► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Ron Paul’

Rand Paul’s paleoconservative problem

by Mojambo ( 62 Comments › )
Filed under Anarcho-Capitalism, Elections 2016, Hate Speech at July 18th, 2013 - 8:30 am

His biggest problem is that paleoconservatives are pretty vile (and if you don’t believe me take a peak at the wrongly labeled online magazine “The American Conservative”).   Rand Paul is not a paleocon but he carries a lot of baggage because of his father and some of his own aides and that is too bad because I really do like Rand Paul. As Jonah points out – if they could tag John McCain and Mitt Romney as bigots, watch what they would do to Rand Paul.  However, Rand Paul is no bigot – he wants the GOP to aim for 25% of the Black vote and he deplores the Rovian tendency to write off huge swaths of the country.

by Jonah Goldberg

Rand Paul is the most interesting contender for the Republican nomination. And when I say interesting, I mean that in the broadest sense.

A case in point: Last week, the Kentucky senator hit some turbulence when the Washington Free Beacon reported that Jack Hunter, Paul’s aide and the co-author of his book, The Tea Party Goes to Washington, was once the Southern Avenger.

Who’s that? Starting in the 1990s, as a radio shock-jock, Hunter would wear a wrestling mask made from a Confederate flag, while making jokes about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and having the South re-secede.

“Although Lincoln’s assassin, John Wilkes Booth’s heart was in the right place, the Southern Avenger does regret that Lincoln’s murder . . . turned him into a martyr,” Turner said in 2004. Maybe the humor is all in the delivery?

Hunter’s defenders, including my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano, think the reaction against Hunter has been cranked up by neocon “hawks, whose ideology is . . . being discredited every day.” According to Napolitano, “Jack’s sin in their eyes was having spoken favorably of states’ rights, and negatively of Lincoln.”

“Negatively of Lincoln” is a curious understatement, given that Hunter — who admits to giving a “personal toast” to Booth on his birthday — once suggested Lincoln would have had an amorous relationship with Adolf Hitler.

Meanwhile, Hunter says he has matured and is embarrassed by much of what he said in the past. Moreover, he says that for all the theatrics and bombast, he’s never said, believed, or done anything racist. “I abhor racism,” he wrote at his site, Southernavenger.com, “and have always treated everyone I’ve met with dignity and respect.”

Such controversies are hardly new to Paulworld. Most famously, Rand’s father, former Representative Ron Paul, the three-time presidential candidate (for whom Hunter worked in 2012), published newsletters bearing his name that brimmed with bigoted bile. […….]

Both controversies stem from the same sinful strategy adopted by so-called paleolibertarians in the 1980s. The idea was that libertarians needed to attract followers from outside the ranks of both the mainstream GOP and the libertarian movement — by trying to fuse the struggle for individual liberty with nostalgia for white supremacy. Thinkers such as Murray Rothbard hated the cultural liberalism of libertarians like the Koch brothers (yes, you read that right) and sought to build a movement fueled by white resentment. This sect of libertarianism played into the left-wing view of conservatism as racist.  […….]

“The paleo strategy was a horrific mistake,” libertarian economist Steve Horwitz wrote in 2011, “though it apparently made some folks (such as Rockwell and Paul) pretty rich selling newsletters predicting the collapse of Western civilization at the hands of the blacks, gays, and multiculturalists.”

By no means do all Ron Paul supporters subscribe to this dreck. […….] Most take great offense at any suggestion that Paul or Paulism has anything to do with racism.

Rand Paul literally and figuratively grew up in the shadow of all this, but while he’s always circumspect when talking about his dad, in private and in public he has given no hint of subscribing to the Rockwell-Rothbard thesis. Indeed, he is sincerely eager to reach out to African-American voters on issues like the drug war.

Rand Paul shares his father’s ambition to be president. Color me skeptical. Even though he’s a vastly better politician — morally and strategically — than his father, in a climate where politicians like Mitt Romney and John McCain can be demonized as bigots, should Rand Paul ever be nominated, one can only imagine what his opponents, in and out of the media, would do. Unfairly or not, his task of clearing the air would be Augean.

Hence another irony. Defenders like Napolitano think Paul’s critics subscribe to a “dying ideology,” but Paul’s only shot at the White House hinges on thoroughly interring an ideology far more deserving of death. He’s got a lot more work ahead of him.

Read the rest – Rand Paul’s paleo problem

So long Paulbots and the Palin obsessed, take your toys and go home

by Flyovercountry ( 252 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2012, Republican Party at August 29th, 2012 - 7:00 pm

What is the definition of much ado about nothing?  Every four years, during the nominating conventions of both major parties, the rules are changed last minute to avoid turbulence once the nominee has become apparent.  In plain speak, When it became obvious that Mitt Romney would be the GOP standard bearer this time around, the Republican Party did its usual job of eliminating floor fights so that a small group made up largely of non party members would not be able to sabotage the effort of using the convention as a spring board towards getting Mitt Romney elected President.

It wasn’t just the Paulbots this year, there were other groups as well.  After a long process in which Republicans in every state cast ballots that overwhelmingly stated that they wanted Mitt Romney to represent their party in the fight to remove Barack Obama from the office of the Presidency, a small group of narcissists took it upon themselves to attempt to replace those results with something that they wanted instead.  Make no mistake about it, this was never about including conservative values into the meaningless party platform, (meaningless in that Mitt Romney will be running on his message regardless of the party platform.)  This was about removing Mitt Romney from the ballot completely and replacing him with a candidate that a very small minority wished to see run instead.  Just like every other nominating convention in American History, once the will of the party establishment became clear, the rules were changed last minute to shut down the agitation of the fringe.

There has been, for as long as I have been active in politics anyhow, a separation between the Republican Party Establishment and a large portion of its voting base.  At the same time though, it is called the party establishment for a reason.  That reason is that more often than not, they are going to get their people nominated, and more often than not, opposition groups will not be successful at this.  Before anyone accuses me of being a Romney shill, bear in mind that I voted for Newt Gingrich during the primaries, and indeed wrote an impassioned plea for others to do the same, as the previous link indicates.  After the dust settled, Mitt was left standing, and other candidates had fallen short.  That does not mean anything beyond this, Mitt Romney garnered more votes amongst the party faithful than others in the field, or not in the field.  He won this opportunity to represent the Republican Party, and any attempt to replace him with candidates who failed in spectacular fashion to garner similar support is beyond selfish, it is down right narcissistic.

The claim that a convention where delegates are replaced despite the express will of those who voted is somehow more open than a convention which manages to follow the overwhelmingly expressed will of those who took the time and energy to actually make their wishes known is beyond asinine.  After getting into spats over the past few weeks with Sarah Palin Stalkers who wanted to have the convention nominate her rather than Romney, despite the fact that she never bothered to campaign, debate, deliver her message, develop specific policies or theories, I pointed out that the effort to do this was at best moronic.  I was pointed to a website that told of the sure to succeed grass roots effort that included bill boards in four whole cities and a form letter asking the elected delegates to voluntarily forfeit their positions in favor of Palin Delegates.  Ignoring completely that Sarah Palin had not even once asked for this support, the draft Sarah movement sulked like spoiled children when their efforts failed to even register as a blip on the radar screen of possible outcomes.

Side Note to Sarah Palin:  You may wish to seek several hundred personal protection orders as this group of dolts is showing real signs of unhealthy obsession.  

I’ve mentioned Paul and Palin so far, because their supporters seem to be making up this year’s contingency of annoying side show distractions.  Usually, I wouldn’t be worried about it, but the stakes are bigger now than they have been for a long while.  Only the very survival of our nation as a free society with any semblance of limitations upon a federal behemoth lies in the balance.  To the Paulbats, you were never Republicans in the first place.  The vast majority of your contingency was always populated with left leaning social Democrats, albeit those with at least some semblance of economic literacy.  To the Palin supporters, your gal did not run, debate, declare herself a candidate, and as such had no chance of winning.  I did not consider Sarah, because she never asked me for my consideration, and that’s important to me.  Throwing a tantrum and demanding that we place your candidates at the top of the ticket despite the fact that they did not win anything does not endear your cause to me, and I suspect to very many people at all.  If you wish to take you toys and go home, I don’t want you in my party anyhow.  We are better off with those who are willing to work for America first for the good of our country, and willing to set aside their selfish desires once those desires were defeated at the ballot box.

I was all in favor of the candidates, all of them, continuing to fight on, right up until the convention but that time is now past.  Your candidate lost, and trying to inflict them upon a party that has clearly and overwhelmingly expressed a desire for another will only help Barack Obama.  Get a grip, deal with it, or go and form a third party.  In either case, leave me out of it, I mostly find your protestations of self righteous indignation to be simply crap.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Political Street Art: Barack Hussein Obama vs. Ron Paul 2012

by Urban Infidel ( 124 Comments › )
Filed under Art, Barack Obama, Open thread, Politics at March 21st, 2012 - 8:22 pm


It is worth noting that as the 2012 election cycle churns toward its possibly very horrifying conclusion I see very little pro-Obama street art out here in Brooklyn. Just three years ago I couldn’t keep up with the tsunami of street art deifying Barky the Unvetted.

So when I noticed this one, it stood out. Also because it happens to have ‘Ron Paul 2012‘ written over it–something that in 2008 would have been positively unspeakable.

(cross posted from urbaninfidel.blogspot.com)

GOP Debate in Mesa, AZ

by Kafir ( 188 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2012, Open thread, Politics, Republican Party at February 22nd, 2012 - 8:00 pm

Tonight’s GOP Debate on CNN will be held at the Mesa Arts Center.

Live Stream