Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

[mrbowie]

I think that the state where I have resided for the past 11 years, Kentucky, is now the most embarrassing state in the union.

Thank you Rand Paul, Jim Bunning and Mitch McConnell.

I suppose one might say that Airzona, Utah or Idaho would be on a par with Kentucky, but I for one consider them to be foreign countries anyway!

[jazzcyclist]

I think Chris Matthews gave the fairest assessment of Mr. Paul.

http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archiv ... 24143.aspx

[jhc68]

I agree, Matthews' evaluation is a good one.
During the Maddow interview Mr. Paul kept insisting that her questions about a business owner's right to refuse admission on the basis or race were hypothetical and made bizarre analogies about the right of customers to tote guns into restaurants. He really talked himself into a corner.

[rasb]

I think most of our politicians, particularly those on the far right, would do well to avoid being interviewed by Rachel Maddow and/or Chris Matthews. These are very bright and articulate folks, and the politicans usually end up being chopped liver...

[guru]

Another gem by Paul.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2010 ... -American+

[Daisy]

His he named after Ayn Rand?

[kuha]

I don't think of Paul as "right wing"--the libertarian mindset combines elements of both "right" and "left". I give him a smidgen of credit for philosophical consistency (as Chris Matthews did), but reject his philosophy completely. As far as I can see, his campaign is nothing short of a flaming train wreck. It also points up the impossibility of ANY abstract "philosophical consistency" in the messy, compromised world of real politics.

[jazzcyclist]

I think most of our politicians, particularly those on the far right, would do well to avoid being interviewed by Rachel Maddow and/or Chris Matthews. These are very bright and articulate folks, and the politicans usually end up being chopped liver...

I'm a fan of Matthews and Maddow, but in this instance, her line of questioning reminded me a lot of Sean Hannity - "do you still beat your wife?" Paul was trying to speak about his libertarian views in a broad sense and Maddow kept trying to get a sound-bite out of the interview by talking about beating up folks at lunch counters. It would be like asking a gun control advocate, "do you want to prevent Black folks from buying guns"? If Paul had answered the narrowly parsed yes-or-no question that Maddow posed, his Democratic opponent would be using that video clip in TV commercials for the next six months. Of course the TV executives love that kind of partisan-opinionated TV since it produces better ratings, and as Roger Ailles said recently, "it's all about the money".

However, I think we all would have been better served if Maddow had explained to the neophyte politician Paul the dangers of not putting any limits on our individual freedoms. The courts decided long ago that in certain instances, it was okay to impinge on one person's constitutional rights in order to protect another person's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Are laws making it illegal to incite riots or watch child porn a violation of our 1st Amendment rights? Yes. Is the government violating a private gas station owner's 5th Amendment rights when it forces him/her to make the restrooms available to Black folks? Absolutely. Nevertheless, I think even the most hard-core libertarians would agree with a little less freedom in these situations.

[jazzcyclist]

It also points up the impossibility of ANY abstract "philosophical consistency" in the messy, compromised world of real politics.

Amen! Paul has the mindset of a college philosophy professor, who can afford to be ideologically pure, instead of a U.S. Senator who must compromise his/her ideology and balance it with pragmatism. Even his father, who was ideologically opposed to the Afghanistan War because he believes the War Powers Act is unstitutional, was pragmatic enough to vote to authorize Bush to launch the "War on Terror" anyway.

[jazzcyclist]

Another gem by Paul.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2010 ... -American+

I agree with Paul that Obama did do some grandstanding a few days ago, but I wouldn't call it un-American.

[kuha]

Nevertheless, I think even the most hard-core libertarians would agree with a little less freedom in these situations.

Good stuff, jazz, thanks.

On your last point, however, I can't be all that confident. "Hard-core" folks seem to ignore the fact that we must always balance liberties--or virtues--in a dynamic, pluralistic society. It is not usually a matter of "good vs. bad" ideas, but often of competing "goods," of different interpretations of "good." (See, for example, the writings of Isaiah Berlin.) As I understand it, I reject what I take to be Paul's notion that individual liberties should routinely outweigh a broader interpretation of the public good, or, if you will, of "collective liberties." It must always be a balancing act, and a process of informed, humane compromise.

[Mighty Favog]

I'm not quite ready to accept Rand Paul as a "pure" libertarian, considering his views on same-sex marriage and abortion (not gonna get this thread deleted by identifying them, you can look 'em up yourself). But I'll defer to my college roommate, who had once self-identified as a libertarian; when I asked him years later about his changed political views he said "Libertarians have some nice ideals, but they all seem to be really weird".

On the other hand, if a small minority in government doesn't have much if any real power but constantly reminds us there might be things we don't want the government to touch, I don't see it as a bad thing. While I disagree with the Pauls about the Civil Rights Act, I definitely agree with them on the Patriot Act. I have no idea how they feel about the 1960s-70s FBI infiltration of domestic protest groups, but I'd have to call them hypocritical if they didn't find it a huge overreach of government power.

[jazzcyclist]

Here's a gem I just came across in which blogger Scott Galupo quotes from a George Wil book:

The great civil rights legislation of the 1960s was, of course, designed primarily to improve the condition of the descendants of slaves. But it had another purpose. It was supposed to do what it in fact did. It was supposed to alter the operation of the minds of many white Americans. The most admirable achievements of modern liberalism—desegregation, and the civil rights acts—were explicit and successful attempts to change (among other things) individuals’ moral beliefs by compelling them to change their behavior. The theory was that if government compelled people to eat and work and study and play together, government would improve the inner lives of those people.

Galupo follows that up with this:

If your principles preclude you from reconciling yourself to the Civil Rights Act, or crucial parts of it, then you should really think about changing your principles—because they’re not really worth defending.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

FYI, Paul will be a guest on Meet the Press this Sunday. Give him credit for not being afraid to go back into the lion's den. How I miss Tim Russert.

[kuha]

with this:

If your principles preclude you from reconciling yourself to the Civil Rights Act, or crucial parts of it, then you should really think about changing your principles—because they’re not really worth defending.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Totally, absolutely, yes.

[Conor Dary]

FYI, Paul will be a guest on Meet the Press this Sunday. Give him credit for not being afraid to go back into the lion's den. How I miss Tim Russert.

Not any more.

'He seems first to have told Meet The Press that he was exhausted and had to cancel, according to MTP producer Betsy Fischer.

Now the campaign tells Dave Weigel: "Rand did Good Morning America today, set the record straight, and now we are done talking about it. No more national interviews on the topic."

I mean, what topic? His senate campaign? Spokesman Jesse Benton seems to have meant that he would no longer discuss his views on the Civil Rights Act. But that's it? He won't talk to the press anymore? From a campaign perspective these really are nightmare scenarios. I'm sure even the political operatives that are enjoying the hell out of watching this are still getting a cold 'there but for the grace of God' chill about the whole thing. But this is the big leagues.'

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archiv ... ?ref=fpblg

[kuha]

A flaming train wreck, I'm tellin' ya.

[Conor Dary]

A flaming train wreck, I'm tellin' ya.

From Paul Krugman:

You know, if Rand Paul loses his Senate race, in a way I’ll be sorry. He’s been so much fun in such a short period of time!

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0 ... es-change/

[jazzcyclist]

I think Mighty Favog really brought up a good point, which is how does Paul square his opposition to gay rights and a woman's right to choose with his so-called pure libertarian ideology. If I were an interviewer, after exposing how his libertarian ideology was at odds with the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, I would have swiftly moved on to his gay rights and abortion politics, rather than get bogged down trying to get a sound bite the way Maddow did. I would have also reminded him that Barry Goldwater supported gay rights and abortion rights, and in his later years said that his opposition to the Civil Rights Bill was the biggest regret of his political career.

[Conor Dary]

A lot of Rand Paul's pure libertarianism is nonsense.
On GMA today Paul dismisses oil spills and mining disasters are just 'accidents will happen' and it is un-American to criticize BP.

"I’m sure that in his own mind Rand Paul sees himself as a principled libertarian, applying the same standard of personal responsibility to everyone. In practice, however, it’s only the poor and powerless who get held to that standard; when it’s a big coal or oil company — and we already know that both Massey and BP were severely negligent — well, “sometimes accidents happen.”

Funny how that works"

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0 ... k-part-n1/

[SQUACKEE]

Paul stated no abortion ever, not even rape or mothers survival, WOW!

[jazzcyclist]

The more I learn about Rand Paul, the more he seems less a principled libertarian like his father and Barry Goldwater and more a pro-business Christian Fundamentalist. Does he believe in OSHA and the EPA? After all, these government agencies exist to tell private businessmen how they must run their businesses. Does he believe in fire codes such as mandatory fire exits, smoke detectors, doors that open outward and maximum occupant load?

[Conor Dary]

As Ezra Klein wrote in the Washington Post:

"What's gotten Paul in trouble, however, is that he's so skeptical of government power that he's not even comfortable with the public sector telling private businesses that they can't discriminate based on race. That, I fear, does have public policy implications.

For instance: Can the federal government set the private sector's minimum wage? Can it tell private businesses not to hire illegal immigrants? Can it tell oil companies what safety systems to build into an offshore drilling platform? Can it tell toy companies to test for lead? Can it tell liquor stores not to sell to minors? These are the sort of questions that Paul needs to be asked now, because the issue is not "area politician believes kooky but harmless thing." It's "area politician espouses extremist philosophy on issue he will be voting on constantly."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-k ... _spla.html

[kuha]

the issue is not "area politician believes kooky but harmless thing." It's "area politician espouses extremist philosophy on issue he will be voting on constantly."

Absolutely. It's pathetic that in our current political climate, a watered down version of social progressivism is roundly attacked as "radical," while genuinely radical and dangerous ideas are par for the course from the other side of the aisle. It's an Alice in Wonderland world.

[gm]

the issue is not "area politician believes kooky but harmless thing." It's "area politician espouses extremist philosophy on issue he will be voting on constantly."

Absolutely. It's pathetic that in our current political climate, a watered down version of social progressivism is roundly attacked as "radical," while genuinely radical and dangerous ideas are par for the course from the other side of the aisle. It's an Alice in Wonderland world.

Your "watered down version of social progressivism" may seem like genuinely radical and dangerously kooky ideas to me. All in how you look at it, really.

[kuha]

There are plenty of histories of radical thought in America. They are interesting, and they make it clear that what's called "radical" (in a leftist sense) today is a pale shadow of the "real thing"...

[lonewolf]

Isn't it great that partisan politics are verboten on this forum?

[jazzcyclist]

Isn't it great that partisan politics are verboten on this forum?

Hopefully, I'm not one of the offenders. I try to be careful in my posts. By the way, how do conservatives like you feel about libertarianism in general, and Rand Paul in particular?

[lonewolf]

I consider myself conservative rather than Republican or Libertarian. I'm not sure I know what Libertarianism is. I agree with some tenets of professed Libertarians and disagree with others. The same is true of my response to Republicans and Democrats. I did not agree with the platform of Ron Paul. I only recently became aware of the existence of Rand Paul. He has not grabbed my attention or interest. (Nearly) all politicians say dumb, contradictory things..
I will not offer an example but some have it down to a science..

[bambam]

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought sure it was going to be about John Calipari.

[26mi235]

There are plenty of histories of radical thought in America. They are interesting, and they make it clear that what's called "radical" (in a leftist sense) today is a pale shadow of the "real thing"...

I was just reading about the trial of Susan B. Anthony, convicted in a criminal case without being able have a jury for trial because a judge ruled so, (and within the trial proceedings her attorney cites where women had no rights on her own to protest or to provide competent testify and could not sue - they would have to rely on their husbands or families). It is hard to see what she wanted in terms of rights was very radical, but that tells us about the power of government to eventually prod us in certain directions and the power of people to prod their government as well. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100522202326865

While ostensibly a different topic, the position of some parties in both South Carolina and Texas as regards the Civil War I find disturbing (although more disturbing than unexpected).

[ExeterAcademy1978]

Paul stated no abortion ever, not even rape or mothers survival, WOW!

If someone truly believes that abortion is the killing of another human being, which can simply revolve around when somebody believes personhood begins and for many is at conception, what other logical conclusion is there? If someone is raped, it doesn't mean it is no longer murder. If it is for the mother's survival, it still remains murder of another individual***.

***This is not my personal opinion, but I can understand and respect the logic if someone truly believe in this position that it is a perfectly logical consequence and perhaps is more respectable than looser anti-abortion stances.

[gh]

I consider myself conservative rather than Republican or Libertarian. I'm not sure I know what Libertarianism is. I agree with some tenets of professed Libertarians and disagree with others. The same is true of my response to Republicans and Democrats. I did not agree with the platform of Ron Paul. I only recently became aware of the existence of Rand Paul. He has not grabbed my attention or interest. (Nearly) all politicians say dumb, contradictory things..
I will not offer an example but some have it down to a science..

I'm sure you're in the same boat as most Americans (or people of any nation): you defy the one-size-fits-all kind of party that the radicals on both sides are trying to espouse in these bipartisinship-is-a-swear-word days.

Still, one of the greatest strengths, IMHO, of the American 2-party system—with fairly wide platforms—is that you get more functional government than you do in an atmosphere where multiple fringe parties spring up (the union of blond left-handed dwarves), each with an agenda of their own, and coalition governments become the norm.

[jazzcyclist]

Paul stated no abortion ever, not even rape or mothers survival, WOW!

If someone truly believes that abortion is the killing of another human being, which can simply revolve around when somebody believes personhood begins and for many is at conception, what other logical conclusion is there? If someone is raped, it doesn't mean it is no longer murder. If it is for the mother's survival, it still remains murder of another individual***.

***This is not my personal opinion, but I can understand and respect the logic if someone truly believe in this position that it is a perfectly logical consequence and perhaps is more respectable than looser anti-abortion stances.

I agree with you that a rape and incest exception makes the whole pro-life argument logically incoherent. However, most of the bible thumpers that I know believe in making exceptions to save the life of the mother but not for rape and incest and I think that's a logically coherent position.

[ExeterAcademy1978]

In the sense that most births that are very dangerous for the mother in modern day also tend to be unsuccessful births (child is dead or with some other extreme condition), then I agree. I guess that would fit and is a good pt as well.

[odelltrclan]

I agree with you that a rape and incest exception makes the whole pro-life argument logically incoherent. However, most of the bible thumpers that I know believe in making exceptions to save the life of the mother but not for rape and incest and I think that's a logically coherent position.

I am not quite sure where you are going with that quote as it seems a tad bit derogatory, but, being a "bible thumper" (meaning I believe in God and am pro-life) and having a very large association of people who do, most of us that I am aware of do feel that in the cases of rape and incest that abortion is an acceptable alternative at the choice of the mother.