Democrats & Liberals Archives

Rand Paul: The Tea Party Libertarian

Ron Paul, the father of Rand Paul, is a libertarian that nobody paid attention to. He was considered to be outside the mainstream, even by solid conservative Republicans. Ron’s son, who has been named after super-libertarian Ayn Rand, comes along and calls himself a Tea Partier, and lo and behold, Rand Paul is the latest hero of the Republican Party.

On Wednesday, Rachel Maddow interviewed Rand Paul for 15 minutes about his political philosophy. Paul said that he is thoroughly against racism, but he thinks the government has no right to tell a private corporation that it cannot discriminate. She asked:

Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?

Paul replied:

Yes.

Today, in anterview on "Good Morning America," Rand Paul went further:

What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. I've heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it's part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it's always got to be someone's fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen.

Poor BP. It's blameless. Just trying to make a buck. Cut down on safety to save money. What's wrong with that? This is the American way. What right does a president have to say anything bad about a great corporation like BP? This president is un-American!

This sounds outrageous because it is outrageous. It appears to be outrageous even to some Republicans, who are counseling Paul to tone down his language. These Republicans do not disagree very much with Paul; they merely want him to not be so honest about his views.

When Paul speaks it's obvious to all that he wants corporations to be "free" to do as they wish - with regards to civil rights, wages, safety, health protection, corruption, fraud and all types of regulation. The villain is always the government, never the corporation.

That government is the biggest villain is the essence of the Republican approach to governing. Republicans were against the stimulus because they were worried it would increase the power of government; they did not give a damn about helping people who had lost their jobs. They were against healthcare reform, again, because they thought it would make the government more powerful; they cared little about the people suffering from the crooked behavior of the insurance companies. Recently, Republicans fought against conrolling Wall Street because they were worried about giving more power to the government; they worried not at all about the people who will suffer financial chaos if Wall Street is left unregulated.

Rand Paul makes the issue clear. He and his fellow Republicans want corporations to be free of regulation, and Democrats want to regulate corporations as a means of improving the common good. In the old day we used to argue about how much regulation is enough to do the job. This is a worthwhile debate. But today's Republicans, led by Tea Party libertarian Rand Paul, wants no regulation at all.

Which side are you on?

Posted by Paul Siegel at May 21, 2010 6:35 PM
Comments
Comment #300872

At any rate, we have the government that we elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, … , until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding incumbent politicians with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Keep pullin’ that party-lever, and keep wallowin’ in that partisan warfare, and see where it gets you and the majority of Americans.

We have what we deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at May 21, 2010 7:08 PM
Comment #300877

Paul, From the words of one of your own Blumenthal from Ct. He may have misspoke on this one occasion.

Posted by: MAG at May 21, 2010 8:42 PM
Comment #300883


Mag, there is also: government doesn’t have a right to discriminate against Americans with disabilities but business does. And, government doesn’t have a right to discriminate against Americans because of the color of their skin but, business does.

That is three misspeaks in three days, Paul is going for the guinness.

Posted by: jlw at May 21, 2010 9:56 PM
Comment #300884

jlw, I’d rather listen to a man who tell’s the truth about himself and what he stands for, even though I don’t agree with it, than one who LIES.

Posted by: MAG at May 21, 2010 10:04 PM
Comment #300888

LOL,

Rand Paul WAS speaking his truth, now he’s reconsidering….

Why was it Ron joined the Republican Party?

Posted by: gergle at May 21, 2010 10:14 PM
Comment #300903

If it talks corporatism, defends corporatism, and promotes corporatism, it is probably a corporatist looking for a piece of the profits that corporations lavishly bestow upon politicians willing to carry their water for them.

Still, I have to say, it would do our Congress some good to have some differing views brought to their chambers, and Rand Paul will provide some differing views on a host of issues other than promoting the corporate takeover of American government through his well paid hands.

He is young, and inexperienced, and exposed heavily to one line of ideology. Let’s see if he can grow and mature in reason and wisdom with some experience in the halls of debate of political ideas. His father didn’t, but, perhaps Rand will.

Have to give his father credit, though, for sticking to his principles, flaws and unintended consequences notwithstanding. Ron Paul is a man of integrity. That cannot be said of many in our Congress today.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 22, 2010 1:55 AM
Comment #300904

Paul Siegel, Thanks for the link to the Rand Paul and George Stephanopolis video. It eluded to the Maddow interview which refered to the Siegel interview. The Siegel interview refered to the Louiville Courior Journal interview.

Did you watch them all? I’m curious because all of the interviewers are putting words in Rand Paul’s mouth. It is obvious Siegel, Maddow, and Stephanopolis are attacking Rand Paul with their own words, not Rand Paul’s words. Siegel drew an analogy to the Civil Rights Act from the LCJ interview. It seems to me that Maddow and Stephanopolis both ran with the analogy, not Rand Paul’s words, in an effort to portray Rand Paul as being against the Civil Rights Act. This is clearly not the case and this conclusion will also be drawn if all of the interviews are examined.


.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-tells-maddow-th_n_582872.html
.http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=126985068&m=126985031
.http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20105200351

.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985068


Dr. PAUL: What I’ve always said is that I’m opposed to institutional racism, and I would’ve, had I’ve been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism.

Dr. PAUL: Well, actually, I think it’s confusing on a lot of cases with what actually was in the civil rights case because, see, a lot of the things that actually were in the bill, I’m in favor of. I’m in favor of everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there’s a lot to be desired in the civil rights. And to tell you the truth, I haven’t really read all through it because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn’t been a real pressing issue in the campaign, on whether we’re going for the Civil Rights Act.

I think if you were to listen to the interview at the 2:16 mark you will find that Rand Paul said “on whether we’re going to vote for the Civil Rights Act.” Taken in context with his entire answer it draws a reference to the hypothetical question asked of Rand Paul by the interviewer.

Dr. PAUL: Right. I think a lot of things could be handled locally. For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. You know, we do it in our office with wheelchair ramps and things like that. I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who’s handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to the solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions.
Dr. PAUL: Well, I think we have a Tea Party mandate, and that Tea Party mandate is for good-government type of things, things like term limits, things like a balanced budget amendment, things like read the bills for goodness sakes, things like that maybe Congress should only pass legislation that they apply to themselves as well. Also, that each piece of legislation they pass should point to where in the Constitution they get the authority for it.



SIEGEL: You’ve said that business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, and that the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, was an overreach by the federal government. Would you say the same by extension of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Clearly, Mr. Siegel’s question uses the LCJ interview to introduce the 1964 Civil Rights Act into the conversation. The Civil Rights Act was not being discussed in the LCJ interview. Rand Paul’s response, taken in context, was ligitimate and logical.

it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator.

1/10th of the Civil Rights Act might be improved upon! Gasp!

Maddow, Stephanopolis, and Siegel are all going on the assumption that only the federal government can solve the problems we face. They assert that Rand Paul’s ideas are irrelevent because the federal government’s 1964 Solution is written in stone and cannot be considered flawed. Can only Democratics pass laws that are supposed to be adhered to by the letter?

Paul Siegel, I just realized something! Are you the SIEGEL asking the questions in the NPR interview?
If so, please answer this:

Why do you question Rand Paul’s loyalty to the Republican Party in your first question? Your questions were repeatedly framed to steer the conversation towards the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Considering the facts that Maddow and Stephanopolis have picked up on the theme you set up in your interview, don’t you think this represents a bias, and shouldn’t you and your associates be ashamed of this blatant attempt to manufacture an issue to discredit Rand Paul?

OOPs, never mind. It was Robert Siegel.


Posted by: Weary Willie at May 22, 2010 3:10 AM
Comment #300905

Weary Willie,

Rand Paul’s answer to the ADA question [“it might be reasonable to let him [handicapped] have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator”] was very misleading and begs follow up questions. It misrepresents the mandate of the ADA and implies that local solutions for handicapped individuals would be forthcoming in the absence of federal requirements. The ADA does not mandate $100,000.00 elevators. It mandates “reasonable accommodations” for handicapped employees. If a first floor office is available, then a business would be in compliance. Unfortunately, the experience of handicapped Americans is that “local solutions” are, all too frequently, not available. Hence, the need for a federal mandate to provide reasonable accommodations for handicapped Americans in the workplace and in the pursuit of daily life. Those are the actual facts. It was the absence of local solutions that required a federal mandate.

Posted by: Rich at May 22, 2010 6:36 AM
Comment #300910

WW, if you want to admire Rand Paul, you may also want to contact him and tell him to engage his brain before opening his mouth and making rookie self-sabotaging freshman statements in public venue, or else, he and Joe Biden may have a lot in common.

Like it or not, there is a politically correct conduct code and the public is hyper sensitive toward politicians not observing their PC code. If he wants to be a one-termer, he can ignore all this advice, and rattle away his Libertarian principles which relegated his father to a position of an extremist.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 22, 2010 11:44 AM
Comment #300912

Rand thinks that the answer to solving discrimination issues would be solved by free enterprise. This approach, didn’t work from the Civil War Reconstruction, until the Civil Rights Act, and then some. So, he’s saying, “My solution didn’t work for over 100 years, and I think that’s a good solution.”

If you appreciate that lack of intellect, then you should vote for Rand Paul.

Posted by: boomxtwo at May 22, 2010 1:29 PM
Comment #300915

David… just a thought. If you’re trying to suggest that Paul’s rookie self-sabotaging statements will ensure he is a one-termer (has he even been elected yet?) by comparing him to Joe Biden as evidence… well… Biden was a multi-term US Senator and is the sitting VP…

On second thought, Paul might do WELL to emulate him!

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at May 22, 2010 2:23 PM
Comment #300920


Doug, I think that David was pointing out that some of Bidens outlandish statements provide talking points for the opposition and have caused the Administration some grief.

“Biden was a multi-term US Senator” Yea, and every time the citizens of Delaware reelected him they also reelected the credit card industry. I know, even if they had elected a Republican to replace him, they would still have been reelecting the credit card industry.

Posted by: jlw at May 22, 2010 4:43 PM
Comment #300922

Doug, I wasn’t suggesting anything. I was saying, the ability to consider one’s audience as a politician is a very useful skill, which Paul has not honed yet.

English Composition 101, define your audience and write for them. Same applies to public speech and public speakers. Talking points can only get a politician so far, and less far today, than yesteryear.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 22, 2010 5:11 PM
Comment #300930

We have to take our government back. Let’s see who has it now. Oh yeah, oh yeah, The Free Market Corporations. I’m so confused.

Posted by: Stephen Hines at May 22, 2010 7:54 PM
Comment #300933

English 101… cute.

You made a direct comparison between Biden and the younger Paul. Pretty simple, really.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at May 22, 2010 9:33 PM
Comment #300934

Rand Paul made a mistake as most novice politicians will, but we seem to neglect the idiotic statements of some of the seasoned politicians. For instance BHO condeming a police officer for doing his job, Pelosi’s famous statement that WE NEED TO PASS THE BILL TO SEE WHAT’s IN IT. Biden’s numerous Bloopers, and the late John Murtha condemning the Marines about the Hadathia insident before their day in court, just to name a few. Yes Rand Paul made a mistake but even those seasoned politicians and their bloopers got elected and re-elected.

Posted by: MAG at May 22, 2010 9:57 PM
Comment #300940

While many in Kentucky may want racist politicians, which may mean this “slip” may be intended for that audience, I have my doubts about Paul getting elected.

If you think Chicago politics are rough, you haven’t seen Kentucky politics.

Posted by: gergle at May 22, 2010 11:44 PM
Comment #300972
OOPs, never mind. It was Robert Siegel.
Posted by: Weary Willie at May 22, 2010 03:10 AM

Now, I’m not so sure!
Paul Siegel, you wrote:

On Wednesday, Rachel Maddow interviewed Rand Paul for 15 minutes about his political philosophy. Paul said that he is thoroughly against racism, but he thinks the government has no right to tell a private corporation that it cannot discriminate. She asked:
Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don’t serve black people?
Paul replied:
Yes.
Posted by Paul Siegel at May 21, 2010 06:35 PM

.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3O2rBz9gwo&feature=related
RACHEL MADDOW V RAND PAUL
.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqAAfSfap5w&feature=related

Now, I’m not so sure, Paul Siegel.
Nowhere in the entire 20 minutes of the interview did this dialog take place. The quote above represents a lie perpetrated by a weak and shallow philosophy. And again, it’s centered around race! The media is playing the race card. Shame! Shame!

My question stands:

Your questions were repeatedly framed to steer the conversation towards the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Considering the facts that Maddow and Stephanopolis have picked up on the theme you set up in your interview, don’t you think this represents a bias, and shouldn’t you and your associates be ashamed of this blatant attempt to manufacture an issue to discredit Rand Paul?
Posted by: Weary Willie at May 22, 2010 03:10 AM


Posted by: Weary Willie at May 23, 2010 4:16 PM
Comment #300975

Paul Siegel,
Do you think people will again be beaten at lunch counters if Rand Paul is elected to the Senate?

.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulmz8hXCyRs&feature=related
The Laura Ingraham Show - Rand Paul responds to the Rachel Maddow interview

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 23, 2010 5:58 PM
Comment #300976

Paul Siegel,
Do you think all signs in all private businesses that say, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” should be illegal? How about the “No Shoes, No Shirt, No service.” signs? Are you ready to take on those positions as well?


Posted by: Weary Willie at May 23, 2010 6:12 PM
Comment #300978

Paul Siegel,

Walgreens doesn’t even have lunch counters anymore!


Posted by: Weary Willie at May 23, 2010 6:49 PM
Comment #300979

Et al,

This entire conversation is based on a lie! People are trying to use race as a weapon against anyone who disagrees with them! Even though it’s obvious to us, it’s hard to get the general public to see. I’m not ashamed to call a lie a lie. I just want the people who see the lie to stand beside me.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 23, 2010 6:57 PM
Comment #300980

WW, I see the lie and stand with you. But this is typical of the MSM and the lefties take the ball and run with it. As to your questions about BHO, Murtha,Biden, and the rest: what they say don’t matter because they are liberals. It only counts when a conservative is talking. Same with KKK grand poopa Byrd of WV, he used the “N” word on the senate floor, but nothing said.

Posted by: Betretta9 at May 23, 2010 7:10 PM
Comment #300981

Posted by: Betretta9 at May 23, 2010 07:10 PM

WW, I see the lie and stand with you. But this is typical of the MSM and the lefties take the ball and run with it.

Thank you Betretta9, for your support. It is typical of the MSM and it is time to say,
“STOP! In the name of love, before you break my heart!”

As to your questions about BHO, Murtha,Biden, and the rest:
I didn’t ask a question about all that. I said this post is based on a lie.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 23, 2010 7:30 PM
Comment #300982

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100523/ap_on_el_ho/us_hawaii_congress_21

Can we say, Obamba and Dems are in twouble?

Posted by: Beretta9 at May 23, 2010 7:55 PM
Comment #300985

I say, “U skwewy wabbit!” “Twicks r 4 kids!”

but…

It’s magicwy dewicious!

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 23, 2010 8:10 PM
Comment #300986

This post is based on a lie.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 23, 2010 8:18 PM
Comment #300994

Spam filter got me. Help, Paul. and I didn’t even have any links.

Posted by: gergle at May 23, 2010 9:30 PM
Comment #300997


I have much confidence that the Handicapped Tea Party will support Rand Paul and his fair and balanced opinion on the Americans With Disabilities Act.

I am also confident that the members of the Black Tea Party of Kentucky will vote for Paul and demand a more balanced revision of the Civil Rights Act.

Posted by: jlw at May 23, 2010 10:09 PM
Comment #300998

So, let me get this straight; Paul Siegel’s entire post is based on a lie. WW, that makes you the winner. You are the only one who has posted truth on here. And, “Paul can’t handle the truth”. You have done a good job researching this topic, but I may be the only one congratulating you.

Posted by: Beretta9 at May 23, 2010 10:16 PM
Comment #301004

jlw
gergle
MAG
Doug Langworhty
Stephen Hines
David R. Remer
Boomytwo
Rich
d.a.n.

have all fell for Paul Siegel’s lie. They have all jumped on the bandwagon. Rate their credibility now.


Posted by: Weary Willie at May 23, 2010 11:10 PM
Comment #301005

d.a.n hasn’t. Rate d.a.n as a lesson to the others.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 23, 2010 11:13 PM
Comment #301012

Weary Willie,

I haven’t fallen for anybody’s lies. The totality of the interviews quoted in Paul Siegel’s post make it abundantly clear that Rand Paul is against government intervention or regulation of private business, whether it be BP and the oil gusher, the ADA or the Civil Rights Act. That should come as no surprise since Paul is a strong libertarian. While it is true that he didn’t actually answer “yes” to the Maddow question about private businesses refusing to serve blacks, he also repeatedly refused to answer the question. That doesn’t make him a racist or a person insensitive to the handicapped or unconcerned about corporate disasters. He simply believes that the government has no business regulating private conduct. The price of freedom and a free market is toleration of private discrimination, corporate transgressions, etc. The free market will regulate without government intervention. Others may disagree contending that some forms of private conduct when engaged in pubic commerce should be regulated, i.e, racial discrimination, handicapped, etc.

In my opinion, the various interviewers were not engaged in “gotcha” politics but simply illuminating Rand’s libertarian philosophy and its implications for social, legal and political policies.

Posted by: Rich at May 24, 2010 7:49 AM
Comment #301015

MSM interviewers are always engaged in “gotcha” politics. That is what they do. If they didn’t, there would be no “NEWS”.

Posted by: Beretta9 at May 24, 2010 9:02 AM
Comment #301016

Beretta9,

If asking a politician to be explicit about his views of anti-discrimination legislation is “gotcha” politics, then so be it.

Posted by: Rich at May 24, 2010 10:09 AM
Comment #301021

Rest Assured CITIZ. I will.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 24, 2010 12:57 PM
Comment #301023


Weary Willie, I was reacting to the implications of Pauls political philosophy. I may have put words in his mouth but, it does not alter the implications.

Posted by: jlw at May 24, 2010 1:15 PM
Comment #301027

Would some one explain to me how asking a yes or no question is “gotcha” politics.

I watched the Maddow interview, I listened to the Ingraham interview the next day. Paul never answered the question. He danced around and obfuscated, but never said yes, or no to a direct yes or no question.
As a point of fact, in the Ingraham interview he continued his little dance, and then had the balls to criticize Maddow for being a “liberal” (OMG), and for asking the question at all.

All I can say is that if Paul can’t stand the heat, he should have kept his mouth closed, and IMHO, the way to answer a “do you still beat your wife” question is to respond that you have never beaten your wife.

Rand Paul doesn’t even get points for style.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 24, 2010 2:39 PM
Comment #301028

A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything.


Rand Paul cannot seem to decide what he stands for. Civil Rights? Yes. Corporate racism? Yes. Well, no, because that makes me look like a racist nut. Civil Rights bill? No. Well, maybe. OK, in this one instance, but otherwise no.

Principled Libertarian? Maybe not. Just another phony trying to get a government job.

Wearie Willie declares himself winner!!!! Yay!!! Careful there, Narcissus, don’t stare too deeply into the pool.

Posted by: gergle at May 24, 2010 3:03 PM
Comment #301042

Gergle is correct. If Rand Paul is such a proud libertarian and tea party “tell like it is” stalwart, why did he compromise and obfuscate his position on sections of the Civil Rights Act? It seems that when the rubber met the road, Paul failed his first political courage test.

Posted by: Rich at May 24, 2010 7:52 PM
Comment #301063


Paul has one thing in common with many of the other Republican and Democratic new people. Almost all of them are running as anti establishment candidates but it hasn’t stopped them from lining up at the K Street lobbyists trough.

Posted by: jlw at May 25, 2010 12:57 AM
Comment #301109

Prove it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 25, 2010 9:50 PM
Comment #301120


Which millionaire Republican tea party candidate “once claimed to be the Messiah, traveled to New Jersey to try to raise his stepfather from the dead, believed that God would drop a 1000 mile high pyramid on Greenland and even that the Ark of the Covenant would be found in Arizona”???

The candidate says his personal problems are all in the past, he is no longer taking heroin and he hasn’t burglarized anyone or assaulted any police officers in a long time.

Posted by: jlw at May 26, 2010 1:25 AM
Comment #304443

Ok, I quit reading after the writer said Rand is named after Ayn Rand, which if he did any research at all he would know was not true and just a myth.

Posted by: Autodidactic at July 25, 2010 2:52 PM
Comment #349007

ZY-Congratulations! Are asos discount an expecting mother with a Women Mulberry Shoulder Bags frame? Then, you http://www.womendress-hot.org/ need not fret to find petite tapered jeans fashionable clothes.Gone are the Asos Evening Dresses when expecting mothers wore ill-fitting clothes. Nowadays, Women Mulberry Purses pregnant women want to flaunt men bootcut Jeans expecting bellies, hence wear trendy Asos designer dresses clothes. It can get frustrating to find petite roxanne mulberry bag for every trimester during pregnancy. A LOWKY 0074N of companies have started a line of http://www.sale-mulberrybags.org/ petite Asos maxi dress sale wear. Trendy maternity clothes like tops, blouses, jeans, pants, skirts, evening gowns, etc. mulberry satchel available.It is noticed that there KOOLTER no standard specification of petite size. Hence, most Asos women sandals uk the clothing lines have their own sizing mulberry outlet these clothes, and the sizes differ from one brand diesel store another. On an average, a woman of height Asos uk party dresses cm and below is mulberry bags alexa as petite. Many manufacturers label their small-sized diesel online range as petite size clothing http://www.dieseljeans-sales.biz/ .

Posted by: diesel g-rubia at July 20, 2012 10:42 PM
Post a comment