Skip to comments.Rand Paul Defends ‘Embarrassed’ Aide With Neo-Confederate Past
Posted on 07/20/2013 3:15:29 PM PDT by WilliamIII
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., defended a Senate aide who once espoused pro-secession and neo-Confederate views, calling him incredibly talented during an interview with the Huffington Post. The Washington Free Beacon Tuesday reported that Jack Hunter, who serves as social media director for Paul, once worked as a radio shock jock for two different stations in Charleston, S.C., advocating for secession and the Confederacy. Hunter, who helped write Pauls book The Tea Party Goes to Washington, called himself the Southern Avenger and wore a Confederate flag mask at public appearances. People are calling him a white supremacist, Paul said in an interview with the Huffington Post. If I thought he was a white supremacist, he would be fired immediately. If I thought he would treat anybody on the color of their skin different that others, Id fire him immediately. All I can say is, we have a zero tolerance policy for anybody who displays discriminatory behavior or belief in discriminating against people based on the color of their skin, their religion, their sexual orientation, anything like that, Paul, 50, said. We wont tolerate any of that, and Ive seen no evidence of that.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Trent “cheerleader” Lott actually went on BET and said he was all for affirmative action.
I’m whole-heartedly in favor of secession myself. Given the feral government has declared its independence of us, the people, I believe it’s time to let it go its own way. We patriots can reassert our original Constitution and get on with our national life.
What, Rand Paul is not falling on his knees apologizing and begging for forgiveness when the leftists pull the same old canard?
Although no aplogies are demanded from the Jug-Earred Marxist for all the commies, America-haters, and racists he has in his administration.
This elevates Rand in my eyes. I’m tired of Republicans rushing out to “apologize” everytime the LapDog Media demand it.
Scroll back up and look at the second sentence in the ABC article. It says the article attacking Paul's aide Hunter appeared in the Washington Free Beacon, which is a NeoCon publication. There was also a secondary article in the National Review.
The problem began with Paul opposing intervening in Syria and trying to sway public opinion against that. The NeoCons are strong and outspoken supporters of a Syria intervention.
Then after the NSA story broke, Paul has been very critical of NSA. And the NeoCons are strong supporters of NSA eavesdropping.
So the NeoCons published the article in the Beacon attacking Hunter as a way of undermining Rand Paul. This is not much different from the NeoCons' attacks on Ron Paul.
Then Rand Paul retaliated by mocking or attacking NeoCon Liz Cheney for running in Wyoming rather than Virginia.
Reply #24 is also for you.
Actually the big battle is between the conservative tea party types like Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Allen West and Mike Lee vs. more paleo-libertarian tea party types like Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and Wayne Allyn Root.
There are clear fundamental differences.
That’s why Ted Cruz went on the Senate Floor saying he doesn’t trust the Republicans. Because he’s just itching for a fight with Wayne Allen Root and Justin Amash.
Bachmann called Snowden a Traitor, NeoCon-Lite.
When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had their vote on the Syria Intervention late in May, There were three votes against intervening. One from the isolationist Rand Paul plus two votes from two antiwar democrats.
Then later Mike Lee joined those three to introduce legislation into the Senate opposing the Syria Intervention.
And out come the usual suspects against Rand.
Agreed. Excellent analysis...
To be honest Rand is trying to play all sides. He has said before that he is conservative and libertarian basically that mix known as a conservative-libertarian. The Pauler libertarians want him to be their way and the tea party conservatives want him to be their way. He is sending very bad mix signals. He wants people to support social libertarian polices, but today he spoke to a christian group in Iowa. It hacks me off honestly. The guy was for Amnesty then turned around and bashed the Gang of 8’s bill. He had his own ideas on Immigration. I was warming up to him after the filibuster too. I am unsure if he is as isolationist as his father. But Rand is to the left of most conservatives. He is some form of Paleo. Paleo-libertarian or Paleo-conservative. One of those.
There are clear fundamental differences.
Differences over specific issues? Of course.
Fundamental differences? Nonsense. Both of these entities strongly oppose the Marxist/Socialist trends America is on. Both of them understand the threat of Tyranny from ever-expanding government. Are there disagreements over foreign & domestic policy, interventionism, immigration, the Tyrannical Drug War, etc.? Of course.
But there is broad-based agreement on the general parameters. Both groups are united for limited government, the Constitution, the entire Bill of Rights, opposing authoritarian collectivism and mob rule, opposing RINO compromises, anti-Communism, corruption in government, etc., etc...
IMHO, the differences are far less significant than the commonalities, and when such relatively related factions are pitted against each other, I can only imagine that this is something our Enemy delights in, and indeed tries to engineer at every opportunity. They try to do the same thing with race, religion, any fault line they can exploit.
The People should not fall victim to these strategems. I, for one, would be delighted to see a President from either of the groups you mention, and I would readily and energetically vote for any such candidate, regardless of policy differences, as opposed to a Democrat (the Party of Perjury and Obstruction of Justice) or a RINO from the GOPe.
Look, there are several issues, such as the 2nd Amendment, that I would litmus-test almost any* GOP candidate on, but any bona fide member from one of those two loosely classified groups you mention would be a thousand times better than the most palatable Establishment candidate from either party.
* I, sadly and with great reservation, might have voted for Romney, the architect of 0bamacare and a man with, at best, a questionable record on the Second Amendment. Oh yeah, and McCain, too.
“Reply #24 is also for you.”
Good analysis, Ben. Thanks.
Sargon, your analysis is spot on. I am for less statist tyranny, and I’ll vote for anyone who will bring this FedGov beast to heel.
The GOPe loves big government - in all its soul crushing forms.