Wingnuts and Dolts


The benefit of this Rand Paul escapade is that his sincerely held views are on full display, and thus the ideology of the “liberty” movement gets a serious airing for the first time. But it’s not like anyone should be surprised by these views. Paul’s father said almost verbatim the same thing on Meet the Press in 2007. He wasn’t considered “serious” by the traditional media at the time. But now that there are tea party beat writers and they’re the newest rage in Washington, this gets exposure.

Original DVD cover

Joe Conason’s been onto them for a while:

To understand Rand Paul’s agonized contortions over America’s civil rights consensus, let’s review the tainted pedigree of the movement that reared him. Specifically, both the Kentucky Republican Senate nominee and his father, Ron Paul, have been closely associated over the past two decades with a faction that described itself as “paleolibertarian,” led by former Ron Paul aide Lew Rockwell and the late writer Murray Rothbard. They eagerly forged an alliance with the “paleoconservatives” behind Patrick Buchanan, the columnist and former presidential candidate whose trademarks are nativism, racism and anti-Semitism.

Repeatedly during Ron Paul’s political career, his associates used the same kinds of inflammatory rhetoric used by Buchanan in order to attract support and raise money, all while Paul himself pretended not to know what they were doing and saying in his name. Paul could always cover himself by saying, just as Rand Paul says now, that his opposition to civil rights statutes is purely constitutional and has nothing to do with bigotry.


This is fun: In light of Rand Paul’s decision today to back out of his scheduled appearance on Meet the Press, it’s worth looking back to his father Rep. Ron Paul’s appearance on the show in 2007 — in which Ron Paul came out against the 1964 Civil Rights Act on the very same grounds that have gotten Rand Paul into such a mess this week.

Asked by then-host Tim Russert if he would have voted for the landmark legislation, Paul said he would have opposed it “If it were written the same way, where the federal government’s taken over property–has nothing to do with race relations.” He continued: “it has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.”

That’s the same libertarian position articulated by Rand Paul on Rachel Maddow this week […]


Russert had asked Paul, then a Republican presidential candidate: “I read a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. And you said this: ‘Contrary to the claims of’ ‘supporters of the Civil Rights Act of’ ’64, ‘the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of’ ’64 ‘increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.’ That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.”

Paul responded: “But when it comes, Tim, you’re, you’re, you’re not compelled in your house to invade strangers that you don’t like. So it’s a property rights issue. And this idea that all private property is under the domain of the federal government I think is wrong. So this–I think even Barry Goldwater opposed that bill on the same property rights position, and that–and now this thing is totally out of control. If you happen to like to smoke a cigar, you know, the federal government’s going to come down and say you’re not allowed to do this.”

(Video and transcript at TALKING POINTS MEMO link)


Filed under Congress, Constitution, humor, movies, parody, politics, Republicans, Ron Paul, Senate, snark, Wordpress Political Blogs

16 responses to “Wingnuts and Dolts

  1. writechic

    Ya know…let them reargue Civil Rights. It’s disturbing to see the fringe rear its freakish head in the mainstream, but independents…the ones who determine elections aren’t going to flock to polls to turn back time a few decades. I think, they’ll just hold their noses and vote like they usually do.

    I read a headline that said Palin called Rachel Maddow prejudiced in the interview Paul. Funny because he parroted Palin in the interview accusing Rachel of “gotcha journalism.”

    • i think rand paul is the toe in the swimming pool. the rethugs want to see how racism sells for the next election, so you won’t find any who will come out and scream that his ideas are racist and wrong. they won’t come out and support what he said either. they’re just biding their time to see what happens. in the meantime, it’s business as usual–blame the liberal media for all of the goopers’ shortcomings.

    • “Gotcha journalism” is the term used for when a reporter asks an uncomfortable question.

      For the record, if someone were to ask me a question like, “So, do you really support letting businesses refuse to serve African-Americans?” I have an easy answer … I don’t have to accuse them of trying to get me. I simply say, “No. That’s a disgusting idea.”

      See? Isn’t that easy?

      • princess sarah would have counseled little randy to answer all of rachel maddow’s questions with in what sense, charlie? (she’s not very good with names. just ask joe o’biden).

  2. I watched the entire interview live and still can’t figure out what his problem is, especially all those “guns in restaurants” remarks. Down here in Texas, we once had a problem with guns in a cafeteria with a nutjob anti-gov type killing a lot of innocent people to make the point of not liking the government. It is the reason there is a concealed gun law that involves certification and knowing the no-nos of carrying said gun. Yes, you have to go through the government to get certified and take a 10 hour class on use and safety and pass a backgound check-by the government! He wants to go on more of the Trotskyite type rants well- Taft established the Children’s Bureau to stop child labor, all the city Health departments trying to stop filth related diseases and epidemics, safety and code rules so water won’t kill you and polarized elecrical devices don’t shock you, speed limits, rules of driving, minimum wages, school food for the poor kids, and 500 other things will HAVE TO GO because a well-to-do person might be inconvenienced. How goddamned unfair is that when the working class minions can go to fight their wars anytime to preserve their glass houses of righteousness! Go ahead and play that hardnosed materialism card RP. If I have learned anything from my decades of life, it that YOUR money is the most important thing, not life, or nature, not a normal peacefull existence, not concern for the ill or downtrodden, not struggling kids trying to make it. As Ronald the Magnificent once said on the subject of older housewives who never worked jobs, should they be entitled to a minimum Social Security payment of $150 a month? Without hestitation, the godman said “NO”.

  3. This seems to be de rigeur among right wing wankers now as I see Wanker extraordinaire Jon Stossel has publicly embraced the same notion, private business can rightfully discriminate against anyone. What irks these morons so deeply that they feel a burning need to overturn civil rights legislation >?

    • ain’t it amazing that, instead of calling out an idiot for saying idiotic things, the rethugs will adapt their positions to accommodate the idiot? as for jon stossel, he’ll say anything as long as he thinks it will get his some attention. i don’t think he has any core beliefs whatsoever. he’s a whore with a porn stache.

  4. Joanaroo

    John Stossel, Rand Paul and Princess, plus all the others speak more bullshit than you could put on a farmer’s field! I have never heard such an ignorant bunch as the Rethugs/Tea Party/Rand’s Reich Racists! I’m glad all this shit is coming out and the better it’s on video and on the air straight from the asshole’s mouths. And Rand, you are chickenshit, you racist bastard!

    • people keep saying that they aren’t sure if ron paul, little randy, and princess are really racist. well, i’m convinced. while they might not out-and-out hate those of different races, the fact that they don’t really care if those people are hurt by their stances means that they see them as lesser. that’s racist. period.

  5. Can you believe that now, in 2010, we are really discussing SEGREGATION?

    It’s an ugly stain on US history, and now there are people who shrug and want to say it’s not that bad?

    I can’t believe that this is really happening. It’s like the Twilight Zone, only with worse dialogue.

    • i’m not surprised we’re still discussing segregation, but i’m floored that a candidate from one of the major parties actually spewed such a hateful message and is being supported by supposedly mainstream rethugs.

  6. welcome to 1933…. the gop will do and say anything to get back power.

    this is not the country we grew up with

    and we can thank reagan for all this

    • I really wanted to come to Reagan’s defense on this one, but … well, … you have a point.

      There are people who have moved from Reagan’s 11th commandment, thou shalt not criticize another Republican candidate, to “defend any Republican tooth and nail.”

      Sigh … I hope that Reagan would rethink his commandment in light of what’s happened if he were still around. After all, he worked with Democrats. He did some name-calling and had some harsh rhetoric, but he worked with Tip O’Neill and Tom Foley and such.

      I don’t know …

    • i agree. st. ronnie started the whole government sucks meme. that said, i don’t think he realized it would go to the extremes that it has. of course, he wasn’t exactly a big thinker.

  7. Pingback: Wingnuts and Dolts (via HYSTERICAL RAISINS) « Test Site