Posted on 06/01/2010 1:41:24 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
The day after Republican Rand Paul's landslide primary victory in Kentucky, the mainstream Left tried to paint him as a segregationist, while the mainstream Right either ignored or attacked him. And for good reason. Like his father Ron, Rand represents revolution, and the establishment is petrified.
Let's begin with the Left. Afraid that they can't beat a conservative Republican of Paul's pedigree in the Tea Party-influenced, anti-Obama political climate of 2010, liberals are trying to run against him in 1964. Cherry-picking irrelevant references Paul has made about private property rights and how they could possibly relate to the Civil Rights Act or even the Americans with Disabilities Act, Democrats are trying to portray Rand the libertarian as a closeted Klansman who secretly hates "coloreds" and "cripples."
It's no surprise that in any discussion about government intrusiveness and private business, race-obsessed liberals immediately equate free will and free markets with Jim Crow. When MSNBC's Rachel Maddow hysterically brought up the specter of segregated lunch counters during an interview with Paul, author Thomas Woods noted the absurdity of even having such a conversation today. Writing for The American Conservative, Woods says: "Any non-hysteric knows a segregated restaurant would be boycotted and picketed out of existence within 10 seconds, but we're supposed to fret about fictional outcomes from the repeal of a law that will never be repealed." Fictional indeed.
And portraying Paul as somehow being anti-black is no different than conservatives who portray antiwar protesters as anti-American; in both cases, legitimate concerns by citizens about the actions of their government are misconstrued to imply horrible and untrue things about the concerned. Liberals howl when right-wing talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck call President Obama "racist," and now the Left shamelessly borrows from their playbook.
But it's not just the Left who are upset over the rapid ascent of America's next top conservative idol. Former Bush speechwriter David Frum finds Paul to be as "extreme" as liberals do, writing on the day after the election, "Rand Paul's victory in the Kentucky Republican primary is obviously a depressing event for those who support strong national defense and rational conservative politics."
Frum's preferred candidate in the Kentucky primary, Trey Grayson, was not only a former Bill Clinton Democrat but a George W. Bush Republican who deviated rarely from the party establishment and heartily received their endorsement. Both former Vice President Dick Cheney and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell lined up behind Grayson in a desperate attempt to prevent Paul from winning. With Paul trouncing Grayson 59 percent to 34 percent, the old Republican guard lost in a Randslide.
Fashioning himself and his Bush league friends as supporters of "strong national defense" and "rational conservative politics," it doesn't take much investigation to discover what Frum believes "rational conservative politics" to be: a return to a GOP brand that today's grassroots conservatives reject most — big-spending, debt-doubling neoconservatism. Disaffected Republicans turned Tea Partiers are not as enamored with America's ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan as they once were, and they aren't so in love with war that they will ignore the continued growth of big government, a narrative Bush and the neocons successfully used for eight years to keep rank-and-file Republicans in line. Frum's fear is that Kentuckians, and Americans at large, might be encouraged to actually think about the wisdom of American foreign policy.
And this fear extends to conservative talk radio, where on the day after Paul's victory, hosts Limbaugh and Sean Hannity said next to nothing about it. Compare their silence to the election of Scott Brown, the Massachusetts senator who received wall-to-wall coverage in the conservative media. Why was there so much excitement for this moderate-to-liberal Republican from Massachusetts? That's easy. Brown was a conventional Republican who excited the conservative base without upsetting the GOP establishment. Paul is the opposite. The Hill's John Feehery notes the difference: "Rand Paul will be more than the skunk at the garden party in the U.S. Senate. He will be subversive when it comes to critical Republican orthodoxies." Like his father, Rand is the Republican establishment's worst nightmare.
It's somewhat appropriate that liberals would go all the way back to 1964 in order to attack Rand, because his rise truly is the resurgence of a Barry Goldwater-style, limited-government philosophy. Goldwater's politics were once the bedrock of American conservatism, but today those beliefs are controversial, not only to the Left with its race obsession, but the mainstream Right, which fails to find virtue in Rand's "extremist" brand of liberty. This ridiculous, two-party status quo restricts substantive debate, impedes real reform, and begs for revolution. And whether the establishment likes it or not, Rand Paul just might give it to them.
fyi
I don’t know this Paul at all, so I will not assume he as a looney as his old man and I do expect and welcome his election in the fall.
The Libertarian belief in weak national security will always seperate them from the conservative movement.
“The Libertarian belief in weak national security...”
________________
That is a fallacy.
Non-interventionist policy does not equate to weak.
Yea it does. Paul’s foreign policy is a joke. He is a “blame America” apoligist for terrorist and has now even exposed himsef as a pervert who wants to weaken the military more so based upon his perverted morality.
For the author of this article to make the claim that conservatives falsely accuse the anti-war movement of being anti-America shows how ignorant he is. While I will not be able to stay online and debate this, there are mountains of evidence showing the anti-war movements anti-American nature.
Libertarians are not only non-interventionist they are anti-self defense. Big problem for me and other conservatives.
Agree with most of it. But not the comparison to Brown. The excitement ovre Brown was all because we finally thought that his election would be the end of Obamacare. I don’t think people were excited about Brown himself, they were excited because he meant the end of Obamacare.
If everyone knew that his election wouldn’t really end up changing anything, there wouldn’t have been nearly as much attention.
And now that he’s shown himself to be a relatively moderate guy so far, you’ve seen the excitement ebb.
If "Ayn" Rand Paul is like his dad on foreign policy then he will be a nightmare to all who are reasonable.
He is a “blame America” apoligist for terrorist”
______________________
Do you actually believe that the US govt has never done any wrong? LMFAO
Everyone wants to blame the govt for everything, but when someone points out a flawed policy, specifically flawed foreign policy, people can’t accept that.
That’s like people calling for throwing the bums out of Congress, but then voting for their own Congressman because he isn’t the bad one...LOL
____________________________
“It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” – George Washington
____________________________
“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” - Thomas Jefferson
____________________________
“The Original American Foreign Policy”
by Ron Paul
READ IT:
"Rand Paul's victory in the Kentucky Republican primary is obviously a depressing event for those who support strong national defense and rational conservative politics."
In which case Frum can't be too terribly depressed, since his idea of "rational conservative politics" includes: 1) supporting 0bama 2) Supporting 0bamacare, 3) trashing fiscal conservatives as unrealistic 4) trashing social conservatives as morons. It would be nice to quote an actual conservative's issues with Rand Paul, rather than David Frum, but I guess this is as close as you get with todays "journalists."
“Libertarians are not only non-interventionist they are anti-self defense.”
___________________________________
From the Libertarian Party platform:
1.6 Self-Defense
...We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.
3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression...
That is not what you said.
Looks too simplistic. That was then, this is now. I just don’t believe that one can apply the same rules / same process 200+ years later without serious discussion re: foreign policy. Of course, I could just be FOS too....only time will tell.
Neither is that what Ron Paul says.
“I just don’t believe that one can apply the same rules / same process 200+ years later without serious discussion “
_______________________
Do you say this about the US Constitution as well?
“Neither is that what Ron Paul says.”
_________________________
Please provide a quote. Thank you.
Absolutely not.
We are talking about foreign treaties / interventionsim though, no ?
“If you hit someone and kill their family, they will hate you and probably hit you back in the future”.—Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is a fool. Which is why he gets no votes.
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.