Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Look! Over there! Rand Paul!

It never ends.

As usual, I'm on the side that the other two sides are trying to suppress.

NOTE From the froth on the access blogs, Paul said something stupid. No doubt. Then again, Paul didn't put a mortgage mod program into place that was designed to throw people out of their homes, either, all so the banksters wouldn't have to recognize losses on their balance sheets. And then there's the professor of Constitutional law who normalized torture. Plus the very thought that the D faction which used false charges of racism to throw half their party under the bus in 2008 is now invoking the Civil Rights movement makes me want to throw up. So there's all that. Words; deeds.

UPDATE Tweaked.

0
No votes yet

Comments

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

he said that Jim Crow means freedom.
Paul is trying to mainstream extremism and Digby is beating back. Paul is from the violent fascist wing of the crony kleptrocracy.

Digby is doing great work.

Walter Wit Man's picture
Submitted by Walter Wit Man on

to beat back the fascism emanating from her own party and she does nothing but make excuses for them.

Instead, she diverts attention to scapegoats. This is a manufactured outrage moment designed to protect Obama and score political points for the Dems.

It's reprehensible behavior on her part to ignore the fascism she has the power to effect but to gin up an entirely unrealistic and hypothetical concern about the Civil Rights Act.

And if the progressives like Digby really cared about "fascism" I don't think any reasonable person would start with the Pauls. You're serving the interests of the fascists by making that argument!

Which Republicans have consistently voted against imperial wars the last 10 years and been more reliable votes for civil liberties? Why is the left's outrage focused on these Republicans? hmmmmm. Are these issues irrelevant to you so that you ignore war and civil liberties but solely focus on states rights issues (that I don't think can be describes as "fascism")?

I'm not going to agree with Paul on a lot of things, and not this issue for sure. But really, states rights is a pretty doctrinaire Republican issue. Are the progressives going to petulantly stomp their feet every time a GOPer makes a state's rights argument? Or is their anger only reserved for the libertarian wing of the GOP?

Submitted by lambert on

Of course, that was something Obama did, as opposed to something somebody said.

So I guess it's not important. It's all about the meta!

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

What power does Rand Paul have?

Now, what power does Obama have?

Where is Digby on opposing Obama, THE PRESIDENT, from the left? Where is she on opposing the Health Whatever Bill on liberal/women's rights grounds?

Who is the President, Rand Paul or Barack Obama?

Give.

Me.

A.

Break.

Submitted by Elliott Lake on

..and the ads on local radio today were a bit creepy, would have been more creepy if they had made sense and didn't sound so dumb as to be farcical.

No wait, that's more creepy.

If you read the things Paul REALLY supports, and the crowd he really espouses, he wouldn't sound appetizing at all.

But then I live in the part of country where people really go for his shtick, and see what comes of it, not in some suburban realm where you can fantasize about shaking things up without people getting hurt. The people he is appealing to are the vigilante/militia/angryily uninformed end of the spectrum. It ain't a game out here.

Walter Wit Man's picture
Submitted by Walter Wit Man on

creepy . . . dumb . . . farcical . . . .REALLY supports . . . shtick . . . vigilante/militia/angryily uniformed . . .

And all that without really describing what he REALLY supports.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I haven't even been paying attention so I haven't given much thought or even heard what Paul said or did to bring on "the vapors" to the progressive bloggers. But I can see a manufactured poutrage when I see one. And I haven't really seen exactly what Paul's been running on (although my understanding is he is to the left of many Democrats on some of the biggest issues of our day--war and civil liberty).

What are his misdeeds that make him so much worse than all the other Republicans Obama is playing footsie with? So far he wasn't nice enough to his legacy party opponent in his victory speech. He was supposed to be deferential after the guy called him a dirty hippy for being against war. Next, he supposedly took the GOP platform issue of state rights to its logical but improbable extreme: that the Civil Rights Act violated the constitution. Crazy I know but you better open up the funny house cause you got a whole party that needs admittance.

And all this sound and fury is about Paul?

Color me skeptical. Now what oil scandal were we talking about again?

Like Lambert, I too have stopped getting emotionally sucked in to these silly debates and seen from afar, they all Kabuki theater, as Digby would say.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

His jackboot thugs are already getting in trouble for voter intimidation(thanks to the "helpful" letter sent out by the Paul campaign, telling them how to do exactly that).

And they were intimidating their fellow whites, I can't imagine how they'll get once they get to target a more colorful demographic.

He's almost bad enough to make me want to vote for Conway, though I won't.

Walter Wit Man's picture
Submitted by Walter Wit Man on

says it best:

I just want to point out for the Avogadro's Numberth time that while progs remain desperately convinced that the greatest threat to human life on this planet is some horrific, satanic cartel of Rush Limbaugh, some Tea-Party protester with a spelling problem, and a marginal libertarian congressional candidate from an unremarkable state, it is in fact Barack Obama who is killing thousands of innocent people, presiding over the ongoing oppression of racial minorities through the drug war, transferring billions upon billions of dollars from private citizens to speculative corporate enterprises, and so on and so forth. In other words, the pricipal nexus for violence, death, destruction, and injustice is our so-called "First African-American President," the avatar of Hope and Change, the supposedly most "progressive" of candidates, who is in reality as big a death-worshipping corporate hack as anyone. Not only that, but Obama has explicitly and repeatly explained that he is not interested in proposing or supporting programs and policies specifically targeted at the advancement of black folk. And not only that, but his public pronouncements on race, especially on absentee black fathers are not only deeply conservative, but would, if uttered by, say, Rand Paul, be roundly denounced by Obama's own progressive supporters as revanchist, atavistic, and racist. Which, in fact, they are.

And I really like the phrase, "avatar of Hope and Change".

Walter Wit Man's picture
Submitted by Walter Wit Man on

But do you have any other information about this allegation other than what's in this story:

Katie Gabhart, general counsel for the state Board of Elections, said the Paul campaign has been “very active all over the state.”

She said there was a flurry of complaints in the morning. “We got quite a few complaints about overzealous supporters and we’ve been in contact with the campaign,” Gabhart said. “I can’t tell you no one’s violated the law but if they did, it was individuals and not a global scheme. . .

Adams said reports of problems were “much ado about nothing.

Adams said the campaign gave volunteers instructions on how to legally conduct themselves and has dispatched trained observers to polling places.

Instructions released from the Paul campaign say that volunteers were not to wear any campaign shirts, buttons or stickers at polling places or to set up signs within 300 feet of the poll entrance.

Volunteers were instructed to “ask kindly but do NOT argue” if election officials wouldn’t allow them to verify that voting machines were set to zero before polls opened. But the campaign asked volunteers to “immediately call the election hotline to report these incidents.”

Paul volunteers also were told to present themselves to poll officials at 5:45 p.m. “and identify yourself as a representative of the Rand Paul campaign who will be witnessing the vote counting,” and immediately report violations, according to a campaign document obtained from the state Board of Elections. ”

These are the instructions to his jack-booted thugs you were talking about?

The Dems, and the "progressive" blogosphere may have simply been in attack mode and looking for a fight. So far I've seen pictures of few goobers and a lot of sound and fury about "racism" and "crazy" that is designed to get the progressive tribe in a lather. They started with the premise of racist and jack-booted thugs. I don't know if the facts bear that out . . . maybe.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Told them to go to things, that they aren't allowed to do, like inspect voting machines, then told them to not argue about it, but call instead.

This story gives a little more info, like the fact that people can't be election observers unless they are certified, and that no one can inspect voting machines on election day. Paul and his campaign knew this, and they told his supporters to do it anyways. That letter is full of plausible deniability, but anyone who has observed the tea party, knows that those directions weren't going to be followed. They were only there to give Paul cover. They deliberately attempted to cause chaos during the voting.

And yes, I call them jack booted thugs. I have friends who were hassled outside of voting areas by these fools.

I don't disagree with you that all this hype over Paul is a distraction, but at the same time don't write him and his supporters off as harmless. I'm on the ground here, and shit's getting scary.

Walter Wit Man's picture
Submitted by Walter Wit Man on

But suspicion of voting machines not being accurate isn't a right-wing thing, is it? I seem to remember a lot of lefties being suspicious of the machines. If one suspected the accuracy of the machines why is sending in observers bad?

I mean was this tactic designed to be intimidating? How? Were they trying to coerce the "refs" into adding a few votes to Paul? Or did they just want to get in the face of the refs in front of voters who would therefore be intimidated into voting for Paul?

And were these concerns organic and demonstrably more numerous than other campaigns across the country? Or was this an organized political campaign against the Paul crowd? I don't know.

But like I say. This registers on my concern meter well below many other current events. I guess I have my eye on our 2 and soon to be 3 wars, the largest oil catastrophe in the world, and our broken government headed by Obama and the Dems.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Is that Paul's opponent is our Secretary of State, so he was implying that Greyson would use the state machinery to steal the election.

It's not that it's an invalid concern, it's that state law doesn't allow these actions, regardless of who is on the ballot. If Paul didn't know that, he shouldn't be running for office, but if he did know it, and sent his supporters out to do it anyways, then he's fucking with the voting.

The intimidation comes from the arguments his supporters got into with poll workers, after being told state law doesn't allow them to do the things their hero told them to do. Yes, the letter said to be polite, but that's the plausible deniabiliy part. Anyone who has observed the Tea party knows, these people are swimming in a sea of privilege, and don't know how to be polite. Who knows how many poll volunteers won't be coming back after this, thus allowing their spots to be filled by Paul supporters. And if you doubt the ability of a small group of dedicated supporters to swing elections, read up on the 2008 Caucuses.

Submitted by lambert on

As opposed to "OMG, a tea partier just walked into Denny's!"

The access bloggers have so polluted this stuff with class and cultural markers there's no way to sort out whatever they write, so, as I say, it's nice to have real information from the ground.

Walter Wit Man's picture
Submitted by Walter Wit Man on

to see if these people were indeed supporting him and I came across this interesting question:

Should a Black business be allowed to refuse service to a KKK member and his friends dressed in full regalia?

and I saw some pictures of some militia types at one of his rallies. It's the same pictures I saw at Digby I guess, but is this where the skinhead allegation comes from?

Walter Wit Man's picture
Submitted by Walter Wit Man on

Instead of innuendo and obscure constitutional and theoretical arguments about libertarianism . ..

Ron Paul is one of 4 Congresspeople to vote against more funding for Israel's Military. 410 voted for it. What is it Digby said? Something about apple and tree?

And as Obama gears up for war with Iran there is no one in the political world to object to the march toward war and Obama's refusal to accept Iran's "yes" to his "diplomatic efforts". Well. Except for people like Ron Paul. Wonder why the "progressives" are going after the son of one of 4 congressmen that oppose these wars.

This isn't to say that I think that Rand Paul is going to be great.

sisterkenney's picture
Submitted by sisterkenney on

Here's what I object to in the so-called "philosophy" of all the Randian , "libertarian" psychopaths: there is no cohesive, rational thought process involved in their rants..(fitting, for a group that follows an "author" that just "loved" her some psychotic killer). If one takes ANY of that argument, theory, to it's LOGICAL (remember that word, boys and girls) conclusion, one ends up in a vast wasteland of the Id. "It's ALL about me" (which phrase I use to define mental illness) Give me one..OK, "small government"..how's that working for the Gulf Oil Volcano?...."States rights"..I'm sorry..don't wanna fight the freakin Civil War again...oh, "isolationism"..meaning anti-war, anti-defense..yeah a stopped clock is right twice a day, but you have to be right for the right freaking reason, and that doesn't mean you can abandon Europe to a Holocaust, get it? Wow. Can't believe I have to spell it out
And, BTW, "progressives" really, really, don't care for racists.

Walter Wit Man's picture
Submitted by Walter Wit Man on

the Civil Rights Act is/was appropriate legislation I don't think you're fully considering the argument. Who is Ioz has a good discussion on these issues from more of a lefty libertarian perspective.

Here's a good comment in the previous thread:

If you think segregation has ended or is not the dominant form of socio-racial organization in this country, you do not live anywhere near an MLK boulevard. To give just one example, public schools, which tend to reflect their communities, are more segregated than before Brown v. Board. See Myron Orfield.

The sad sad truth is that the civil rights movement utterly failed. The laws changed, public opinion changed, and everyone just assumed it would work out. It hasn't. Jim Crow was replaced with ghettoization, which was replaced by mass incarceration. See Loic Wacquant.

As relevant to IOZ's point, the conclusion is not "it would get even worse without the CRA!," but "the CRA served the useful purpose of raising public consciousness to the inhumanity of phenotypic discmination, but did almost nothing to stop it."

Legally permitting private business to discriminate on the basis of skin color wouldn't change a damn thing. Unfortunately.

Walter Wit Man's picture
Submitted by Walter Wit Man on

that he has no intention of bringing up legislation to undue the Civil Rights Act. Is this a legitimate concern? Is there a movement to undue this?

Whereas the REAL issues of the day, you know, the issues Congress is actually voting on, like whether we go to war with Iran, whether we continue to fund our empire and Israel's apartheid state, whether we continue the assault on our civil liberties, on those issues, the Pauls are demonstrably better than most Dems. That isn't some academic discussion.

I am not going to agree with Paul on a lot of things.

But if we prioritize the issues I don't see how one can argue he is any more extreme or "psychopathic". If fact, since he wants to kill fewer people than Obama he's demonstrably less psychopathic than Obama. I mean, Obama is drone assassinating innocent civilians and putting hits out on his own citizens but Paul is the "crazy" one? Please.

sisterkenney's picture
Submitted by sisterkenney on

social safety net, our government, (how's blackwater and the MMS working out for you?)(and deregulation-see Wall street Implosion). MY priorities aren't about profits and self-interest and "self-actualization" . What "civil liberties" is Mr Paul so concerned about, hmm? The right to health care? The right to be fully employed? The right to a FAIR taxation system? Please, indeed.

Walter Wit Man's picture
Submitted by Walter Wit Man on

Paul's stance on taxation and deficits would be a horror.

But I rank the issues thusly:

1. War--Pauls beat the Dems
2. Civil Liberties--Pauls beat the Dems
3. Corporate Ownership of Congress/Banker Bailouts--Pauls beat the Dems
3. Progressive Taxation--Dems beat Pauls
5. Environmental Regulation--Dems slightly beat the Pauls

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Those aren't mutually exclusive facts. You can rail against the distraction without defending horrible politicians and horrible ideas.. A lot of Obama detractors seem to do that.

Walter Wit Man's picture
Submitted by Walter Wit Man on

is going swimmingly over at Daily Kult.

Of the 8 recommended diaries right now 3 involve Rand Paul. 1 involves the Tea Party and the 17th amendment (and I guess sort of related to Paul). 2 involve the Gulf spill (of course focusing blame on BP with zero criticism of the Dear Leader). 1 involves how awesome Obama is for signing a new environmental law.

The other one about HUD looks good:

Rachel Maddow, National Treasure
by greentank
370 comments

Rand Paul, the gift that keeps on giving
by pollchecker
196 comments

Obama Signs Significant Executive Order to Raise Fuel Standards
by dansac
27 comments

Rand Paul whines: "Where is my honeymoon?"
by Scarce
301 comments

The New Meme: Repeal The 17th Amendment
by weatherdude
207 comments

Gulf Gusher Information Resources
by geodemographics
123 comments

Below the Radar: HUD is Trying to Privatize and Mortgage Off All of America’s Public Housing
by George Lakoff
269 comments

Here's how conniving those Bastard Polluters really are...
by 8ackgr0und N015e
217 comments

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

And folks lap that shit up like a dog eating its own vomit.

Its easier to forget that you voted and enabled Obama to do all the shit he's doing if you focus on a tiny minority of right-wingers. This small, ineffective group of racists and extremists pose little to no real threat to the country, but in the minds of many they *have* to be the biggest threat ever because if not, then the justification for supporting/enabling Obama vanishes.

Remember in the run up to the general election in 2008 how an Obama loss would lead to more drilling, bad SCOTUS nominees, more torture, more help to Wall Street, more unemployment, threats to Social Security, bad health care...? Now all that shit is happening because of the support/enabling of Obama. Of course people want to be distracted by something to avoid thinking about the monster they unleashed on us all. Its the intellectually lazy way to deal with their actions.

"Good political candidates" with little to no paper trail, a history of bad associations, demonstrated legislative laziness, and a history of contradicting statements and actions are *always* dangerous leaders. Best not to think about that.

sisterkenney's picture
Submitted by sisterkenney on

parties, but FROM THE LEFT, not from Grover Nordquist's wet dream, the Heritage Foundation's "solution", or the Chicago school of economics. The "look, over there, Palin, Rand, Beck, etc, " ad nauseun (literally) is INTENDED to be a distraction, but that doesn't mean one ignores the proponents of "conservative 'feminism'" (my puter just puked), or racism, classism, neo-liberal/conservative economics, or any other right-wing meme just because they're "small". Ineffective? Seen the new laws in Arizona, Oklahoma, all the new proposals around the country to send women, gays, people of color, poor people, back to the 19th century? How did "Citizen's United" make you feel? (and BTW, I wonder why no-one actually uses their FULL acronym? Make ya sick? Insult you? can't publish it in a family paper?). The creeping rightward tilt will continue to skid into the slime if you don't call them out. That doesn't mean that one ignores the failings of the "big picture", but if you let the little stuff slide you end up with Joe McCarthy.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

I hear there is talk about AZ changing the law--bad for business. Anyone who thought this measure would withstand the public outcry and constitutional tests see the world differently than me. Abortion, gays, women, minorities...they are all convenient political tools for the legacy parties to use to pretend they aren't cooperative pieces sharing the same end. I now see these legislative happenings to be ways that the legacy parties perpetuate the myth of party differences.

Why? Well, remember the PA "evolution in schools" incident? What happened to that? Those school board members are all gone. But the Dems and the GOP used that incident to raise money and run campaigns. But the issue is now gone and the "liberal" side won out. The same is about to happen in AZ (mark my words). What isn't changing is the transfer of wealth. That remains constant. Dems and the GOP need to fight over the cultural stuff periodically with minimal changes either way to mask the economic issues.

BTW, when you talk about "conservative 'feminism'" (which I'm pretty sure I view in the same way as you), it was the supposedly liberal feminists (remember Ms Magazine, NARAL, etc.) that helped enable Obama to put women's rights in jeopardy. Perhaps I'm just economic justice centric, but who stands to gain the most by some of the draconian anti-woman measures most? The elite who can keep poor families poor and prevent women from entering into the male elite...

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

But "liberal feminists" use spell check.

In all seriousness, conservatives and conservative policies prevail all the time in red states. PA is not one. These things do matter.

On balance, however, I agree with you. In fact, I'll be writing a post about this issue shortly. It's been on my mind.

Walter Wit Man's picture
Submitted by Walter Wit Man on

from the "right" says, "I agree with you lefties that imperial wars are bad, our civil liberties need to be protected, and the mass incarceration for non-violent "criminals" needs to stop". Your response is scream invective at him?

If the "progressive" left is going to reach out to anyone from outside their little tribe of true believers why not pick the politicians that agree with them on these very important issues and are actually more willing to VOTE for them in Congress than their own "progressive" pols?

I'm sorry. If you want to stop the right-ward tilt of the country you should defend Paul on these issues.

Instead, you're falling for the Democrat's evil and duplicitous games designed to distract form their warm embrace of corporatism and fascism. If you haven't noticed Obama and the Dems are the ones moving the country rightward.

Walter Wit Man's picture
Submitted by Walter Wit Man on

Of Paul taking on the Republicans and their neoconservative foreign policy.

Again, where are the Democrats taking on Obama's wars? Why is this the only Republican that doesn't get to sit at Obama's bipartisanship table?

And it just hit me. This is why the progressive attack on Paul is so pernicious. The Republicans HATE Paul because of his anti-war stance. The progressives evidently have other reasons for hating Paul (so they claim), but their attack reinforces the Republicans' reason: that Paul is crazy and not serious because of his foreign policy positions.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

I despise the Libertarian philosophy. It is morally repugnant in all the ways sisterk outlined.

On the other hand, I believe it is possible to say "He's wrong about x, y and z, but at least he's right about a" without losing one's commitment to the issue in question.

That said, I've lost faith in politicians' promises. I can't see giving a rat's ass about him one way or another. Allying ourselves with any individual politico is bound to result in disappointment, at the very least. Screw them all, and the donklephant they rode in on.

sisterkenney's picture
Submitted by sisterkenney on

objections to our torture and violations of civil liberties...it's how he gets there, and the ultimate end-point of that position. IMO If you give people with those beliefs any support, you end up contaminating whatever your own position is, unavoidably.