The Tea Party pot boils over

Rand Paul: Don't look now but the truth is closing in (Reuters)

An old proverb states: “Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.”

The Tea Party cult got its wish this week with the election of Rand Paul — son of the sometimes Republican, sometimes libertarian, always controversial Ron Paul — to the Republican Senatorial nomination in Kentucky.

Now the Tea Party pot is boiling over and scalding anyone standing too close.

Like his father and many libertarians, Rand Paul is an extremist, driven by an unrealistic belief that government must be driven from nearly all areas of life. While government is too pervasive in modern American life, it also is a necessary evil in a democratic Republic. The problem cannot be solved by going to far in the other direction.

Rand Paul proves this point by saying that a private business like a restaurant should be allowed to discriminate against minorities, gays or anyone else they don’t like.

When asked about his stance right after his election, Paul again answered “yes” when MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow asked if he still supported the right of a business to discriminate.

“It was stupid,” conservative Republican talk show host Joe Scarborough said today. “It makes us wonder if Rand Paul is ready for prime time.”

Defenders to the mantra according to Rand Paul defend his actions by saying he makes it clear that he would not discriminate but defends the rights of others to do so.

This is a standard libertarian cop out. They claim that they are not racist but defend the rights of others to be so. By doing so, they condone racism in our midst and that — in my view — makes them just as racist as those they ignore.

Such passive racism is just as racist as those who don white sheets, burn crosses and terrorize minorities.

It also reinforces that belief that the Tea Party is driven, in part, by racism.

Writes Arian Camp0-Flores in Newsweek:

Try as it might, the Tea Party just can’t shake the accusations of racism. As I wrote in an article last month, recent polling seemed to confirm many people’s darkest suspicions about the movement—that it was motivated not just by antipathy toward big government but also by racial animus. When confronted with such allegations, Tea Partiers offer a standard response: any evidence of racist sentiment can be chalked up to a tiny minority, and hey, what group doesn’t have a freaky fringe?

Rand Paul has just severely compromised that argument. By refusing to say whether he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act and claiming that the federal government has no business fighting discrimination in private establishments, he comes across as an avatar of 1950s thinking on race. And as Kentucky’s newly crowned Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, he is anything but fringy. In fact, he’s about the closest thing to a national leader that the Tea Party has.

Paul later told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that he would have voted for the Civil Right Act but on screen he looked like a man with a gun to his head.

By condoning racism as an American right, Rand Paul is a racist.

So is his father.

For many years, Ron Paul’s newsletters — used primarily as a fundraising tool — were filled with racist diatribes. The elder Paul later claimed he didn’t write the pieces and didn’t even know such trash was being distributed in his name.

Ron Paul’s claims are hard to believe because while he has disowned the comments made in his name, a Nexis search of news articles plus transcripts of radio and television appearances has not uncovered a single apology for the racist comments.

Both Pauls offer a similar defense to past statements and misdeeds: It’s all the fault of a liberal media that they claim constantly misquotes and misinterprets their comments.

It’s a tired old excuse that Republicans have been using since the days of Spiro Agnew.

Didn’t work then. Won’t wash now.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

33 Responses to "The Tea Party pot boils over"

  1. Almandine  May 21, 2010 at 9:06 am

    I guess you’re right Doug –

    Rand Paul should never have campaigned on repeal of the Civil Rights Act, never tried to whip up racist sentiment for political advantage among his Kentucky brethren, never should have shouted, “hey all you nigger-haters, I’m working for you!” What a fool.

    Gotcha journalism at its finest… welcome to the land of the free. Just wait until Cass Sunstein grows it into a govt program.

  2. bmclellan  May 21, 2010 at 9:24 am

    Lefties and righty’s with their crystal balls of indignation float down the river of innuendo like so many turds bobbing out from an offal..
    With mind reading skill of such magnitude, maybe one will clue me as to if and when the Cubs will win the pennant..Hack

  3. thomas  May 21, 2010 at 9:40 am

    What a tired old dishonest, disgusting canard. “By condoning racism as an American right, Rand Paul is a racist.” Here is the ACLU defending the rights of the KKK. (http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/acting-behalf-kkk-and-its-opponents-mn-aclu-questions-delay-rally-permit-applications)

    Is the ACLU racist for defending freedom of speech and freedom of association? Is everyone who is an ACLU member a racist? Doug Thompson would have us think so. But we all know that idea nuts. The ACLU and Rand Paul are not racist, they are the opposite. There is nothing more American and nothing more principled than standing up for freedom and liberty in America. Rand Paul stands for freedom and liberty in America, just as the ACLU does.

    Doug Thompson stands for a racist, hateful, and disgusting society where people like him use the word racist to smear people they do not like.

    As usual, Doug Thompson’s dishonest smearing of the Paul family continues unabated. He must be frothing at the mouth that Rand Paul won the primary. That should bring a smile to all card carrying ACLU members and Rand Paul supporters alike.

    • Kent Shaw  May 21, 2010 at 10:29 am

      You, sir, are seriously deluded. Did you even read Thompson’s article. From your comment, I think not.

      • thomas  May 21, 2010 at 11:46 am

        Seeing as how I quoted part of his article in my response, I think it is safe to say and apparent that I read it.

      • Almandine  May 21, 2010 at 12:45 pm

        Well Kent, had you kept up with Doug’s other current diatribes against Paul, and the comments thereto, it might not seem over the top. The delusion lives elsewhere, my friend.

        • Kent Shaw  May 21, 2010 at 9:12 pm

          I admit that I have not kept up. Lurking.

          Kent

    • Mightymo  May 21, 2010 at 11:54 am

      It amazes me how this country has deteriated so quickly. At this point there is so much that is wrong, I actually don’t think it can be fixed. People like you are just one zit on the face of America.

      I often wonder about people like you, are they such losers that their only comfort comes from attacking others? Are they puss gut, lazy, slobs, living in a dirty house with an unkept yard? Or are they educated, accomplished people who want to climb higher by wiping out vast numbers of potential competitors by generalizing and attacking the group(s) that they belong to?

      Birds of a feather flock together; the good thing about a Rand Paul or Tea Bagger movement is that when the vast majority of Americans finally get fed up and see the potential danger to this country that comes from their movement, supporters will be out in the open, identified, and vulnerable.

      I suspect the numbers of supporters are actually small, and like yourselves, we can attack you just as easy as you can attack others. Your freedom is no better or less at risk than the freedom of those you hate.

      • Almandine  May 21, 2010 at 12:47 pm

        Your erudition is showing again, Mo… hurl another dozen or so slurs and see if that makes you feel more better.

        • Mightymo  May 21, 2010 at 1:49 pm

          I guess you wouldn’t be the first to be so radically anti-social. This sort of movement has happened before, and will happen again. During a period of strife, tensions begin to boil and people come out of the cracks in society and they have a voice that caters to a handful of people like you.
          That voice takes hold, and when it has a firm grasp of the group, the voice changes to the extreme nature that it always was, only hidden to make it more palatable.
          Hitler did exactly the same thing, presented a tasteful morsel of pride to the people, and when firmly in power destroyed a nation.
          Don’t even say that it could never happen here, this nation is so polarized at the moment, so full of hate, distrust, and self pity; it surely could.
          I think people like you are crying out for change, but it must be change that will benefit you and not necessarily society at large, and it must be change that will make you feel better with little or no effort on your part.
          Oh, implementation of freedom to do what and as I please, now that fits the bill! Answer to no one, responsibility to no one, no need for integrity or guilt for doing wrong, the world is my oyster and I shall reap the rewards. Oh the sweet taste of misguided freedom!
          Yes, I hate the direction this Nation seems to be going even worse than I hate where we’ve come over the last 30 years. I want change, but I want responsible change, and change that will continue to make us strong, not divide us.
          We have fallen a long, long way since Reagan started the plunge by giving a whole new meaning to deficit spending and the destruction of the middle class. Freedom is not going to fix where we’ve come.

          • griff  May 21, 2010 at 2:24 pm

            Radically anti-social? That’s rich. You know what they say about making assumptions, yes?

            These voices have always been present, if only to be drowned out by the din of partisan politics and muffled by the mockingbird media. And who might be responsible for the hate and distrust so prevalent today? Surely not those that heretofore had little or no voice, but those that have been in power all along.

            Didn’t more than half the country just cry out for change, only to be screwed again by the system? So what is your idea for change, since nothing on the plate seems to whet your palate? Where do we go from here, if not back to what made this country what it once was?

            Please instruct us worthless anti-social heathens, oh mightiest of mo’s.

          • SteveK  May 21, 2010 at 3:01 pm

            I think you have a mistaken view of the TEA Party. Basically, we don’t want America to go the way of Europe; fifty percent income tax or $5/gallon gas and the government with its hands in almost everything. Can carbon credits be too far off (sorry, you used your credits for the month so no electricity for four days or a $500 fine)? Ultimately, people have power when their voice is heard and in this large country people have to band together to be heard. There may be some stumbling first steps but either you believe in people or you believe they have to be controlled. Hitler made no bones about where he stood. In “Mein Kampf” he laid out his plans for Germany 10 years before he came to power. It’s a difficult read, but, tragically, he followed it to the letter. An example of people letting the government have too much control.

      • thomas  May 22, 2010 at 10:20 pm

        I’m an ivy league educated professional. The reason I’m defending Rand Paul from Doug Thompson is because Doug Thompson goes out of his way to smear the Paul family by spreading vicious smears. I believe the uncivilized behavior is on the party of Doug Thompson. This goes back years on his part.

        The danger to this country is and has already been here. The danger is the Bush and Obama supporters who assassinate american citizens, imprison people without trial, murder thousands of civilians with drone attacks, deny medical supplies to innocent citizens of foreign countries they don’t like with sanctions, invade countries that are no threat to us, and spy on citizens without warrants.That is the threat to the this country.

        While our current government is run amok and has murdered easily a million people (brown people of course) in the last decade alone you are worried that I am uncivilised. Liberty, peace, friendly trade, non-violence here and abroad, those are the hallmarks of civilised behavior. Those are the principles Rand Paul and people like him support. It is amazing to me that anyone would equate those positions with uncivilised behavior.

        The barbarians are already in charge, we are merely trying to bring about a more sane country, here and abroad. If you are for unnecessary war, then you are not a civilised human being.

        • Guardhouse lawyer  May 23, 2010 at 5:44 pm

          I am not worried that you are uncivilised. I am worried about your grasp of facts:

          “While our current government is run amok and has murdered easily a million people (brown people of course) in the last decade alone you are worried that I am uncivilised.”

          1. Our current government has not been in office for a decade. It has been in office for about a sixth of that time.

          2. Murdered a million people? A million? I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

          The range is huge, and the extremely large numbers are based not upon body count but upon opinion polls and include things like this:

          “The Lancet study’s figure of 654,965 excess deaths through the end of June 2006 is based on household survey data. The estimate is for all excess violent and nonviolent deaths. That also includes those due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poorer healthcare, etc.. 601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval) were estimated to be due to violence. 31% of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% to others, 46% unknown. The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56%), car bomb (13%), other explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13%), accident (2%), unknown (2%). A copy of a death certificate was available for a high proportion of the reported deaths (92 per cent of those households asked to produce one).[18][19][20] Iraq’s Health Minister]”

          Death from “increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poorer healthcare, ” can hardly be laid at the feet of the United States as examples of “murder.”

          • griff  May 23, 2010 at 9:16 pm

            Wikipedia as a source? Ha.

        • Almandine  May 23, 2010 at 7:09 pm

          Nice, very nice.

  4. AustinRanter (AKA Gregg)  May 21, 2010 at 10:11 am

    It doesn’t really matter is Rand Paul is a racist or not.

    If he wins a Senate seat, and continues to espouse his beliefs, he’ll be about as effective as balls on the Pope. He’s so far out from mainstream that his colleagues won’t let him play with the true Washington Royalty….UNLESS he does like his daddy.

    If one will look at Ron Paul’s very early political days, you’ll find some very shocking statements from him. However, when you read his voting record and his participation in Congress…he’s a totally different guy. One only needs to read his voting record to know that he converted from one who was considered radical to just another Joe on the hill. But, I do want to also give credit where its due. Ron has offered up some really sensible suggestions to make changes in government, which would certainly be in the nation’s benefit.

    Can Rand make it? Dunno. But, he’ll have to make so serious changes in his thinking to have any affect at all.

    All of the above…just my opinon.

    • Almandine  May 21, 2010 at 10:42 am

      The problem with voting records is that they reflect only what has been allowed to be voted on. Ron has been a tireless voice for individual rights and limited government, both of which rarely get into bills. Witness the Audit the Fed bill.

      Changing Rand’s thinking to become “effective” would be another example of what has gotten us to this point. No thanks.

      • AustinRanter (AKA Gregg)  May 21, 2010 at 12:47 pm

        Sooo sorry, “Effective”…gosh my darn fingers just type without thinking.

        • Almandine  May 21, 2010 at 12:52 pm

          Ranter –

          Sorry for any unintended innuendo… I wasn’t playing you, just taking off from your suggestion of needing to change to have any effect at all, i.e., being effective. Aren’t “effective” politicians those who have best learned the art of “selling themselves?”

          Cheers.

          • AustinRanter (AKA Gregg)  May 21, 2010 at 2:42 pm

            Selling themselves? More to my point – power of persuasion. Rand voicing his beliefs about the right of private business to discriminate might well color his character in a negative light with the public and, should he win a Senate seat, his beliefs could possible damage his abilities to “sell himself” to his colleagues. So, in this sense, he could lose his “effectiveness” as a viable candidate and/or an elected official.

  5. griff  May 21, 2010 at 10:16 am

    “I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” – Thomas Paine, Crisis no. 1, 1776

    • Almandine  May 21, 2010 at 10:43 am

      Touche’

  6. griff  May 21, 2010 at 10:43 am

    Hey Doug, why not cover some real news? What of Obama and Mexican President Calderon denouncing Arizona’s immigration law that is actually less draconian than Mexico’s own immigration laws?

    An excerpt from an interview with Calderon by Wolf Blitzer…

    BLITZER: So if people want to come from Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador or Nicaragua, they want to just come into Mexico, they can just walk in?
    CALDERON: No. They need to fulfill a form. They need to establish their right name. We analyze if they have not a criminal precedent. And they coming into Mexico. Actually…
    BLITZER: Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants?
    CALDERON: Of course. Of course, in the border, we are asking the people, who are you?
    And if they explain…
    BLITZER: At the border, I understand, when they come in.
    CALDERON: Yes.
    BLITZER: But once they’re in…
    CALDERON: But not — but not in — if — once they are inside the — inside the country, what the Mexican police do is, of course, enforce the law. But by any means, immigration is a crime anymore in Mexico.
    BLITZER: Immigration is not a crime, you’re saying?
    CALDERON: It’s not a crime.
    BLITZER: So in other words, if somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua or some other country in Central America, through the southern border of Mexico, they wind up in Mexico, they can go get a job…
    CALDERON: No, no.
    BLITZER: They can work.
    CALDERON: If — if somebody do that without permission, we send back — we send back them.

    Read more: Daily Caller

    • Almandine  May 21, 2010 at 10:45 am

      There you go again, looking for something of merit to talk about.

      • griff  May 21, 2010 at 3:36 pm

        A character flaw, I guess.

    • Almandine  May 21, 2010 at 12:54 pm

      To hell with Calderon and the burro he rode in on.

  7. spinnikerca  May 21, 2010 at 10:50 am

    Those are lies about the newsletters. They were put out by independent editing staff, were NOT a fundraising tool by him, and were while he himself was practicing medicine, not in politics. They contained unacceptable race based snark, but certainly not suggestions that the Civil Rights Act should be repealed, and it is absolutely clear Ron Paul never wrote them.

    Ron Paul has a 30 year public record, millions of google hits if you search him, and a mega library of youtube clips. I put his record against your innuendo. There isn’t a racist bone in his body.

    • griff  May 21, 2010 at 3:32 pm

      “Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.” – Plato

  8. Rick Fuller  May 21, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    Rand Paul defends the right of a private business owner to be a total jerk and discriminate against whomever s/he wants – that’s what Libertarians do – they defend individual rights.

    Market forces (boycotts, picketing, etc) will take care of the business owner – or not.

    How is stifling one’s freedom to be a jerk, an American ideal? Why are people who defend every aspect of individual rights, racists?

  9. Guardhouse lawyer  May 21, 2010 at 9:43 pm

    Dear Tea Partisan:

    Do you defend or champion the right of a locally-owned restaurant to refuse to serve blacks or Hispanics?

    Do you defend or champion the right of a small company to refuse to hire black or Hispanic workers?

    Do you defend or champion the right of a national company like McDonald’s to refuse to serve black or Hispanic customers?

    Do you defend or champion the right of a large company like Walmart or GE to refuse to hire black or Hispanic workers?

    In answering the questions you may insert the minority of your choice in place of black or Hispanic.

    If you answered yes with respect to small businesses and no with respect to large businesses please tell us at exactly what point does a small company become a large company.

    For extra credit: bearing in mind that males in the US are a minority, even though slight, please tell us whether you defend or champion the company that refuses to serve a male or to hire a male.

    • Almandine  May 23, 2010 at 7:17 pm

      As a Tea Partisan, of sorts… liberty lover and fiscally responsible individual, in particular, what’s your point?

      Questions about racism have been brought to the fore ONLY to serve as “gotcha journalism”. Ask Doug, Maddow, the Louisville newspaper, etc., why they brought racism up? Neither Rand Paul or anyone else without a reason to fear his electability made a point of it or even care.

      It’s just anopther diversion from the issues that really challenge US.

  10. b mcclellan  May 22, 2010 at 2:38 am

    Geeze, when one asks the simple question, are you racy,
    all manner of inter social queries come about. Why do we continually circumvent ?
    Then uninformed uniformed entities raise their bludgeon proof heads and the populace flees as ebb tide.

    Such simple creatures haven’t truly earned their freedom yet, and may never.
    Llamraf.

Comments are closed.