Rand Paul doesn’t get it
In the end, the junior senator from Kentucky and his ilk claim to have risen in defense of the Fifth Amendment, but instead they’ve given the rest of us a glimpse into the bizarre world many Libertarians inhabit.
It’s a world where conspiracy theories abound, Federal Reserve bankers are on par with al-Qaeda, and the president is an Orwellian Big Brother — the sort of stuff that attracts a rather odd bunch. For as the Wall Street Journal fittingly suggests, “if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable Libertarian kids in their college dorms.”
I witnessed these kids in action at the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference when I accompanied my former boss Donald Rumsfeld, who received the Defender of the Constitution award from his friend, Dick Cheney. A gaggle of Libertarian Paulites behaved as if they were at a professional wrestling bout and shouted obscenities at the two men — some were moved to call them “war criminals.”
Paul’s filibuster was about as serious as the accusations hurled at Rumsfeld and Cheney, and it in fact exposed Rand as an acolyte of his father, Ron. During Rand’s rant, he condemned his critics as those who “see perpetual war, perpetual war without geographic limits, and they see the battlefield here, so they want the laws of war to apply not only there but here.” This is “martial law,” Paul argued.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Neocons defending the Obama Campaign. Odd, but it’ll be interesting how it all ends up.
forest on March 16, 2013 at 4:50 PM
Ugh. They should have been taken out to the alley and beaten. I can’t stand libertarians and RuPauls. And I am highly suspicious of Rand. I will politely listen to what he says but as far as a potential candidate – no way!
Blake on March 16, 2013 at 4:52 PM
The thing is Rand Paul did not rant, did not hurl obscenities, behaved quite civilly, and debated a serious topic. To characterize Paul the way Hahn has is deceptive. So, Nicholas Hahn, you are a shameless liar. And, no. That is not hyperbole.
aryeung on March 16, 2013 at 4:54 PM
Because that would have been so much more constructive.
And conservatives wonder how progressives get away painting them as closed-minded authoritarians.
And for the record, I do not support throwing out obscenities at Chenney. So, please, Blake. Don’t paint me into a corner.
aryeung on March 16, 2013 at 4:57 PM
It’s odd that they seemed to have convinced themselves that Obama is a little dove that hates any force, and the Republicans can get back this cred of being the best party to drop bombs on people. I don’t get it.
aryeung on March 16, 2013 at 4:59 PM
Yes, it would. They would learn not to yell obscenities and ridiculous criminal accusations at guest speakers. The closed minded were the rupauls who thought it was fitting to behave like jacka$$es.
You painted yourself into a corner.
Blake on March 16, 2013 at 5:06 PM
Some of Ron Paul’s youthful drones certainly are closed minded. But that doesn’t erase your less than enlightened solutions.
No, I didn’t.
aryeung on March 16, 2013 at 5:10 PM
Not all libertarians are devotees of Ron Paul. Many of us couldn’t wait for the old coot to retire.
Anyone, who believes that libertarian = Ron Paul, is just as closed minded and featherbrained as anyone on the left.
Resist We Much on March 16, 2013 at 5:13 PM
I’m not a great fan of Libertarians and I don’t like Paul’s dad Paul but the author never gives a good argument or answer against Rand’s questions. He just uses ad home and guilt by association or dismisses this question because of other things Rand might believe or that those who like him might believe.
These are the exact same tactics the left uses and they’re dishonest.
29Victor on March 16, 2013 at 5:14 PM
Ad hom. Stupid auto carrot
29Victor on March 16, 2013 at 5:15 PM
Broad brushes paint wide swaths. Ugh.
Resist We Much on March 16, 2013 at 5:17 PM
If we can kill US citizens with drones, based on a real security concern, how long until that security concern bar gets lowered? Over time, history has taught us that’s exactly what will happen. Give power an inch, and it takes a mile. What may seem unthinkable today will be reality tomorrow – if we let it happen today.
toliver on March 16, 2013 at 5:26 PM
Exactly. Do they fear Rand Paul might succeed?
aryeung on March 16, 2013 at 5:27 PM
My comment at RCW:
This is largely condemnation by association.
He’s his father’s acolyte, we’re told, despite the fact that he has clearly distinguished himself as a more mainstream albeit libertarian leaning politician than his father. And then Rand is chastised for association with his father’s CPAC 2011 supporters. No, it’s 2013 now, look at Rand’s supporters, not Ron’s. And a candidate is not his supporters.
Also, the notion that another 9-11 would likely occur under Rand P is crazy speculation at best, and unwarranted. Rand still believes in peace through strength, just doesn’t want to intervene in Libya and all the other hell-holes often in support of our enemy. I don’t see how that makes us safer.
anotherJoe on March 16, 2013 at 5:27 PM
Mmm, during the 2012 campaign, I would never have thought I’d want Rick Santorum to run again in 2016. But as it turns out, I think I do want Santorum to run again. Want to get as many “Sure, left-wing big government is bad, but right-wing big government is preferable to libertarian small government” conservatives on the record as supporting that philosophy as possible.
Jeddite on March 16, 2013 at 5:33 PM
That’s when I stopped reading. This is the “worst of all worlds” conclusion of Obama’s drone strike policy carried to the utmost extent possible. Remember Waco? The question isn’t about innocents so much as about the determination of innocence and the state’s obligation to establish guilt before taking action against Americans. I am no Paulite on foreign policy, but this guy needs to steer clear of knee-jerk reactions and understand Rand’s arguments before he belittles him.
bcm4134 on March 16, 2013 at 5:34 PM
Indeed. Let them split up the vote real good.
Punchenko on March 16, 2013 at 5:49 PM
Why don’t you look up when there is a local “End The Fed” rally near you and start a fight with some guys there. It’s not hard to find Libertarians and if you want a fight I’m sure there will be a few who would be happy to oblige you. Shit, I’m waiting for some establishment neocon chickenhawk to pick a fight with me.
rndmusrnm on March 16, 2013 at 5:50 PM
I am already starting to see the Paulbots are going to ruin everything for Rand.
The Notorious G.O.P on March 16, 2013 at 6:10 PM
Reminds me, once again, of FA Hayek’s brilliant essay, Why I Am Not A Conservative.
Resist We Much on March 16, 2013 at 6:13 PM
I am already starting to see the Paulbots are going to ruin everything for Rand.
The Notorious G.O.P on March 16, 2013 at 6:10 PM
It’s what they do. They haven’t gone away, just moved down one generation and projected all their hopes and dreams onto him.
thebrokenrattle on March 16, 2013 at 6:18 PM
Wishing violence on those who disagree. You certainly haven’t changed.
MadisonConservative on March 16, 2013 at 6:24 PM
It’s people like you who will get Rand Paul elected!
I don’t agree with Rand Paul on social issues and foreign policy, but damn if his filibuster wasn’t brilliant. Ace said it better than I could, so I am directing you guys to what he said.
BigGator5 on March 16, 2013 at 6:33 PM
+infinity!
This premise should be repeated often, over & over.
roy_batty on March 16, 2013 at 6:44 PM
Rand Paul is NOT his father. He’s as much a Tea Party guy as he is a libertarian. The filibuster was about standing up to the Obama administration. It was about giving our side something to rally around and support.
cicerone on March 16, 2013 at 6:59 PM
Mild fix.
These are not freedom protestors, MadCon, they are spoiled children. Much like the fools who occasionally disrupt conservative speeches to do outrageous things.
MelonCollie on March 16, 2013 at 7:05 PM
Neither have you…and don’t. It’s hilarious watching you get your a$$ handed to you time and time again on aoshq.
Blake on March 16, 2013 at 7:22 PM
That might be true, but how are mob beatings so much better?
aryeung on March 16, 2013 at 7:27 PM
And that justifies violence to shut them up…how?
Agreed. Nothing funnier than a bunch of people I’ve never talked to hating me with a purple passion. It’s warm under your skin, baby.
You should really work on that propensity for violence, though.
MadisonConservative on March 16, 2013 at 7:42 PM
They hate you because you are a world class ahole.
Don’t project. Your anger is legendary. I doubt there is a cure for you.
Blake on March 16, 2013 at 8:05 PM
You’re the one wishing people were beaten in an alley for annoying you. Ain’t projectin’ s**t, thug.
MadisonConservative on March 16, 2013 at 8:21 PM
I see you addressing the weaker targets, why not me? I’ll repeat:
You’re a big man, threatening people from behind a computer monitor and running away when someone confronts you. I bet you’re the same way in real life.
rndmusrnm on March 16, 2013 at 8:23 PM
I stopped posting for awhile since I was so busy. It’s good so see MadConserv still hang’n. Hey, unseen is still here professing his love for SP.
It’s sad that I should have to make the point.
toliver on March 16, 2013 at 9:01 PM
Fixed.
The reason the liberals do this – and do you GET that these are real-life liberal trolls and not upstanding citizens? – is precisely because they will get nothing worse than a piddly fine, if that much.
MelonCollie on March 16, 2013 at 10:26 PM
So criminal activity on our part is the answer? Since when was the conservative movement a union?
MadisonConservative on March 16, 2013 at 10:59 PM