a form of insanity, but that sort of dilutes the clinical definition.
As for his New World Order stuff, I don’t buy it but I think it’s a common reaction among many people in this country who feel sidelined and threatened by globalization and the gradual convergence of governance. I sympathize with his suspicions about the intents of various elite groups, even if I don’t fully buy the NWO booga-booga.
I think Dave is mainly writing for Crooks & Liars these days.
I also think Ron Paul is the definition of insane and that most of his followers are worse.
Yes, God yes. Do you know how much it sucked campaigning for Obama during the primary and GE 2-3 times a week on a college campus? Ugh. His supporters are stupider than your average GOPer. They like to try and act like they’re above the curve because they’re “independent,” but their independence is no different than your typical “I’m moderate for the sake of being moderate, and I am above all you partisans!” The truth is they’re more sheep than your average voter; I’ve yet to talk to one of them who isn’t off the script about free-markets.
As my old friend Obadiah says:
“Everyone’s a libertarian, and then they graduate high school.”
I’m a libertarian. But I’m a civil libertarian, not an Austria School numbnuts jackass.
Well if we get down to brass tacks, the true libertarians were leftist socialists; most people in Europe who identify as libertarians are socialists.
In any case, the Austrian School bullshit is obviously what my friend was referring to haha 😛
Again, as a rhetorical point, the ad hominem and anger just smells like fear. I think the way to put it would be something like this:
In a Libertarian society, there would be no one to protect us from gangs of any stripe, so naturally gang members like many white supremacists will naturally gravitate to Libertarian candidates because their causes would undoubtable be furthered by Liberarian policies. When the market-based stuff fails (conditions change to much for any market not to fail occasionally, see world history), all we will have left is having to pay off local thugs for protection for their thuggery.
At least now the thugs are usually remotely located (NYC,DC, etc) and can be occasionally ignored.
Who’s movement? I only said that stuff as an observer – Libertarianism (forget the leader for a sec) is a form of Utopianism who’s failure would look a lot like the dark ages, but with more contracts.
There are tons of very normal looking, audi driving East Coast yuppies running around with Ron Paul stickers on their car ’round here.
What state is that?
.
Connecticut is an Algonquin Indian word meaning “yuppie scum”.
… or was it Pennsylvania?
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Jersey.
Re Palin: this is the longest goddamn fifteen minutes I’ve experienced in my entire life.
The “establishment candidate” meaning the McConnell/Bunning/Inhofe establishment? It’s hard to see a case where Paul could possibly be more dangerous or insane than the bunch that runs the GOP. I suspect left-leaning Dems would get more votes in the Senate from him than from Grayson, whoever he is — maybe on military spending, agribiz subsidies, and some civil liberties issues, for example.
That said, Ron Paul has always struck me as a lousy Libertarian. His cognitive dissonance seems to extend well beyond abortion to gay rights, civil rights, the need for regulation if you want free markets, and the dangers to liberty from corporate dominance. Beneath all the rhetoric, and aside from a couple good stances like anti-drugwar and (some kinds of) anti-imperialism, he seems like a pretty standard anti-tax, gun-loving Western Republican. And, unfortunately, not a very bright one. Maybe that’s what attracted Palin to his offspring.
I don’t think Palin just turned into a Paulist.
Remember the Alaska Independence Party?
http://godsownparty.com/blog/2009/10/constitution-party-a-better-fit-for-palin-co/
It is affiliated with the Constitution Party.
The CP is a Dominionist front.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-berlet/sarah-palin-and-christian_b_123309.html
This is from the website of the Constitution Party:
http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=613
Ron Paul: The Congressman from Texas is quite simply, `the best they’ve got’. The physician is the only candidate who has a 100% constitutionally-correct voting record. Because he votes against unconstitutional bills every time, he earned the label “Doctor No.”
He alone in the entire GOP lineup is the only one who voted against the war in Iraq. On every single issue he is a pure, unadulterated, founders-woulda-loved him conservative.
Paul never voted to raise taxes. Not once.
Paul never voted for an unbalanced budget.
Paul never voted for any infringement on gun rights.
Paul never voted to raise his pay.
Paul voted against the blatantly-unconstitutional power grab that is the Patriot Act.
Paul does not participate in the congressional pension program and he returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year – a rare Congressman who practices what he preaches!
The attempts to ignore Congressman Paul have been calculated and sinister.
Though MSNBC reported that Ron Paul scored the highest positive votes in both Republican presidential debates and the polls showed he beat Romney, McCain and Giuliani, the media took no notice. Next, a text message poll after the Fox News GOP debate showed Ron Paul winning handily; still no notice from the media lapdogs.
Sean Hannity was less than fair and oh-so-off-balance the night of the Fox News debate when he “refused” to believe Paul won the debate. In fact, Hannity was downright apoplectic. Within short order, the poll numbers quickly showed a lagging Giuliani had overtaken Paul. Kind of makes you want to say “hmmmm.”
In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the “one exception to the Gang of 535” on Capitol Hill. So many men, so few true Constitutionalists.
A very natural question at this point would be, “Why is the Constitution Party not supporting the campaign of Ron Paul?”
The Constitution Party presidential candidate will be selected at its convention in the spring of 2008. We can’t say for sure what will be decided by the convention delegates, but as the party who puts principle above party loyalty, it seems that in the unlikely event that Doctor No is able to capture the Republican nomination, we would stand behind him 100%.
The dilemma we have is that we cannot sit around and wait to see what the Republicans are going to do but must build the ark that true Constitutionalists can find refuge on when it dawns on them that the Republican and Democrat parties will let them drown. To that end we must work to secure ballot access in all 50 states NOW and find a candidate who can carry our principles into a presidential campaign which will more than likely find a left-of-center candidate carrying the Republican mantle.
If the Grand Old Party does choose to return to its conservative ideals by supporting Congressman Paul, then there will be ample opportunity to throw our support behind him should our delegates so decide. If he does not win the GOP nomination we will have done much of the work to gain the ballot lines necessary to field a candidate who shares our values and who will govern constitutionally. That candidate could be Ron Paul should he decide to continue his race by seeking the Constitution Party nomination.
At this critical juncture in our history it is with firm hope we work toward the election of a true statesman who will seek to maintain the Founder’s vision in adherence to our great Constitution.