5.20.2010

Meet Dr. Rand Paul (UPDATED)

Meet Dr. Rand Paul. Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate to replace Jim Bunning of Kentucky. Son of Dr. Ron Paul.

Anti-Choice. Anti-Gay Marriage. Conservative.
Right-Wing Extremist.
Anti-tax . Anti-Government. Libertarian.
Teabagger Extremist.

Dr. Rand Paul has close ties with extremists like Alex Jones.
Dr. Rand Paul so conservative that he scares Dick Cheney.
Dr. Rand Paul is all class, refusing to accept defeated Kentucky GOP Senate opponent Trey Grayson’s congratulatory call on election night.

Dr. Rand Paul would eliminate the Federal Reserve.

The Pauls want to take the United States back to Andrew Jackson's closing of the Federal Reserve's predecessor which, when combined with a return to a strict gold standard, caused such a constriction in the U.S. money supply that a depression ensued which lasted from 1837 to 1844. The Pauls would throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Also see: Rand Paul Takes More Moderate Tone On Medicare After Winning Kentucky Primary
Dr. Rand Paul would eliminate the Dept. of Education.
Paul has made clear during the campaign that he would, if he could, abolish the Education Department, get rid of No Child Left Behind, eliminate all federal funding to education and encourage competition.

Of course, state and local governments are so strapped for money that without federal funding, it would be hard to see how public schools could continue to operate even at the much-criticized level they do now. But maybe that’s his real point.

Here is a questionnaire that the National Education Association gave to candidates across the country, which Paul answered and posted on his Web site:

Dr. Rand Paul prefers homeschooling, so you can teach children the history you'd prefer were reality:
As the Federal Government has increased the size and budget of the Department of Education, test scores and scholastic performance have markedly dropped. More money, more bureaucracy, and more government intervention are eroding this nation’s educational standards. Meanwhile, home schooled children continue to excel as evidenced by their test scores and rapidly growing admission rate into some of the nation’s most prestigious educational institutions.

Rand proposes to restore the parental right to be responsible in educating children. He supports reduced taxes so that parents can allocate more of their own funds to homeschooling, if they so desire. He seeks to prevent the Department of Education from regulating homeschooling and will fight to keep the Federal Government’s hands out of this promising alternative to conventional education. Rand recognizes the potential and scholarly prowess of homeschooling and will ensure that homeschoolers are allowed the freedom to compete alongside those who attend public and private schools.
Also see: Rand Paul Takes More Moderate Tone On Medicare After Winning Kentucky Primary
Dr. Rand Paul would eliminate the Federal Incomes Tax.
Also see: Rand Paul Takes More Moderate Tone On Medicare After Winning Kentucky Primary
Dr. Rand Paul is against Same-Sex Marriage.
In other words, he's a Libertarian when it's convenient.

Dr. Rand Paul would support a Constitutional Amendment ALL Banning Abortions (even in the case of rape & incest).

I would strongly support legislation restricting federal courts from hearing cases like Roe v. Wade. Such legislation would only require a majority vote, making it more likely to pass than a pro-life constitutional amendment.

I would support legislation, a Sanctity of Life Amendment, establishing the principle that life begins at conception. This legislation would define life at conception in law, as a scientific statement.

In other words, he's a Libertarian when it's convenient.

Dr. Rand Paul is against the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Paul was asked whether he supports the Americans with Disabilities Act, the landmark 1990 legislation that established a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability. Paul said he advocates local governments to decide whether disabled individuals deserve rights. Requiring businesses to provide access to disabled people, Paul argued, isn’t “fair to the business owner.” Later in the interview, when asked if he believes Americans have a right to use the 2nd Amendment to violently overthrow the government, a Paul staffer physically intercepted the recording and shuffled Paul away:
Here his is doing his best to avoid answering Rachel Maddow's questions about his belief that that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was something he recently said he wouldn't have voted for.

That's right. Dr. Rand Paul is against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

He particularly dislikes Title II of the Act, which "outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private." "

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is one of the greatest accomplishments of the 20th century, banning whites-only lunch counters and similar discrimination in hiring, promotions, hotels and restaurants. Yet, in a recent editorial board interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal, GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul explained why he believes that this landmark law should not apply to private business owners:

That's right. Dr. Rand Paul believes that it's OK for businesses to have "white's only" lunch counters & water fountain's or restaurants & hotels -- that it's shouldn't be up to the Federal Government to dictate how people run their private business.

Dr. Rand Paul is his father's son:
Angry White Man: The bigoted past of Ron Paul

Paul’s alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,” read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with “‘civil rights,’ quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.” It also denounced “the media” for believing that “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.” To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were “the only people to act like real Americans,” it explained, “mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England.”

This “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” was hardly the first time one of Paul’s publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled “What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’” Two months later, a newsletter warned of “The Coming Race War,” and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, “If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it.” In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” “This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,” the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter’s author--presumably Paul--wrote, “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.” That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which “blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot.” The newsletter inveighed against liberals who “want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare,” adding, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.”

[snip]

Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul’s newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. (“What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!” one newsletter complained in 1990. “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”) In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the “X-Rated Martin Luther King” as a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” “seduced underage girls and boys,” and “made a pass at” fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as “a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”

While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled “The Duke’s Victory,” a newsletter celebrated Duke’s 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. “Duke lost the election,” it said, “but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment.” In 1991, a newsletter asked, “Is David Duke’s new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?” The conclusion was that “our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom.” Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.

Dr. Rand Paul is also Racist, with a capital 'R.'

Dr. Rand Paul is what a White Supremacist looks like in the 2010:

Dr. Rand Paul is his father's son, who also pretends that what you own eyes & ears see isn't what your own eyes & ears are seeing:
Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays
A series of newsletters in the name of GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul contain several racist remarks -- including one that says order was restored to Los Angeles after the 1992 riots when blacks went "to pick up their welfare checks."

CNN recently obtained the newsletters -- written in the 1990s and one from the late 1980s -- after a report was published about their existence in The New Republic.

[...]

Paul told CNN's "The Situation Room" Thursday that he didn't write any of the offensive articles and has "no idea" who did. Watch Paul's full interview with CNN »

"When you bring this question up, you're really saying, 'You're a racist' or 'Are you a racist?' And the answer is, 'No, I'm not a racist,'" he said.

Paul said he had never even read the articles with the racist comments. See the newsletter excerpts for yourself »

"I do repudiate everything that is written along those lines," he said, adding he wanted to "make sure everybody knew where I stood on this position because it's obviously wrong."

But that's not good enough, says one political veteran.

"These stories may be very old in Ron Paul's life, but they're very new to the American public and they deserve to be totally ventilated," said David Gergen, a CNN senior political analyst. "I must say I don't think there's an excuse in politics to have something go out under your name and say, 'Oh by the way, I didn't write that.'"


I wonder if Dr. Rand Paul rejects evolution just like his father, Dr Ron Paul does?
Kentucky has just become a possible Senate pickup for the Democrats. Don't let these first polls scare you off.
The numbers: Paul 59%, Conway 34%. The survey of likely voters has a ±4.5% margin of error. The previous Rasmussen poll from late April, before the primaries, gave Paul a lead of 47%-38% in a matchup with Conway. The TPM Poll Average, entirely of pre-primary data except for this new survey, gives Paul a lead of 48.4%-37.3%.

Rasmussen cautions against declaring a Paul victory to be a foregone conclusion: "While Paul is capitalizing for now on Tea Party unhappiness in Kentucky over national policies, he's also a political newcomer who's running against a candidate who has previously run both for Congress and for statewide office. Rookie candidates often make unforced errors and it is difficult to project how well the GOP candidate will handle the campaign trail between now and November."
Rand Paul's real history is just starting to hit the news. These polls are a baseline. They only go down from here.

Meet Jack Conway. Kentucky's Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate. Human being.

******** Well this didn't take long seeing as how Paul Rand basically outed himself as a racist of Maddow last night.

He's put out a statement, while I was in the middle of putting this blog post together, asserting he "Will Not Support Any Efforts To Repeal The Civil Rights Act'"

Here it is in full, via Time:

"I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

"Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws."

"As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years."

"My opponent's statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false. I hope he will correct the record and retract his claims."
Yeah, that will make people forget what you really believe, Rand.

There's a reason he is wholeheartedly support by Fox's Sean KKKanity & Glenn Beckkk.

UPDATE I:

So much has happened since I posted this this morning, the main one being he now claims to support the Title II part of the Civil Rights Act, something he fought tooth and nail on Maddow last night. Here's a rundown of the headlines, basicaly they all amount to, as Dan Savage headlined it, Rand Paul Distances Himself From Rand Paul.

Via TPM:

Via Think Progress
:
Via Daily Kos:
Please support Rand Paul's Democratic opponent, Jack Conway: he's a good guy, he needs our help, and he can win.
I'm sure there will be lots more to add to this trainwrekkk.

UPDATE II:

Via The Atlantic: Rand Paul and Civil Rights: The End of the Tea Party? (h/t edwardvirtually)
Here's one thing that can, plainly, be said about the controversy over Rand Paul and the Civil Rights Act: this is exactly what Democrats hoped would happen.

The Democratic campaign and message apparatus has been banking, for months, on the rightward tilt of the Tea Party to damage the Republican Party in November's midterm elections. They put out a strategy memo to this effect in January.

The idea is, basically: Tea Partiers are crazy, right-wing extremists. If the Republican Party elects them to run in November, the Republican Party will lose. Democrats have been saying this for months.

Paul's statements about the Civil Rights Act, brought up last night by Rachel Maddow and discussed at length, in an interview, have dominated the news cycle today. It has not looked good for Paul, or for the Tea Party.
More, please.

Via Jake Tapper
: White House Says Rand Paul's Civil Rights Talk 'Shouldn't Have a Place in Our Political Dialogue in 2010'

Asked about those comments today, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that “I think the issues that, that many fought for in the ‘50s and the ‘60s were settled a long time ago in landmark legislation and the discussion about whether or not to support those, I don’t think, shouldn’t have a place in our political dialogue in 2010.”

[snip]

Gibbs cited Paul’s victory Tuesday in the state GOP primary as further evidence of the Republican party “narrowing” itself; earlier in his press briefing he’d suggested that conservatives had “chased out” of the Republican party Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, who lost his primary earlier this month; Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who became an independent after it became clear he’d lose a primary race to former Florida state house speaker Marco Rubio; and Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Penn., who switched parties in 2009 after it became clear he would lose a Republican primary to a more conservative challenger, former Rep. Pat Toomey, R-Penn., now the Republican nominee to replace Specter.

Here's that Rep. James Clyburn video from his appearance on MNSNBC earlier today blasting Paul:

Bob Cesca: Rand Paul Underscores the Tea Party's Connection to Race

Most libertarians claim to oppose racial discrimination, but they ultimately support a system that utterly ignores it as a business practice. Put another way, it's like being opposed to cancer, but in favor of asbestos. Rand Paul, to say nothing of a long list of other Republicans, subscribes to this free market libertarian philosophy. And he's also become a champion of the tea party movement.

A gaffe, they say, is when a politician tells the truth out loud. Rand Paul revealed that there is, in fact, a strong racial component of the tea party movement. I don't know if he realizes it or not, but Paul actually helped to vindicate anyone who has pointed out the tea party's connection with race.

Where there's racial smoke, there's racial fire. And the preponderance of evidence points to a large and serious racial aspect of the tea party. Rand Paul just happened to conveniently let it slip out, as did tea party leaders Dale Robertson and Mark Williams, who recently said that Muslims worship a "monkey god."

I can understand a movement based around smaller government and lower taxes, as long as that movement is honest and consistent (this one hasn't been, as evidenced by its eight years of virtual silence). But the positions on race held by Rand Paul and others lead me to believe that smaller government and lower taxes are merely cosmetic -- disguising uglier positions and serving as code language designed to rally certain crowds who hear these concepts and think "welfare queens" and "lazy free loaders."

Via Sam Stein: Rand Paul On Civil Rights Controversy: I Shouldn't Have Talked To Rachel Maddow

The morning after he declined to endorse the totality of the Civil Rights Act in his much-discussed appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show, Dr. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) copped to feeling regret -- not over his comments, but rather his decision to be interviewed by Maddow in the first place.

"It was a poor political decision and probably won't be happening anytime in the near future," the Tea Party endorsed Senate candidate said on the Laura Ingraham show on Thursday morning. "Because, yeah, they can play things and want to say, 'Oh you believed in beating up people that were trying to sit in restaurants in the 1960s.' And that is such a ridiculous notion and something that no rational person is in favor of. [But] she went on and on about that."

Blaming the messenger is a tactic often used by politicians when the message itself is to blame. And Paul's appearance on the Maddow show on Wednesday night was anything but bland. For 15 minutes, he and the host went back and forth in debating where there should be limits to government efforts to desegregate private institutions (Paul was skeptical that the government should play any role at all). But the notion that the MSNBC host was somehow unloading liberal hostilities on him doesn't jibe with the fact that Paul got the same type of treatment during an NPR interview earlier that morning -- or, for that matter, that a conservative voice on MSNBC, Joe Scarborough, seemed aghast at his answers. "He needs to come up with an answer today, or Kentucky will be Arizona: a battleground for ugly, racial politics," Scarborough said. "He has 24 hours."

Also via Sam Stein:

Rand Paul Gently Rebuked By GOP Senators Over Civil Rights Act Opposition

Senate Republicans are cautiously distancing themselves from the controversial comments about civil rights legislation made by the GOP candidate who wants to join their caucus.

A day after Kentucky Senate hopeful Rand Paul said he didn't support the 1964 Civil Rights Act in full, several GOP lawmakers have tried to distance themselves from the Tea Party's prodigal son.

"I don't want to put words in his mouth," Sen. Lindsey Graham told the Huffington Post's Lucia Graves. "It's clear he doesn't support racism. I think most people in Kentucky probably believe as I do that in 2010 you should be able to sleep in whatever hotel and eat in whatever restaurant you want to...but as for what's the proper role of government in the private sector...he'll have to convince people that his views are acceptable."

"I don't know what he means by that," Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told POLITICO. "I support non-discrimination of people, so I would need to talk to him to see what precisely his concerns were."

"I support the Civil Rights Act," Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a Paul-booster, told the website Think Progress. "I'm going to talk to Rand about his positions..."

Update III:

Via WaPo: Rand Paul confuses supporters, spurs anger with comments on Civil Rights Act
Despite attempts to clarify his position, Senate Republican nominee Rand Paul has angered civil rights leaders and confused some supporters by getting involved in a contentious debate about whether the government overreached in its attempts to bar discrimination. [snip]

Paul's views on race and Jim Crow have been called into question -- even by Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. His campaign has tried to halt the conversation quickly, putting him on the air with conservative talk show hosts and releasing this statement midday: "I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

[snip]

Still, questions about whether Paul's views are outside of the mainstream remain, said Dewey Clayton, a political science professor at the University of Louisville. "When he's talking with Kentuckians, he is talking about being a part of the tea party movement and advocating less government," Clayton said. "There's a lot of excitement over the fact that he won his primary, but I don't think a majority of Kentucky citizens are going to support [Paul's argument about the Civil Rights Act.] It be problematic for him down the road."

It's already become a problem in some corners. NAACP President Benjamin Jealous said he will send out a challenge Friday to Paul to debate the issue. Jealous took Paul's argument as a broad disapproval of the act, though Paul said in the interview that he supported the act's intent.

"It should be troubling to the entire country that we have a credible candidate who is a fan of taking the country back to the 1950s," Jealous said. "This is not philosophy. This is reality, and there should be no room in politics for debating something as dead and dead wrong as Jim Crow segregation."

Daddy rides to the rescue (Via CQ Politics):
Ron Paul Rises to Son’s Defense in civil Rights Dust-Up

Rep. Ron Paul said Thursday the criticism of his son Rand Paul’s comments regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act is “unfair” and dismissed the fracas as an attempt by the left to hurt his son’s Senate campaign.

“I think it’s contrived because he’s done so well and the left has to knock him down,” the Texas Republican said.

Rand Paul, the GOP nominee in the Kentucky Senate race, ignited a political firestorm this week by suggesting he disagrees with the landmark civil rights law’s prohibition on segregation at privately owned facilities open to the public.

“It’s not fair,” Ron Paul said, adding that as a parent it was hard to see his son pilloried on the national stage and to see his libertarian views characterized as racist.

UPDATE IV:

Make up your fucking mind, Rand:

Rand Paul to CNN's Wolf Blitzer: He Would Have Voted For Civil Rights Act and that Federal Intervention Was Needed:
Lying piece of shit.

Well, at least he still has issues with The Americans with Disabilities Act to fall back on for his rabid, teabagging sycophants.

Via Josh Marshall:

LightSpeed WalkBack

They used to say that folks evolved once they got on the Supreme Court. But I'm not sure we've ever seen the kind of evolution Rand Paul's undergone over less than 24 hours.

Let me try to summarize.

1) I don't support the Civil Rights Act but I personally abhor discrimination.

2) I would not support any effort to repeal the Civil Rights Act.

3) I believe in the Civil Rights Act and the constitutional power to enforce it.

4) If I would have been in the Senate at the time I would have voted for the Civil Rights Act.

Any guesses on number 5?

UPDATE IV:

It's just keeps getting worse & worse for Rand. Now it's The Fair Housing Act (Part of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968).

From Dave Wiegel: Rand Paul in '02: I may not like it, but 'a free society' will allow 'hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin'

In a May 30, 2002, letter to the Bowling Green Daily News, Paul's hometown newspaper, he criticized the paper for endorsing the Fair Housing Act, and explained that "a free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin." (Hat tip: Page One Kentucky. I have purchased the letter from the newspaper's online archives, but will not post it here out of respect for the copyright.)

"The Daily News ignores," wrote Paul, "as does the Fair Housing Act, the distinction between private and public property. Should it be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individual's beliefs or attributes? Most certainly. Should it be prohibited for private entities such as a church, bed and breakfast or retirement neighborhood that doesn't want noisy children? Absolutely not."

In language similar to the language he's used talking about the Civil Rights Act, Paul criticized racism while defending the right of businesses to discriminate.

Can you say Kentucky Fried Candidate (h/t @newsjunkiepost)

Meet Jack Conway. Kentucky's Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate. Human being.

Donate to Jack Conway.
Follow Jack on Twitter.
Become a fan of Jack's Facebook.
Watch Jack on YouTube.
Bookmarks Jack's campaign page.

Bookmark and Share

blog comments powered by Disqus