Rand Paul Considers Possible Run For President In 2016
Posted on 08/20/2014 10:21:43 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Running for the U.S. Senate in 2010, Rand Paul became known as that crazy right-winger who expressed reservations about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But in the past two years, the Kentucky Republican has emerged as his party's most passionate voice on criminal justice reform, explicitly decrying the system's disproportionate impact on African Americans. You might assume that Paul, widely seen as a contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, is trying to redeem himself with black voters who were alienated by his criticism of the Civil Rights Act. Yet both positions spring from the same wariness of state power, as illustrated by the senator's recent comments on the over-the-top police response to the unrest that followed the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Mo.
Paul has always said he supports the provisions of the Civil Rights Act that apply to racial discrimination practiced or enforced by the government. But during his 2010 campaign he said he was not so keen on the parts of the law that ban discrimination by private businesses, likening such "abhorrent behavior" to the racist speech that we tolerate, even while condemning it, because of our commitment to individual freedom.
Not surprisingly, NAACP President Benjamin Jealous vigorously disagreed with Paul's views on the Civil Rights Act. But Jealous also said this: "I have got to hand it to Rand Paul. It takes some serious guts to publicly challenge such a cherished pillar of the modern American identity."
Paul's positions on criminal justice issues also take some serious guts. He is not just reaching out to a segment of the electorate that is overwhelmingly hostile to Republicans; he is challenging members of his own party to rethink their reflexive support of law enforcement and tough-on-crime policies.
"There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response," Paul wrote in Time last week. "There is a systemic problem with today's law enforcement," he added, and "big government has been at the heart of the problem," fostering the militarization of police equipment and tactics.
Paul went further, encouraging Republicans to consider what it feels like to be on the receiving end of excessive police force and excessive criminal punishment. "Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system," he said, "it is impossible for African Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them. This is part of the anguish we are seeing in the tragic events outside of St. Louis, Mo."
The point is not that Officer Darren Wilson committed a crime when he shot Michael Brown, a question that has yet to be resolved amid conflicting accounts of the incident. The point is that black residents of Ferguson had ample reason to suspect the shooting was not justified and to worry that the official investigation would be rigged in Wilson's favor.
"Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention," Paul wrote. "Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for nonviolent mistakes in their youth."
We are not used to hearing Republicans say that sort of thing. But it happens to be true, and Paul, who in March 2013 introduced a bill that would effectively abolish the federal government's mandatory minimum sentences, is trying to do something about it. He is also sponsoring legislation aimed at restoring the voting rights of nonviolent felons who have completed their sentences and mitigating the lasting impact that serving time has on people's employment prospects. "I believe in redemption and forgiveness," he explained in USA Today last month.
Rand Paul is not asking conservatives to abandon their beliefs. He is asking them to extend their avowed skepticism of big government to the parts of that apparatus that lock people in cages and shoot them down in the street.
Is it be possible to be a Liberal and believe in the rule of law?
I don’t like the term “cop lover”. I am not a groupie. I support them in their job and believe they should be held to a higher standard and punished when wrong (severity dependent). In most situations I give them the benefit of the doubt until all the facts are out unless it is brazenly apparent they were in the wrong.
Is Rand posing as a Republican? <sarc off
Is his solution to look the other way when blacks commit crimes? Or is it to sing to them and hold their hands so they will be peaceful and give up their violent ways?
Is it possible to be libertarian and protect innocent people from terrorists, tyrants and criminals?
Well, THIS conservative certainly isn’t. But they’re nice to have around when the natives are restless.
Oh great. Another lib apologist trying to spin Rand Paul’s lib message.
If before, then an unfortunate case of bad timing I'd say. If after, he's just an opportunistic jerk who is showing his true colors.
Rethink? Yes, I’ve already rethought....and I think Rand Paul is as bat$hit crazy as his whacko sire!
As opposed to what? The example of the politically rigged prosecution of George Zimmerman? If anything, liberal politics will ensure Wilson will be railroaded and prosecuted no matter what evidence exists that he acted properly and in self-defense - witness Governor Nixon's remarks.
Shoot them down in the street? Another Townhall writer slurps down the Saint Michael Koolaide.
Rand Paul Considers Possible Run For President In 2016
It is not a conflict, but rather extremely consistent, that conservatives despise despotism when they see it.
I approached this case in Ferguson with a fully open mind. If the cop was shown to shoot a surrendering man with his hands up, he would be a murderer. If he was dealing with a violent attacker, it would be a justified shooting. All the evidence so far strongly supports the latter.
Suffice it to urge conservatives to rue their common sense and avoid dogma.
Either I'm becoming dyslexic or my spellcheck has gone nuts.
Someone left the door open on kooky Uncle Rand’s room again!
Rand Paul, we live in a world that has thugs, and those thugs have guns. Who’s gonna protect the public and your family from those thugs? You? You, Rand Paul? The Police have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Brown and you curse the Police. You have that luxury Senator. You have the luxury of not knowing what the Police know, that Brown’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And the existence of the Police, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you Senator, saves lives! You don’t want the truth, because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want the Police out there on patrol. You need the Police on patrol. The Police use words like “honor”, “code”, “loyalty”. The Police use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending citizens. You Senator, you use them as a punchline. The Police have neither the time nor the inclination to explain themselves to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of protection that the Police provide, and then question the manner in which the Police provide it! We would rather you just said “thank you”, and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, put on a badge, and patrol your own neighborhood or a neighborhood in Ferguson. Either way, the Police don’t give a damn what you think Senator! ~ Ripped off from A Few Good Men and modified.
To Jacob Sullum:
Such as ?
State the reasons and back your statement up with facts, not descriptions of mushy feelings expressed by friends and relatives of criminals and wrong-doers.
You are right. The title alone is chock-full of idiocy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.