It’s Hard Being Rand

Posted: April 20, 2014 by Marner in Conservative Shenanigans, Current Events, Politics
Tags: , , ,

Sometimes you have to feel a little bit of sympathy for Rand Paul. It must be really hard to go out every day and make statements designed to win votes in the 2016 primary without any regard for honesty. That is a dangerous minefield to navigate when you have no beliefs of your own and every position is politically calculated.

That, and being named Rand. At least his father didn’t name him Ayn.

Rand’s latest fail is deciding to jump into the debate over Cliven Bundy after Harry Reid called the armed protesters who set up sniper position and planned to use women as human shields domestic terrorists. Paul decided there were more Republican primary votes if he opposed Reid.

“I think there’s an opposite thing to what Harry Reid said, and that’s that the federal government shouldn’t violate the law. Nor should we have 48 federal agencies carrying weapons and having SWAT teams,” Paul asserted.”

Okay, now that’s appropriately wingnutty and right up Rand’s alley of taking all sides on any issue. Gun rights shouldn’t be restricted, but BLM employees shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns. After all, federal employees who work in the wilderness never face situations where they may need to protect themselves, right?

Anyway, Rand can’t stop there.

“Apparently, this is what I’m hearing,” he continued, “The family had a lease with Clark county for over 130 years, arbitrarily in recent years the federal government thought that they were going to override the county lease and they were going to assume control of it but they never asked for permission from the rancher.”

Where the hell did he hear that line of bullshit? I don’t think anyone is trying to make that entirely fact-free argument and Rand just pulled it out of his nether region. After all, what gets the wingnuts more riled up than the evil Obama coming to take their personal property at gunpoint? But that’s not Rand’s only recent statement that smells like it came out of a 1 year old’s diaper.

“When is the last time in our country we created millions of jobs? It was under Ronald Reagan … Did he say, “oh let’s just cut taxes for low-income people?” No, he said forthrightly, “let’s cut everyone’s taxes” … The top rate was 70% … he lowered it … to 28% … and 20 million jobs were created.”

I’m glad you asked, Rand. Bill Clinton was President the last time 20 million jobs were created in our economy (22.9 million). Unfortunately, Reagan fell a little bit short of 20 million at 16.1 million.

These are just a couple of examples where Rand makes stupid statements for political reasons. In this he differs from his father. Ron Paul is able to let his freak flag fly proudly because he is in a safe Texas district and will never be voted out of office. Ron also clouds his idiocy in normal sounding rhetoric. I’ve always said that Ron Paul sounds pretty good until you listen to what he’s saying. Then he sounds absolutely batshit crazy. Rand, on the other hand, does not have the conviction that his father has. Rand has a history of palling around with racists, like his father, but I’m not sure it’s because he’s racist; it’s because he’s using his father’s network to get ahead in politics. Rand opposes using drones against suspected terrorists, but he’s just fine with using them against someone who robs a convenience store here in the US. This is just an example of how he operates on every issue.

Now Rand has a big decision to make. The Kentucky Assembly has decided not to take up a bill put forward by Rand’s buddies allowing him to run for reelection as State Senator and run for President at the same time. Rand can no longer count on still receiving his government handout from the Senate when he loses the race for the Presidential nomination. Again, it’s hard to be Rand.

I can’t wait for the 2016 primary season to kick off because Rand’s opponents are going to have a ball kicking him around.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Actually, it’s probably easier to just make stuff up as needed than to stick to facts. So maybe it’s easy being Rand!

  2. For the sake of the general welfare I’d like to put Ama’s tenth amendment pedantry to rest once and for all. Contrary to her endless ravings, the meaning and scope of the tenth amendment has been the subject of heated debate since its inception. Jefferson expressed concerns over too much power residing with a central authority, while Hamilton, Washington, and Madison (those leftist Commie bastards!) favored the more flexible interpretation that ultimately ruled the day, giving the federal government leeway to construct laws and duties which are NOT specifically outlined in the Constitution.

    What Ama would never tell you, perhaps because she doesn’t know, is that the tenth amendment was quite watered down compared to what states rights advocates were proposing at the time, and was seen by many as superfluous; the Supreme Court declared it “added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified”. From Wiki:

    “After the Constitution was ratified, some wanted to add a similar amendment limiting the federal government to powers “expressly” delegated, which would have denied implied powers. However, the word “expressly” ultimately did not appear in the Tenth Amendment as ratified, and therefore the Tenth Amendment did not reject the powers implied by the Necessary and Proper Clause.”

    Hmmmm. “Implied powers?” “Necessary and Proper Clause?” Whatever could those mean? Just little parts of the Costitution Ama likes to ignore:

    “The specific powers and duties of the U.S. Congress are enumerated in several places in the Constitution. The most important listing of these powers is in Article I, Section 8, which identifies in 17 paragraphs the many important powers of Congress. The last paragraph grants to Congress the flexibility to create laws or otherwise to act where the Constitution does not give it the explicit authority to act.(my emphasis)”

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Necessary+and+Proper+Clause

    So it’s important to realize that the debate over state independence was there from the beginning, there was much disagreement on the issue between our founding fathers, and they were all quite aware that state sovereignty could be unambiguously strengthened with the addition of a few words (“expressly” being one of them) but declined to include those words (Socialist tyrants!). The point is that the meaning of the tenth is not nearly as cut and dried as a certain shit-kicking rancher would have you believe. Ama’s black and white interpretation is truly mulish and juvenile but we all know conservatives are not comfortable with ambiguity, subtlety and contrary opinions.

    • 02casper says:

      Rusty,
      How dare you post such an emotional, fact free post. Especially since it runs counter to all that posted by Constitutional scholar and all around nice person, CSL writes about. Then again, What yo wrote makes a lot more sense than her screeds.

      Watson,
      Good job over at the other blog. Over the years, I’ve played a little game with myself. I post as little as possible and wait to see how many hundreds of words I get out of CSL in response.. Looks like you hit the mother load this weekend. Your response that pointed out CSL’s lack of empathy was spot on.

  3. Wow, Constitutional scholar/rancher Ama is really having trouble understanding what the First Amendment is. She repeatedly insists that Eich’s Constitutional rights of free speech were violated by being fired by a private company, although the First Amendment relates explicitly and exclusively to laws made by Congress, not private enterprises, as most seventh graders know. And she’s supposed to be the smart one on that blog!

    • Marner says:

      That’s almost as good as Cluster believing you can submit Freedom of Information Act requests against private companies.

      • Casper,

        Thanks. I’m no Constitutional scholar, and I’m certainly no rancher, but I find it beyond amusing that with about 15 minutes Google time and writing but a few paragraphs I’ve destroyed a bedrock worldview of hers that she’s spent thousands of words on and undoubtedly bored dozens of houseguests with. Ouch! I just wrenched my shoulder patting myself on the back!

  4. 02casper says:

    My favorite CSL quote “to him all that matter is his perception of my “empathy”. It doesn’t matter that he knows nothing about my life, my experiences, my friends, my attitudes toward people of color or those who are just people who happen to have partners of the same gender.”

    Other than the thousands of words she’s written over the last 10 years, we know nothing about her.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s