Rand Paul

You are currently browsing articles tagged Rand Paul.

randpaulsiliconvalley

It was supposed to be the Year of Rand, the day when Libertarianism was to have its moment, or that was the story the media was selling last year. But the GOP had plenty of other none-of-the-above candidates, and Rand Paul couldn’t out-wack the Trumps and Carsons and Cruzs.

Just as unlikely to come to fruition was Paul’s brand of socially conservative, anti-immigrant Libertarianism being a hit in Silicon Valley. The opening of Tony Romm’s well-written Politico piece:

SAN FRANCISCO — When Rand Paul announced plans to set up shop in Silicon Valley, he portrayed it as a bid to reverse Republicans’ fortunes in deep Democratic territory: “If we want to win the presidency,” he told the San Francisco Chronicle in September 2014, “we have to figure out how to compete in California.”

Other Republicans had similarly high hopes that Paul’s message against big government — and Big Brother — might strike a chord among this city’s tech elite and engineers alike. “He’s hopeful it’s a libertarian incubator of future Ayn Rands,” Shawn Steel, a past chairman of the California Republican Party, told POLITICO last year.

But seven months after the Kentucky senator’s team finally found an outpost here, not even a campaign sign hangs above the gated door outside StartupHouse, the shared, rented work space where his aides toil alongside app makers and Web designers. At times, nobody from Paul’s presidential campaign can be found among the doodle-covered walls, concrete floors and rows of computer-lined tables.

“They come in every now and then,” said StartupHouse founder Elias Bizannes, whose work space boasts about being blocks away from tech companies like Slack and Yahoo, during an interview. The Paul campaign hasn’t held a public event here since it hosted a “hackathon” in June, a quiet streak matched these days by the senator’s lackluster fundraising in the Bay Area.

This isn’t the way it was supposed to be for Paul.•

 

Tags: ,

150812121622-rand-paul-donald-trump-large-169

The Paul family had become a de facto none-of-the-above box on GOP ballots, the happy recipients of the base’s increasingly loud “no” to the status quo. In the fractiousness of the current election cycle, Sen. Rand Paul was supposed to see his hodgepodge of unorthodox views rewarded with serious consideration atop the ticket. In a 2014 article I questioned at the time, the New York Times Magazine essentially prophesied it.

Alas, it wasn’t meant to be. In 2015, Paul has found his waiting pockets picked by Trump and Carson, the new standard-bearers of no standards, whose bigotry, paucity of policy and inanity provides the party faithful with an ever-more-forceful rebuke to its leadership. Not even Rick Santorum and the sweater-vest wing of the party is out there enough to get in on the action. The voters, disappointed repeatedly by the core, want to go as far away from it as possible.

Maybe that’s all this strange contest is, not some cult of personality working its voodoo on brains softened by Reality TV. Not even a sharp shift to the hard right. Perhaps it’s just “no.”

In a Politico Magazine article, Michael Lind traces the decline and fall of the modern American conservative movement, thinking that perhaps Trump’s rise is somewhat more nuanced than just mere negation. The opening:

There is an air of desperation out there on the GOP campaign trail. It’s impossible not to sense it in the kinds of things being said by teetering establishment Republican candidates like Jeb Bush and John Kasich, both of whom started off the last debate virtually pleading with base voters to come to their senses about Donald Trump, who is barely identifiable as a conservative by any standard measure of ideology. Not to mention Ben Carson, whose views sound like a grab bag of life philosophies. “I want you to know I’m fed up. I’ve about had it with these people,” a flustered Kasich told a rally in his home state of Ohio this week. “What happened to our party? What happened to the conservative movement?”

It’s an excellent question. And maybe it’s time we stopped blaming the lack of traction experienced by establishment conservatives like Bush, Kasich, and Chris Christie on things like personality and debating skill, and started talking again about that thing known as “the conservative movement.” Maybe the real problem is less Jeb’s awkwardness, or Kasich’s personality, or Christie’s New Jersey bravado, than an issue that runs much deeper. The establishment candidates in this year’s Republican primary nomination campaign are out there reciting all the formulas that worked for Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes—supply-side tax cuts and more military spending. Yet the old-time conservative religion doesn’t seem to fire up the congregation, many of whose members have become idol-worshippers of strange new gods like Trump and Carson.

Why isn’t the old-time conservative religion working to fire people up any more? Maybe the reason is that it’s really, really old. So old it’s decrepit.•

Tags: ,

In a Slate piece, David Auerbach asks whether Rand Paul or some other Republican could siphon votes from left-leaning technologists concerned about civil liberties. That could happen, although the GOP would need to reposition itself significantly for such a candidate to triumph in the Republican Primary.

I will take issue with Auerbach’s depiction of former Democratic candidate Howard Dean, the clear antecedent to the Paul brand. The author writes this of the former Vermont governor: “…he ended up impacting the Democratic agenda (anti-war, expanded health care, gay rights) for years.” Dean had an impact on the American electoral process for sure, realizing before anyone that grassroots and social media could be wedded to buoy a largely unknown candidate, but I don’t believe he influenced the Democratic agenda at all. Only the Iraq War becoming a boondoggle made Democrats turn against it, universal health care was on the docket long before 2004 and neither of the main 2008 contenders supported gay marriage (Hillary Clinton opposed it and Barack Obama was purposely vague); the tide turned on that issue for the party only because voters and polls moved leftward.

Auerbach’s opening:

Every time Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul assails mass government surveillance on the floor of the Senate, it is surprising to see who emerges to praise the erratically unorthodox Republican, from Edward Snowden to Glenn Greenwald to true-blue progressive reporter Marcy Wheeler. This support comes with caveats, of course. But the lefty applause for Paul also arrives at a moment of a distinctly lacking enthusiasm for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. More importantly, these plaudits align with many of the concerns of a quiet but influential contingent of liberal-leaning techies who might one day become Rand Democrats—or Democrats willing to support some other, future right-wing firebrand with lefty-compatible ideas about civil liberties—much in the way disaffected blue-collar workers became Reagan Democrats. Think of them as the New Randroids—and definitely not because they admire Ayn Rand, which they don’t. Progressives and loyal Democrats would be wise not to ignore them.

Rand Paul’s father, Ron Paul, has long enjoyed a libertarian following within what I call the tech laity—the vast number of tech workers who don’t work for buzzy startups or dominate the tech press. This group of engineers and other research and development workers, far less white and somewhat less male than what’s portrayed in the media, clusters around industry hubs in the Bay Area, Seattle, Boston, North Carolina’s Research Triangle, Austin, Los Angeles, and so on. The libertarians among them, who hate the Federal Reserve and have funded the presidential ambitions of Paul pere, make up a tiny minority of the whole. What’s been surprising is how hard Rand Paul has worked to broaden that small following in the hopes of reaching disaffected Republicans and Democrats. He has about as much chance of winning the nomination as Howard Dean, Paul’s closest antecedent, did in 2004. But Dean came closer than most people remember, and he ended up impacting the Democratic agenda (anti-war, expanded health care, gay rights) for years. Paul hopes to do the same—and perhaps make another run at the presidency in 2020 or 2024.•

Tags: ,

Former MTV VJ Kennedy, no less an accident of modern free-market capitalism than the Kardashians, is given the first word in Robert Draper’s New York Times Magazine article, “Has the ‘Libertarian Moment’ Finally Arrived?” Without thinking, as is her custom, the Fox political analyst unwittingly labels Sen. Rand Paul just right by identifying him as the “Pearl Jam” of the ideology. You know, because he’s overrated, his words are simplistic, and to paraphrase Portlandia, you liked him…in high school. 

Libertarianism can be useful as can most belief systems in certain cases, but the thought of extreme isolationism overseas and an utter lack of collectivism domestically is beyond plausibility for most American adults.

Of course, the piece could have just as easily asked if Liberalism’s moment has finally arrived, since decriminalizing drugs, reducing the prison population, curtailing government snooping and marriage equality (the latter of which seems to escape Paul’s enthusiasm for liberty) have long been planks of that ideology. But perhaps that wouldn’t have made for as catchy a feature-article angle. The opening:

“Let’s say Ron Paul is Nirvana,” said Kennedy, the television personality and former MTV host, by way of explaining the sort of politician who excites libertarians like herself. ‘Like, the coolest, most amazing thing to come along in years, and the songs are nebulous but somehow meaningful, and the lead singer kills himself to preserve the band’s legacy.

“Then Rand Paul — he’s Pearl Jam. Comes from the same place, the songs are really catchy, can really pack the stadiums, though it’s not quite Nirvana.

“Ted Cruz? He’s Stone Temple Pilots. Tries really hard to sound like Pearl Jam, never gonna sound like Nirvana. Really good voice, great staying power — but the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.”

I met Kennedy (a gabby 41-year-old whose actual name is Lisa Kennedy Montgomery) in Midtown Manhattan at Fox News headquarters, where she hosts a Fox Business Network program called The Independents. By cable TV standards, the show, which is shown four times a week, is jarringly nonpartisan, for the simple reason that she and her co-hosts — the Reason magazine editor in chief Matt Welch and the entrepreneur Kmele Foster — are openly contemptuous of both parties. Kennedy spent most of the Bill Clinton ‘90s as MTV’s most vocal Republican, but then she soured on the G.O.P., a political shift that solidified during the spending and warring and moralizing excesses of the George W. Bush years. Sometime after the elephant tattoo on her left hip ‘got infected and started looking more like a pig,’ Kennedy began thinking of herself as a libertarian instead. She, Welch and Foster take turns on the show bashing not only “Obamacare” but also the N.S.A., neoconservatives and social scolds. It’s not a hospitable forum for G.O.P. talking points. “There are some libertarian-leaning Republicans who are afraid to be on our show,” Kennedy told me. Libertarianism’s Nirvana, a k a the former congressman and former presidential candidate Ron Paul, has been on The Independents more than once. But Pearl Jam — a k a Ron Paul’s son Rand, a one-term Republican senator who may well run for the presidency in 2016 — has yet to appear.

A few weeks after our conversation, I saw Kennedy onstage in a hotel ballroom, wearing purple spandex, gyrating to the soundtrack of Flashdance and hollering into a microphone, “Are you hungry for more liberty?”•

Tags: , , , ,

Politics is often about massaging your message to make it seem palatable to whatever group you happen to be speaking to at that moment. Sen Rand Paul of Kentucky, a severe ideologue, is certainly not the only one to practice this artifice. But his recent comment about his distrust of democracy at Howard University is one of the more egregious, perplexing examples of the pivot I have ever heard. Here’s what he said:

“I’m not a firm believer in democracy. It gave us Jim Crow.”

So, he wants an African-American audience to believe that his disgust of institutionalized segregation is the reason why popular opinion shouldn’t always prevail. 

Let’s leave alone the fact that the South at the time wasn’t exactly known for its democracy, with its poll taxes and intimidation at voting booths. Let’s just present an equally true statement based on Paul’s avowed beliefs about the Civil Rights Act:

“I’m not a firm believer in democracy. It forced the South to abandon Jim Crow.”

He’ll probably find an audience for that line as well.•

 

Tags:

Two of the more perplexing entities in existence, Vice magazine and Sen. Rand Paul, met for a brief interview. The reporter, Grace Wyler, did a good job. An excerpt:

Vice:

What do you think about the Obama administration’s decision to support the FBI’s push to make it easier to spy on the Internet?

Sen. Rand Paul:

My reaction is mostly disappointment. The one area where I liked President Obama was that I thought he would defend civil liberties. It turns out that he might care less for civil liberties than George Bush, and I think that’s disappointing.

It must be truly disappointing for those who truly are progressive on the left who believe in civil liberties, and it’s disappointing to those of us on the right who didn’t support him but thought, ‘Gosh, well, at least maybe he’ll support civil liberties.’

Vice:

It all seems kind of dystopian. Speaking of which, I hear you want to teach a class on the dystopian novel?

Sen. Rand Paul:

I’ve talked about it, but unfortunately I keep developing other projects that get in the way. I would like to do it someday. I think dystopian novels are a discussion of politics, and sort of what happens if you let a government accumulate too much power.

As I said in my filibuster, this presidential, or king, complex that both Republicans and Democrats get where they think, ‘Well, the power is not so bad, because I’m a good person and I won’t abuse that power.’ President Obama has said that with indefinite detention, he’s said ‘Oh, well I don’t intend to use that power.’ That’s not good enough, it’s like when Madison said: ‘If government were comprised of angels, we wouldn’t have to worry about how much power to give the government.’

The government is not comprised of angels. No one can be trusted. I think it was either Madison or Jefferson who said to always worry about any power you give to your government, because there should always be a certain level of distrust for anyone who seeks power. “

Tags: ,

Paul Ryan: Creepy little poltergeist.

I haven’t counted all the newsprint (real and virtual) nor added the TV minutes, but I would be willing to bet that the amount of time news organizations spent on the Beyoncé lip-sync “controversy” far exceeds the attention given to Paul Ryan and other members of Congress who voted against the initial $9 billion relief package for victims of Hurricane Sandy. Having just spent time visiting a relative in a hospital in an area that was heavily impacted by the natural disaster, I can tell you that the ER is overrun. I assumed it was due to the flu outbreak, but one hospital personnel member after another told me the heavier-than-usual demand for beds was due to an assortment of health issues. In the wake of the storm, it’s harder for people, especially children and seniors, to remain healthy. And the mold that has been growing inside abandoned houses can’t be good for anyone. People can die. They do die.

These communities needed help immediately. But the faux athlete, faux economist, faux policy wonk Ryan felt, as usual, that his half-witted ideology needed to come before those who were suffering. And don’t get me started on that owl-headed freak Rand Paul. More than anything, both of these little boys–and they don’t qualify as adults to me–need to live on the streets for awhile and see what life is really like.

Beyonce: Sounded good to me.

Tags: , ,

Rand Paul: Receives radio transmissions via cavity fillings. (Image by Gage Skidmore.)

Rand Paul: In the end, all that remains of any of us is our reputation. Mine has been sullied over the past week by lies and innuendo.

Decoder: And by my very real belief that private business owners shouldn’t have to serve people of races or creeds they don’t like.

Rand Paul: Our body politic has enough pragmatists, we need a few idealists.

Decoder: It’s not that pragmatists don’t have ideals; they just consider whether the ideals they have in their heads will be good for people living in reality.

Rand Paul: Segregation ended only after a great and momentous uprising by idealists like Martin Luther King Jr., who provoked weak-kneed politicians to action.

Decoder: Like Martin Luther King, I too have a dream. But mine concerns a giant chicken throwing eggs at my head. I have to stop eating so close to bedtime.

Rand Paul: In 2010, there are battles that need to be fought, and they have nothing to do with race or discrimination, but rather the rights of people to be free from a nanny state.

Decoder: I stay up at night worrying about seat-belt laws like a crazy person.

I sacrifice my young to besmirch you, Rand Paul. (Image by Daniel Postellon.)

Rand Paul: Think about it–this overreach is now extending to mandates about fat and calorie counts in menus. Do we really need the government managing all of these decisions for us?

Decoder: Oh, yeah. We look like fucking pigs.

Rand Paul: Now the media is twisting my small government message, making me out to be a crusader for repeal of the Americans for Disabilities Act and The Fair Housing Act. Again, this is patently untrue. I have simply pointed out areas within these broad federal laws that have financially burdened many smaller businesses. Should a small business in a two-story building have to put in a costly elevator, even if it threatens their economic viability?

Decoder: I would be happy to name a single American small business in a two-story building that was forced to install an elevator and was driven to bankruptcy, but I’m too busy right now dodging eggs thrown by that giant chicken. You’d think he’d eventually run out of eggs, but there are always more eggs. That’s the strange part.

Rand Paul: When I read history I side with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglas who fought for 30 years to end slavery and to integrate public transportation in the free North in the 1840s.

Decoder: Of course, if I had really spent time reading Frederick Douglass, I might have spelled his name correctly.

More Decoders:

Tags:

Rand Paul: Keeps a ham radio in the basement. (Image by Gage Skidmore.)

Rand Paul: I don’t want to live in a nanny state where people are telling me where I can go. 

Decoder: Especially that British lady on the GPS thing. She pisses me off.

Rand Paul: I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners–I abhor racism, I think it’s a bad business decision to ever exclude anyone from your establishment–but I do believe in private ownership.

Decoder: Seriously, only the douchebag son of Ron Paul, who may be a poltergeist, could revive a 45-year-old debate about racial discrimination at lunch counters. That issue was sort of already decided, and it made the country stronger in every way.

Rand Paul: Even though I was a year old at the time, I like to believe I would have marched with Martin Luther King. 

Decoder: That would have been the slowest fucking march ever. Fucking baby steps all over Selma. 

Rand Paul: These attacks prove one thing for certain: The liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign. 

Decoder: Although everything they’re saying about me is accurate, taken directly from quotes I made about the Civil Rights Act. 

Martin Luther King Jr: Who was that crazy-looking white baby marching with us? (Image by Dick DeMarsico.)

Rand Paul: I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. And I think when you get to 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.

Decoder: The federal government had to make those decisions since local decision makers were often guided by prejudice instead of common sense. 

Rand Paul: What I don’t like from the President’s administration is this sort of, I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of British Petroleum. I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. 

Decoder: Nothing could be more American than a President standing up to the abuse of people and resources by big business. Just ask Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower. And why exactly am I more worried about BP’s hurt feelings than the disgraceful pollution of the ocean? We can live without an irresponsible oil company, but we can’t live without the ocean.

Rand Paul: It’s difficult to have an intellectual debate in a political sense because what happens is it gets dumbed down to three words.
 
Decoder: The three words: Tea Party jackass.
 
More Decoders:
 

Tags: ,