U.S. Senator Rand Paul, R-KY, will speak at Howard University on inclusion in the Republican Party at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, April 10.Imagine if Paul's appearance at Howard meant he was serious about minority outreach, as Colbert I. King at the Washington Post seems to think he is. Imagine if he owned up on behalf of the Republican Party to the Southern Strategy, by which the GOP won and held the South (and not a few Northern votes) by portraying themselves as the party of keeping you-know-who in line, and how that strategy persists to this day -- or rather to yesterday, he might say, because, he might even dare to admit, Republicans are not getting anywhere as a white people's party, and have surrendered to the necessity of treating black Americans as actual constituents rather than as objects of ooga booga, and are interested in hearing what they want.
Imagine how refreshing, not to say cleansing, such a speech might be! Because contrary to what Republicans seem to think, black Americans are hip to politics, and would probably appreciate it if Paul cut the bullshit and were willing to deal.
A beautiful dream. But --
Sen. Paul’s speech will focus on the importance of outreach to younger voters, as well as minority groups. He will also discuss the history of the African-American community’s roots in the Republican Party and current issues, such as school choice and civil liberties.In other words: We used to be the Party of Lincoln, you people should love vouchers, etc. Kind of like Mitt Romney at the NAACP, but with more crazy eye-gleam.
Maybe he'll surprise me, but it sure looks like the Republicans are still, despite every motivation to do better, moving with all deliberate speed.
UPDATE. Commenter mds reminds me of what I had forgotten, even though I wrote about it at the time: that in 2010 Paul came out against the Civil Rights Act. Which would make him the perfect Republican to extend the olive branch! In fact, I think he should start weeping and announce he has sinned against his brothers -- "Forgive me, moochers!"
Is this thing going to be on TV?
If by deliberate speed you mean with their pants around their ankles and a corn cob up their ass along the backroads of Yoknapatawpha County, then I see what you mean.
ReplyDeletePaul is dangerous though. Fascinating article in Harper's about his father's appeal.
Wow, awesome. Someone who has spoken against the Civil Rights Act and in favor of segregated lunch counters is going to be the one to bring the Negroes back into the fold. By explaining to them how great the further defunding of "underperforming" public schools would be for African-Americans in a nation where segregation was officially A-OK again. I don't know whether to stock up on popcorn, hankies, or rotten fruit.
ReplyDeleteI hope he remembers to tell them that they've been brainwashed.
ReplyDeleteI don't see this speech scheduled to air on TV, and I checked CSPAN, BET and Comedy Central.
ReplyDeletebrilliant
ReplyDeleteRand Paul, R-KY, will speak at Howard University on inclusion in the Republican Party
ReplyDeleteIn the context of gems, "inclusions" are impurities that lessen the value of a precious stone. I'm guessing that's roughly the attitude he'll bring to the concept.
Shorter Rand Paul press release: Turd, meet punchbowl.
ReplyDeleteMaybe some of those millionaires collecting food stamps that Paul-Boy talks about will be in attendance, and if he's lucky their toilets don't work either and he can convince them it's the government's fault. Sure he's against the Civil Rights Act, but when it comes to budget cuts, he can reassure them that he only wants to axe the honky stuff, like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Endowment for the Arts. How could they not feel the warm, sticky embrace of the GOP then?
ReplyDeleteI hope someone hands out copies of the Ron Paul newsletter to every person who attends.
ReplyDeleteThey try it, and Ron Paul will sic the U.N. on them for copyright infringement.
ReplyDeleteTa-Nehisi Coates compared Ron Paul to Louis Farrakhan. I thought that was brilliant.
ReplyDeleteIn 1989, Howard gained national attention when students rose up in
ReplyDeleteprotest against the appointment of then-Republican National Committee
Chairman Lee Atwater
as a new member of the university's Board of Trustees. Student
activists disrupted Howard's 122nd anniversary celebrations, and
eventually occupied the university's Administration building.[16] Within days, both Atwater and Howard's President, James E. Cheek, resigned.
Fingers crossed...
I hope at least he'll explain how he likes states' rights, but not in a racist dogwhistle kind of way.
ReplyDeleteAnd then invites them to come off the Democratic plantation, that would be awesome!
ReplyDeleteCall me cynical but I don't think this is Rand Paul reaching out to African-Americans so much as it is shoring up his bona fides with his conservative base and further whipping up the self-professed bootstrapping libertarians into a frenzy against the "moocher" class.
ReplyDeletePaul said in an interview that he and the Republican party want to offer minorities "millions of jobs" and something more than a "subsistence" living (meaning the crumbs that he's insinuating the Democrats throw them). When the audience at Howard naturally rejects an offer that is both hollow and insincere (they have no mechanism by which to offer them millions of jobs) then Paul's followers and prospective backers will seize on this as further evidence that minorities are just unwilling to work for a living; they would rather sponge off of the tax money of decent Americans - THEIR hard-earned tax money - even when a Republican goes to their house and generously offers them a job.
From the conservatard point of view, once their enemy has rejected their leader's princely offer the gloves are off and they will feel justified in doing anything and everything to marginalize blacks and support Rand Paul. Hey, it's not like he's racist; he TOTALLY believes in market-based solutions to discrimination.
This is a wedge politics at its best.
I began struggling on the higher levels because I
ReplyDeletedid not have enough teammates to help me. Does he have certain appointed times when he is expected to be
on-line with the team. Although others may not have
a specific machine for her, but at least they have most likely computers in
their homes.
Also visit my site Full Write-up
That was pretty much Romney's strategy at the NAACP: "See? You just can't be reasonable with Those People!"
ReplyDeletePlease tell me you're going to take advantage of your proximity and go to this clusterfuck in the making, Roy.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I guess it was. I suppose given the growing necessity of race-baiting to shore up the diminishing Republican base this sort of thing will become a rite of passage for their candidates, a psychodrama in which their supporters can watch them don the ritual mask and journey to encounter the frightening dusky-hued tax eaters, show their mettle by saying the ceremonial words, and depart back to the surface world reinvigorated to continue the heroic work of cutting spending.
ReplyDeletewe built that, with out we sweat an' strain,
ReplyDeleten' hayek be cryin over national disabilities act n' affirmative action's shame
ain't that obamacare makin our guv'ment too large? when will a=a?
then harry reid says if'n you gits a 100-round banana clip
it you lands in jail.
ah gits weary
an sick we's not on de gold standard
ah'm tired of socialist tyranny
and skeered of stateside drone fightin'
but ol' man river,
he jes' keeps rolling along...
Montag2 is bringing the punchbowl, apparently.
ReplyDeleteWhеn ѕomeonе ωrіtes an агtiсlе he/she keeps
ReplyDeletethe image of a useг іn hiѕ/her mind thаt
hоw а user cаn understаnd it. Ѕo
that's why this post is amazing. Thanks!
Here is my web-site ... Chemietoilette
I hear he is going to dress with street cred: His plaid shorts baggy style, and underwear exposed, And he will wear his ball cap like a Ryan workout. Oh, and no socks with the sneakers!
ReplyDeleteHe will also discuss the history of the African-American community’s roots in the Republican Party
ReplyDeleteOh, good. There's a topic that's received far too little attention.
Just once, just once I wanna hear one of these fucks discuss the end of the African-American community's association with the Republican party, in 1964, when Barry Goldwater--the spirochete who entered Rand Paul's bloodstream at conception, apparently--disbanded every state party structure throughout Dixie.
,,,,this is what happens when you stay, inside of yr epistemic bubble, until the air runs out....everything starts to sound, like a good idea....& i do mean, EVERYTHING!!
ReplyDeleteIt's a pity you don't have a donate button! I'd without a doubt donate to this fantastic blog! I suppose for now i'll
ReplyDeletesettle for bookmarking and adding your RSS feed to my Google account.
I look forward to new updates and will talk about this website with my Facebook group.
Chat soon!
Look into my web-site - terrific lab golden mix information
I've had conversations with N.C. "libertards" who actually believe, that is, have convinced themselves, that since Democrats once ran the South and during that time instituted segregation, and since Republicans back then were the "party of Lincoln," it is for all time going to be Democrats who should be blamed, and moreover, there never was and never will be any thing such as "the Southern Strategy." My guess is Rand is of this mind. His earnest rejection of the Civil Rights legislation of the mid-60s that night on Rachel Maddow's show, to which you refer, implied a total ignorance of historical facts, and a total commitment to the Randian theories for which he was named by his loonie father. One can only hope the Howard students walk out en masse and leave him spluttering to empty chairs. That's the least he deserves.
ReplyDeleteIt is considered to the start of the Arab Spring and would go a long way in forcing the politicians to effectively govern the
ReplyDeletecountry. World news often has news that
is related to famous Hollywood celebrities or sports person or international socialites.
' They always intend to take public view on variousu topics.
My web-site; latest world news
I enjoy what you guys are usually up too. This sort of clever work
ReplyDeleteand reporting! Keep up the fantastic works guys I've added you guys to our blogroll.
Visit my weblog ... how safe is quantrim
Rand Paul reaching to black voters is truly the symbol of Republicans in general reaching out. It's the sound of one hand clapping--or, in the case of the GOP, of that one hand slapping minority voters over and over again while wondering why those voters think the GOP really doesn't like them.
ReplyDeleteThe Republican party stopped being the "party of Lincoln" on March 4th, 1877. All else is commentary.
ReplyDeleteoh please oh please oh please
ReplyDeleteWell, they'll at least have power from the kilowatts generated by Thurgood Marshall and Charles Hamilton Houston turning over in their graves.
ReplyDeleteYet another instance of life imitating Snow Crash; there's a bit in it that talks about teenage boys from the Burbclaves picking a "bad" neighborhood (i.e. any non-Burbclave 'hood), and just driving through it without stopping, as a rite of passage.
ReplyDeleteLee Atwater? In '89, one year after the infamous Willie Horton ads? Whose brilliant idea was it to appoint him in the first place?
ReplyDeleteThere's this little thing that Disqus pastes right above the comments section, "Around the Web", with random links to stuff; today, it suggests "How to Detect Sociopathic Behavior Upon Meeting Someone for the First Time." Coincidence?
ReplyDeleteAha! That finally explains the reason for that....thing....on his head: it's a hairball.
ReplyDeleteLooks like I picked the wrong week to quit Aqua Buddha.
ReplyDeleteThose algorithms are pretty finely tuned.
ReplyDeleteand if he's lucky their toilets don't work
ReplyDeleteNo, if they're lucky, their toilets don't work. Hint to local media: Duck.
Well, the essential question becomes, is Rand Paul doing this for the Republican Party or is he doing it for himself? He was elected as a Tea Party outlier who presumably distrusted the old guard of the Repugs, and has tried to maintain that Tea Party/Libertarian posture in his time in office. So, I think it's safe to assume that he isn't doing this for the good of the party.
ReplyDeleteWhich inevitably leads one to the supposition that he's running for President. That, in turn, provokes the question, "how big is this fuckin' guy's ego?" He's got the middling support of Kentuckians, and practically no one else in the country but a few Libertarians in search of a savior now that his father is relegated to old fartdom, so a visit to Howard University also prompts the question, "just how stupid is he?" He's the archetypal White Southern Preppie Asshole who's already got a record of shitting on the signature legislation of the civil rights conflict, and he's going to beg for votes at Howard?
This is not Reagan demanding that Gorbachev "tear down this wall." This is going to be Jesse Helms saying apartheid was good for South Africans.
Maybe that same enterprising person can include some of those Ron Paul endorsements from the Dixie Daily News in an insert.
ReplyDeletePaul said in an interview that he and the Republican party want to offer
ReplyDeleteminorities "millions of jobs"
Overseas.
and something more than a "subsistence"
living
Which inevitably follows from opposing EBT, WIC, and the minimum wage, because liberty.
Wait, wait, that gives me an idea ... How about, he comes out to speak, and just as he's ready to begin, the moderator interrupts and tells him they mistakenly put the "Colored" podium out on the stage instead. Then they can ostentatiously replace it with the "White" one.
ReplyDeleteOh, and no socks with the sneakers!
ReplyDeleteI'd expect no shoelaces to be much more his speed, especially if he didn't bring that staffer with him.
He's doing it for himself and the GOP. He doesn't expect any of their votes, though he certainly wouldn't object if any of the students became useful idiots.
ReplyDeleteWhat he and GOP want is video of one of their bright young rising stars being booed and heckled by angry young black men: a surefire method of loosening the sphincters and wallets of grumpy old white people. Why not run for President? How much money did Sarah Palin's PAC rake in between 2008 and 2012? (You'll note that Sarah wasted precious little of that money actually running a campaign.) Do you really think a Paul is going to watch that river of money flow past and not stick in a bucket?
Also, 2016 is a long way off. There's no telling how weak the GOP field might be. He might just win.
"There's no telling how weak the GOP field might be. He might just win."
ReplyDeleteShit, that's like saying to little kids, "Sasquatch is reallll!
Unlike the moochers and looters, some of us have to work.
ReplyDeleteRunning for president as a great way to launder money.
ReplyDeleteGood day! This post couldn't be written any better! Reading through this post reminds me of my previous room mate! He always kept chatting about this. I will forward this write-up to him. Pretty sure he will have a good read. Many thanks for sharing!
ReplyDeleteMy blog post ... Read Full Article
"objects of ooga booga..."
ReplyDeleteBand name? Not really. Album name? Yes, please. Also, nice title for one of those short, pithy examinations of a common meme, e.g., "On Bullshit." But with a deconstructionist slant.
Given that Paul and his fanboys are going to present any disagreement as evidence of liberal moocher decadence
ReplyDeleteAlso shows who are the Real Racists and how ungrateful Some People are.
Interesting little off-the-cuff article, though far short of "brilliant," which Coates can sometimes be. Anyway, don't let Paul's horrific side put you off from reading the Harper's article. One can read about people without endorsing them. We talk so much here about Republican's laughable attempts to appeal to the youts. Well, with Paul you have it, and with a populist, mostly ultra-leftist message at that. It shows what a sad pass we've come to that Paul Sr. is far and away the most traditionally liberal figure in national politics, with the notable exception, of course, of civil rights. And it's getting hard to imagine that, given the realities of a politician's ability to actually get things done, that anyone could possibly be much worse than Obama. Of course we always think in that construction, eh. Who from the left would ever have imagined that Obama would turn out to be worse than Bush? So realistically, we are probably in for a succession of leaders who are worse than the previous leader, until the wise, great and beneficent George W. Clinton Bush VIII has the world nuked when he dies in order to outdo the Pharos and that old chinese dude that built the terra cotta warriors. Yes, unfortunately, that is our likely future as a species. Probably best to drop out, turn on, and tune in to the neighborhood around you, or something along those lines, if you care about national/global politics.
ReplyDeleteU.S. Senator Rand Paul, R-KY, will speak at Howard University on inclusion in the Republican Party
ReplyDelete"See, they let me in and my dad is a quasi-nativist anti-choice market libertarian. It really is a Big Tent."
No, with the "Colorless" one.
ReplyDelete"...contrary to what Republicans seem to think, black Americans are hip to politics..."
ReplyDeleteUnderlying Republican rhetoric is the idea that African Americans are too stupid to understand where their interests lie. Calling the Democratic Party a plantation is insulting.
Unquestionably imagine that which you stated. Your favorite reason appeared to be at
ReplyDeletethe net the simplest factor to have in mind of. I say to you, I definitely get annoyed even as
other people think about concerns that they just do not realize about.
You managed to hit the nail upon the top as neatly as defined
out the entire thing with no need side effect , other folks could
take a signal. Will likely be again to get more. Thank you
Also visit my web site; impressive labrador golden retriever puppy material
Unquestionably imagine that which you stated. Your favorite
ReplyDeletereason appeared to be at the net the simplest factor to have in mind
of. I say to you, I definitely get annoyed even as other people
think about concerns that they just do not realize about.
You managed to hit the nail upon the top as neatly as defined out the entire thing with no need side effect , other
folks could take a signal. Will likely be again to get more.
Thank you
Here is my web page impressive labrador golden retriever puppy material
Easy: He'll keep using his regular whistle.
ReplyDeleteUnlike the moochers and looters
ReplyDeleteNo need to be coy. You've already mentioned Rand Paul by name.
Rand Paul cutting the bullshit would be him cutting his lifeline.
ReplyDeleteI agree - I think just like Romney he wants to be seen as confronting the NAACP, and will deliberately say something offensive just to draw a reaction that will endear conservatives.
ReplyDeleteHe must be using the ice cream definition of "inclusion" - chips, swirls, etc. In this case it's adding a little fudge to something vanilla that is mostly whipped up air.
ReplyDeleteIt's ultra-leftist to oppose abortion, same-sex marriage, and integrated lunch counters?
ReplyDeleteHannity: "Senator Paul, what do you say to those in the liberal media who are criticizing your choice to appear in 'black face?' Isn't this just more of the same, typical whining from the free-speech-hating, PC Gestapo?"
ReplyDeleteOh, I suspect you know the answer to that. But neither is it particularly liberal to have the world's largest military, by far, wage a never ending murder spree, gut social security and medicare, maintain a ridiculously stupid war on drugs, provide billions upon billions in corporate welfare for the worst corporations (Monsanto, anyone?), etc. Nope, the Harper's article points out that Paul is by far the most liberal national figure. Small minds may hide from the fact, but simply acknowledging reality doesn't mean you have to vote one way or another. But just to be clear, I am not endorsing Ron Paul, just find his existence and influence interesting. Not that any of it matters on those big issues anyway. I see no evidence that elected politicians have any control over the national security state and they all will funnel every penny they can to the largest financial interests. Might as well vote for whoever best speaks to our morality on social issues, It's all we've got.
ReplyDeleteYeah. No. Paul is a bog standard Republican on just about every issue, save for ruinous wars. Of course, that didn't prevent him from voting in favor of the AUMF though, did it? Pretty sure only Barbara Lee voted against Afghanistan too.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, he's in favor of the War on Drugs, so long as it's states that fund it.
Yup, yup, yup. I'm not the one who thinks he's the messiah. I'm the one who thinks it's interesting that so many others do. And why. Which seems to be mostly for the liberal causes he advocates. Then I think, it sure would be nice if there were liberals who advocated liberal causes. Then sanity, or possibly the drugs, kicks in and I go for a long while without thinking about politics.
ReplyDeleteIf you've ever actually talked to a Paul supporter, you would know, without pretty much any shadow of a doubt, that it's NOT really about the liberal causes. Unless you think the gold standard is something progressives should pine for. Sure, there are some conservatives who like pot, so that's kind of liberal. And, he could give a shit about civil liberties (a "notable exception" perhaps). Why do liberal people support him, as opposed to, say, a few of the overlapping causes that he says he supports (but ultimately, votes against)? Probably the same reason some people do anything -- they are misinformed.
ReplyDeleteI do love that you claim that only "small minds" could think of him as anything but the most liberal national politician out there, but then when faced with actual evidence of my small mind (and his long series of war votes), evidently, you immediately change to your normal insufferable pose of merely "wondering" just why it is people think he's liberal.
Is there a passive aggressive class you take, or it is your natural charm?
Your style is so unique in comparison to other folks I
ReplyDeletehave read stuff from. Thanks for posting when you have the opportunity, Guess I'll just bookmark this blog.
My page :: how to make extra money at home
I'm reading the Ames article. So far, there's a lot of talk about liberty, but nothing really concrete. It also sounds like a cult. Then I came across this "can't-miss-the-liberalism" here:
ReplyDeleteLike a lot of activists I met, White
was in Tampa on her own. She buzzed
around Paul Fest recording video with
her iPhone, and every time I intercepted her, she dropped a new dose of secret history on me. “Did you know,”
she said, “that the Gun Control Act of
1968 was written with language that
was lifted straight from the gun-control
laws in Nazi Germany?” When I reacted with surprise, she arched her eyebrows and cracked a wry smile that bespoke troves of dark knowledge.
“Dude. You didn’t know this? Look it up! I got it from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.”
You are SO right, chuck!
I'll believe he's anti-war when I see his votes to cut military funding and expand the social safety net. Instead, he's proposing to privatize Social Security and Medicare, abolish the Department of Education, and cut Medicaid and the social safety net. Oh, and he's a flat-taxer who thinks the rich should get even more money while the poor should fight for scraps: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/03/25/1771561/the-5-worst-things-about-rand-pauls-budget-proposal/?mobile=nc His budget doesn't say all that much about what and where he would cut from the military, but it's all BENGHAZI!! and calls for MORE funding for security: http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/FY2014Budget.pdf
ReplyDeleteI don't know where you get the idea that cutting Social Security is a liberal idea, either, unless you think that just because Obama's floating an idea a) it's a liberal idea; b) liberals support it because Obama.
You may have noticed that Paul appeals to a certain type. The type who never has to worry about their civil rights being put up to a vote. Or can your small mind not see that?
Well, I got drunk at Zucotti park and hectored a few one night. Seemed to be the Fed more than the gold standard they were raving about.
ReplyDeleteAnyhoo, the small minds comment was directed more towards those who live in such a self-reinforcing bubble that they can't even consider reading about someone like Paul in a quality magazine like Harper's and get angry and insulting at those who might find that kind of deeper knowledge and nuanced picture interesting.
But thanks for splainin it to me all simplistic like. Guess now I can safely close my mind.
Got to the end. It's nothing at all what you say -- or rather it is, but you must have only read the assertions the writer makes and not much else. Ames strains to connect the Paulies with the Occupy movements, and points to the Too Big to Fail Banks as common ground. OK, so Paul says (and people like Jindal have adopted the pose) that he's opposed to these kind of megabanks. That's good, right? So what's his plan? Less regulation. That's just not liberal, never mind "ultra-leftist". And it's a giant tell about what his real motives are. And fucking stupid. When to add to that basically shuttering the federal government, save for the Pentagon, it just stops becoming funny.
ReplyDeleteIt must be my small mind that just can't grasp the connection between Paul's goldbug dreams of neo-feudalism and a strong regulatory core to temper runaway market capitalism.
SASQUATCH ISRAEL!!!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sadlyno.com/archives/33231.html
~
Funny, you kind of remind me of those Paul-tards I hectored in the park back in the glorious days of OWS. You come to different conclusions, but pretty much think the same.
ReplyDeleteThere's no telling how weak the GOP field might be.
ReplyDeleteRecent GOP history suggests that Rick Santorum will be the default candidate. Does that provide a clue?
He might just win.
Since he's a racist, antichoice Muslim-bashing Bircher, I concede the possibility. Outside of his magical thinking about zygote personhood, Senator Aqua Buddha isn't exactly known for his theocratic bona fides, but 2012 taught us that the theocratic rank-and-file will line up behind a polytheistic cultist if their bosses tell them to.
Anyway, so he might just win the GOP nomination. And ... ? Someone who opposes the Civil Rights Act, is on record as pro-segregation, is virulently misogynist, has a view of economics that makes Mitt Romney look like Karl Marx, and is a preening goddamn imbecile? I mean, sure, the last one is shades of 2001-2008, but still. I guess I'm not seeing any reasons for panic in a Rand Paul 2016 ticket just yet. Maybe if it were Rand / Bachmann, then I'd worry.
Okay, I know that the NAACP needs to be seen to be fair, at least as far as presidential candidates are concerned. But what's Howard University's excuse for inviting a handmaiden of the Klan, just because he's the dreamy new kid in school according to the intellectually vacuous MSM? Do they just want to get it out of the way, so they don't feel the need to do so when he runs for president? Are they involved in an ongoing "The Civil Rights Struggle: Both Sides" series, and they've decided to arrange for the anti-civil-rights side to take a dive? Are people involved in bringing Lee Atwater on board in 1989 still calling the shots? Does Board of Trustees Chair Addison Rand just have a soft spot for people named "Rand"? What?
ReplyDeleteWow, you've just gone totally angry guy. In your opinion, Ames failed. In mine, he made some interesting points, well worth pondering. Why that causes you to go off on name-calling rants is a mystery.
ReplyDeleteAnyhoo, the ultra-leftist thing refers to being against military adventures abroad and big business using government to enrich itself at home. But I'm sure splaini myself to angry guy and gal won't result in anything more than hurled insults (yes, I realize I'm on the internet), so have at it. I'm off to the beach.
Some people, they like to go out dancing...
ReplyDelete"being against military adventures abroad" = voting for AMUF, Afghanistan
ReplyDelete"[being against] using government to enrich itself at home" = deregulating business altogether
Got it. How could anyone disagree with your genius-level insights on Ron Paul, so long as your own definitions mean completely the opposite of actual words. I really don't know why I periodically try and engage your obtuse gadfly act. I try to take you seriously, but you really are ignorant.
I had to Google
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_for_the_Preservation_of_Firearms_Ownership
http://jpfo.org/
And how does your accurate description of him not make him a perfect fit for the Republican nomination? I predict it will be either him or Ted Cruz.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they are in bed with the popcorn lobby.
ReplyDeleteHow so, chuck? I await breathlessly your analysis of my Paultardedness.
ReplyDeleteI've always assumed they were just being disingenuous when they pulled that shit. Then I had long conversations with a few wingers who honestly had no idea of the party realignments of the 60s and 70s. Well, they're not going to hear it on Fox or Rush, right?
ReplyDeleteWhen I explained what went down (in dispassionate, non-loaded words -- so difficult for me), they were suspicious and disbelieving. Even an offer to produce original sources met with skepticism -- all historical documents can be altered, and they wouldn't put it past libbies to fake the Nixon tape transcripts.
Stop transparent marriage! They're trying to redefine the laws of optics!
ReplyDeleteTransparents give birth to transchildren! Within a generation, opacity as we know it could be destroyed.
He should really go the other direction and explain how he won't let Bloomberg or those liberal nanny-staters take away their right to trans-fat fried chicken and ice teas as motherfucking big as they'd like.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure this makes you "cynical" as much as it does "sentient."
ReplyDeleteEven an offer to produce original sources met with skepticism -- all historical documents can be altered, and they wouldn't put it past libbies to fake the Nixon tape transcripts.
ReplyDeleteThe words "show us the real birth certificate" come to mind.
But just to be clear, I am not endorsing Ron Paul, just find his existence and influence interesting.
ReplyDeleteTrouble I have with that is this: Ron Paul finds my existence problematic to his vision of this country, and would deprive me of it if he could.
Which is why I find him "interesting" in the same sense that something nasty under a stone is "interesting".
Maybe they should invite the Oreo Grenadiers.
ReplyDeleteObjects of ooga booga may be closer than they appear.
ReplyDeleteI would be able to like this comment 100 more times in a just world.
ReplyDeleteOwner of the brilliant idea: James E. Cheek, president of Howard for 20 years. As an obit writer observed, Cheek went from wearing dashikis in the 1970s to cultivating a "warm relationship" with the GOP in the 1980s and received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Ronald Reagan.
ReplyDeleteThen, in 1989, he championed the appointment of Atwater to the Howard board of trustees, an appointment Atwater said would help the GOP's campaign to attract black voters. (Yes, they've been busy on that campaign for decades. How else could they have dynamic stalwarts like Herman Cain and Allan West in their front ranks?)
At a news conference held coincidentally during the student protests, G. W. Bush illuminated the situation by saying that Howard students had no legitimate grievance. ''I think it's a good thing he's on the board,'' Bush said. ''I think that will work out just fine.''
But the students didn't back down and Atwater backed off after having his spokesperson explain that the possibility of violence :::dog whistle::: was too great for Atwater to remain involved. Cheek resigned the following month.
But the story doesn't end there. In 1997, the IRS came down on Cheek for not paying taxes. Bankrutpcy ensued. At that time, he owned four houses, three cars, a 250-gallon aquarium, $10k of model trains, and three yachts. Nothing says GOP like multiple yachts, does it?
P.S. Just noted Jack's Q actually reads, "Whose brilliant idea was it to appoint him in the first place?"
ReplyDeleteAh, in the first place? My money's on it being Atwater.
More efficient to just make "Colored" signs and put them on everything - including all of the men's room doors.
ReplyDeleteWill he be required to decide whether or not he actually wrote any of it?
ReplyDeleteMinorities? Millions of Jobs? Overseas? Are they planning to resettle Liberia?
ReplyDeleteNo, wingnuts always want everything both ways - he'll have written it for copyright purposes, but not for public relations purposes.
ReplyDeleteWhen he looks around at the student body, he's going to blurt out, "Damn, affirmative action has run wild here!"
ReplyDeleteYeah, Paul's basically a "states rights" Confederate, complete with animus against African-Americans.
ReplyDeleteThat was the original title of this pamphlet.
ReplyDeleteOh, Im so sorry I missed the troll 'n run. It peaked too soon. Chuckling went from his pose of disinterested but superior intellectual observer to contemptuous faux buddha assailed by "angry" people in a flash. It feels like the cycle is shortening.
ReplyDeletePerhaps he'll yell, "OOGA BOOOGA!!!"
ReplyDeleteYou know, to fit in with those people.
~
Holee Shit. What's that saying? The more things change, the more they stay the same? Amazing, though. Lee Atwater as a trustee of Howard University. Kind of gives you chills.
ReplyDeleteWell duh, me too. But turning up stones to understand what lies beneath is traditionally one of the ways we learn and grow smart.
ReplyDeleteLet's see, you say I misrepresented the article, then you admit that I didn't, but that you don't agree with the authors or think he did a very good job, so therefore I am intellectually dishonest. Umm, yea.
ReplyDeleteI think the better question remains why have you turned into such an angry internet guy. I read an article in Harper's, you and a few of the usual suspects go into a rage.
Now that I've had time to meditate and become enlightened, I see the pattern. After all, it's clear to anyone with minimal reading comprehension skills that neither I, nor the Harper's article, praised Ron Paul. What we did was study the Ron Paul phenomenon and consider how it relates to the ongoing, worsening disaster that is American liberalism on the national level. In this case, Paul attracts passionate young people in a large part by his attacks on the wealthy and call for a non-interventionist military. That's what seems to be vertoten. Any acknowledgement of the horrific failure of current American liberals.
Another aspect that garners rage can be seen when we consider how some unoriginal, cliquish types react to ideas that come from outside their clique. In this case, your and Zuzu's rote denunciations of Paul are the example. One can easily Google "Ron Paul racist" and copy and paste more or less identical polemics from a hundred different sources. And something similar is always the case when you all fly into your little rages. You and your little clique are happily regurgitating the topic of the day that all the major lefty blogs are chewing over and poor chuckling comes along and says something a little different, something that punctures that make believe world where we are Winning as opposed to the one we live in where the Republicans have won so thoroughly that a "liberal' Democratic president is more effective at implementing Republican policies, destroying Democracy, and funneling boatloads of cash to the wealthy than George W. Bush.
Intellectual dishonesty? I don't think so.
Chuckling: Neither of the Pauls have a leftist message. They have a Bircherite message. Their views on foreign policy resonate with the anti-imperialist left, but they actually come from the "foreign-policy realists". As Zuzu points out below, their views are extremely far from those of the left, except when it comes to questions of preventative wars and executive powers.
ReplyDeleteLike the Pauls or hate them, their views are light-years removed from anything you could reasonably call "liberal".
ReplyDeleteI had a nice day, and evening at the beach. Yesterday was beautiful, the first nice spring day around here. I biked down there, heroically doing my part against global warming while getting some healthy exercise as well. Of course I wasted the exercise by having a bistec taco washed down with a bottle of Baltika 4, but it was all good. I got some sun on my skin for the first time in many a month, getting some much needed vitamin D into my system. And I sat for a blissfully long time on a rock out in the surf, listening to the waves crash and enjoy a peaceful meditation. I think I'll do it again today.
ReplyDeleteAnyhow, as you can see, I'm back to angry internet commenter land now. About our little adventures here in Alicublog comments, one thing you might note is that these little kerfuffles always take place under a comment I've made, a comment that is in no way directed at you or Jay B or anyone else besides the caretaker of the joint. You may also note that it's rare, very very very rare, that I ever attack you or anyone else over a comment you've made. This, although I certainly don't agree with everything you say, much less in the way you write it.
So you see, you come off as someone who goes to a restaurant alone, listens to the conversations of those at surrounding tables and then flies into a rage and starts yelling at people when you hear something you don't like.
Oh, I know, it's the internet, you make a comment, you've got to expect angry insults from angry people. Yup, yup. But you all should ask yourselves, why do you have to be that angry person hurling the angry insults? Is that really the type of person you want to be?
Why are you trying to take someone called "chuckling" seriously? Disengage, by all means. It will be good for your blood pressure.
ReplyDeleteActually, I did a disservice to the poor paullites I persecuted that drunken night at OWS. They were actually polite and at least tried to be reasonable, much like other cultists out on the street trolling for new converts.
ReplyDeleteNo, with your seemingly inability to comprehend the words you read and the resulting anger with results in childishly hurled insults, you remind me of typical right blog commenters. And I know this is hard, probably impossible for you to understand, but although you come to diametrically opposed conclusions (ones I typically share), you still think (or appear to by your writing. Hopefully you're a much better person irl) like a right blogger. You have your beliefs, you spend your days chewing and regurgitating the same cud as everyone else on the lefty blogs, and anything that's a little different, that in some way challenges the daily feed, throws you into a fit of anger. I've seen this in your comments over and over again, more often than not when I'm just an observer, not at all involved in the conversation.
So write a letter to the editor to Harper's. I found the article interesting, and just from the reaction my little reference has caused, you can see that it's thesis is challenging as well.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of whether or not the Paul's have a leftist message, the point is that many of their followers hear a leftist message and that outside the Paul movement, much of that leftist message is almost entirely missing from the national discourse.
But what I find interesting from this thread is the horror expressed by commenters that anyone would even consider looking deeper into a national phenomena and consider what might be learned from it. The horror at turning over rocks to find out what nasty things toil beneath, so to speak.
I can't speak for others, Chuckling, but I don't feel horror at folks looking deeply into national phenomena. I just think we should be accurate, rather than wishful, about what we are looking at.
ReplyDeleteWell, me too. But when discussing something like "is being against government by and for the corporations a liberal value," we necessarily veer into opinion land. I've accurately portrayed one or two points from the article I referenced.
ReplyDeleteBut by all means, read the article if you're really that interested. I think it was in last month's Harper's. I'm not saying it's the best written, most enlightening thing I've ever read, but it was interesting and made some good points along the lines I've indicated. And no, it's not in anyway pro-Paul. It's pro looking under rocks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB5r6HeOA-8
ReplyDeleteAs Zuzu points out below, their views are extremely far from those of the left, except when it comes to questions of preventative wars and executive powers.
ReplyDeleteThose exceptions don't even actually apply to Paul the Younger. And for the Elder, "preventative" is a bit of a tricky one. Does providing letters of marque and reprisal to private mercenaries for hunting down anyone in the world affiliated as al Qaeda count as "preventative," or are they still covered by the same logic of retaliation as the Afghanistan / al-Qaeda AUMF for which Rep. Paul voted?
Well, Party of Lincoln, after all.
ReplyDeletePaul the Younger does seem like more of a whackjob than anything else. (His underground electric fence idea for the southern border was especially kooky.) Paul the Older really did seem to have some actual foreign policy analysis in there along with the Bircherite & gold-bug madness, but I guess that now that he's quit it's a dead letter anyhow.
ReplyDeleteThe Rand Paul REVOLution will not be televised.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, had Paul the Older been elected president, he would have changed his tune. At this point the question is academic.
ReplyDeleteEarlier: "Well, with Paul you have it, and with a populist, mostly ultra-leftist message at that. It shows what a sad pass we've come to that Paul Sr. is far and away the most traditionally liberal figure in national politics, with the notable exception, of course, of civil rights."
ReplyDeleteThen: "Nope, the Harper's article points out that Paul is by far the most liberal national figure. Small minds may hide from the fact, but simply acknowledging reality doesn't mean you have to vote one way or another."
And: "Why are you trying to take someone called "chuckling" seriously?"
Later: "Intellectual dishonesty? I don't think so."
Fraud.
Also: Let's see, you say I misrepresented the article, then you admit that I didn't, but that you don't agree with the authors or think he did a very good job, so therefore I am intellectually dishonest. Umm, yea.
ReplyDeleteStill too dishonest to understand words or are you that fucking stupid? YOU called him "ultra-leftist", not the article. I called YOU intellectually dishonest, which you are simply confirming because you clearly misrepresent everything I've written. I'm not saying ANYONE praised Ron Paul (another thing you are lying about), I'm saying that HE ISN'T LIBERAL AT ALL, as you did. You called him "the most liberal national figure" as if that's what Harper's said. Slowly typing -- I do not care that you thought the article was interesting. Or that Harper's had it. I read the fucking thing. That you managed to pack so many stupid fucking things into every response you made about the article though, was what set me off. You either completely misread, or purposely misread, every subsequent post to make yourself feel better or something and never, once, actually addressed a single counterpoint made to your idiotic assertions about Paul's liberalism. Except to say that small minds disagree.
That's the definition of intellectual dishonesty. It also might just be because you are that fucking stupid. I don't really know either way. It doesn't really matter.
Jeez angry internet commenter guy. Poor chuckling reads an interesting article in Harper's and comments on it and you've been in a state of apoplexy over it for 24 hours now.
ReplyDeleteSo I'm going to put on my white coat and stethoscope and as dr. chuckling recommend that you either stop drinking before noon or start, whichever is appropriate.
Paul the Older really did seem to have some actual foreign policy analysis in there along with the Bircherite & gold-bug madness
ReplyDeleteYeah, but ... issuing letters of marque and reprisal to mercenaries. Paul the Elder actually proposed a bill to that effect. Don't like unaccountable targeted assassinations abroad via government drone? Just imagine Blackwater / Xe / Whatever-the-Hell-It's-Called-This-Week running around shooting suspected al Qaeda suspects under US government auspices. More than they already did in Iraq, I mean.
Here's a short addendum-ish piece at Harper's online that echoes the points in the article I so evilly mentioned.
ReplyDeletehttp://harpers.org/blog/2013/04/on-rand-paul-and-the-libertarian-statist-divide/
The author makes a good case that the Paul phenomenon is well worth paying attention to.
Right. All that meditation must make you feel like you are the only person on Earth. "State of apoplexy" is just sad. Your ego needs that, I suppose. "Poor angry guy. Over something plainly so idiotic as my assertion about Ron Paul's liberalism. Must be apoplexy."
ReplyDeleteLife moves on, chuck. I just don't really like you and think you are a moonbeamed fool, that hardly meets the standard of apoplexy, so much as I think it's diverting to spend a half-hour or so over the course of a day to argue with a fatuous prick.
So, if you're not, as seems obvious by your continued rants, angry internet commenter guy, what's up with the continued rants? Why do you feel the need to tell someone over and over and over again that you don't like them, think they're stupid, dishonest, etc, over a harmless internet comment, one that simply references, more or less accurately, an article in Harper's?
ReplyDeleteDo you see me constantly attacking you under your comments? No, you don't.
Seriously dude, you have become a caricature that angry internet commenter guy everybody despises. If you're going to be a caricature, couldn't you at least aim higher? Be a caricature of Martin Luther King or Ghandi or even Robert Smith?
dr. chuckling recommends that in addition to starting or stopping drinking before noon, you consider taking some kind of pill, or stopping with the pills, whichever appropriate. All that apoplectic anger can't be good for you.
ReplyDeleteThe point is it wasn't "more or less" accurately. It was totally wrong and every subsequent post you made was equally obtuse. Someone is wrong on the Internet all the time. You've made it into an art. You want to float the "Ron Paul is the most liberal person in American politics today" line? Fine. Other people have other opinions. You want to question beg and then runaway and whine about the "anger" your ignorance or passive-aggressive comments engender? Fine. But I'm not sure why you don't feel you should merit a response.
ReplyDeleteOf course, you don't even know what the fuck Martin Luther King was about, so it hardly surprises me that you even fuck that up that in your continuing efforts to try and talk about how meaningless you are. You think he wasn't angry? You think he didn't respond to stupid beliefs and counter them? Of course it gets past you that non-violent civil disobedience wasn't about quiet acceptance. He wasn't always some gnostic philosopher, content to talk in obscure aphorisms for people to tease out meanings. He was steadfast and open about what he stood for.
The supreme task is to organize and unite people so that their anger becomes a transforming force. — Martin Luther King, Jr.
But I'm sure you will purposely not get that too.
Well, I trust Martin Luther King wouldn't have degenerated into an angry commenter guy on the internet, but if you're saying that your ridiculous attacks are part of an attempt to be a caricature of Martin Luther King, then I was wrong, you are "Winning."
ReplyDeleteBut I didn't horribly misrepresent the article, which you acknowledged at one point.
Seriously though, don't you have something better to do?
No, with your seemingly inability to comprehend the words you read and
ReplyDeletethe resulting anger with results in childishly hurled insults, you
remind me of typical right blog commenters.
Actually, chuck, I asked you a question that you haven't answered. You said: We talk so much here about Republican's laughable attempts to appeal to
the youts. Well, with Paul you have it, and with a populist, mostly
ultra-leftist message at that.
And I asked you:It's ultra-leftist to oppose abortion, same-sex marriage, and integrated lunch counters?
Somehow, this makes me angry and small-minded, and you claim that there were "childishly hurled insults" in there. Yet I don't see them, at least not coming from me. I'm challenging you to support your position that Paul is an ultra-leftist by giving you a list of positions that Paul has actually taken that refute your position.
Maybe because you have no answer for that, you hurl childish insults and claim that I either don't understand you or don't understand Paul. But I don't see you answering my question, which is:
It's ultra-leftist to oppose abortion, same-sex marriage, and integrated lunch counters?
Do try to focus on the question asked and not the voices in your head, dear.
I agree that the concept seems to promise nothing good, though I'm not sure what actual difference it would make to how mercenaries and the military actually operate.
ReplyDeleteIn practice, I fear you have a point. In theory, at least there's the possibility of accountability if we don't hand over the "War on Terror" entirely to the private sector. Hey, I can dream, too.
It almost seems like another of archaic hobbyhorse of Paul's
Well, to be fair, part of the reason I keep bringing it up is because I enjoy typing "letters of marque and reprisal." And adjusting my frock coat.
Shouldn't that be the latte sipping, tree hugging, free-speech-hating, PC Gestapo? :)
ReplyDelete