Rubin, who has been falling all over Rand Paul with praise, of late, is not spreading that praise far and wide. This is how she assesses the DeMint move:
Let me first explain why this is very bad indeed for Heritage. Even DeMint would not claim to be a serious scholar. He is a pol. He’s a pol whose entire style of conservatism – all or nothing, no compromise, no accounting for changes in public habits and opinions — is not true to the tradition of Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk and others. By embracing him, Heritage, to a greater extent than ever before, becomes a political instrument in service of extremism, not a well-respected think tank and source of scholarship. Every individual who works there should take pause and consider whether the reputation of that institution is elevated or diminished by this move. And I would say the same, frankly, if any other non-scholarly pol took that spot.
Now for the U.S. Senate, I am sure many senators on both sides are clicking their heels. DeMint has been a destructive force, threatening to primary colleagues, resisting all deals and offering very little in the way of attainable legislation. He has contributed more than any current senator to the dysfunction of that body.Wow, Rubin obviously doesn't buy into the notion that dysfunction in Congress, little that there is, is probably the only thing saving us from even more serious interference by government in our lives. This leads to the question, "What does she know about Rand Paul that she isn't saying such nasty things about him?"
Of course, the truth is exactly the opposite of what Rublin says. For EPJ readers and other hardcore libertarians, Demint's libertarian credentials probably doesn't much impress. But from Rubin's neoconservative perspective, a "Tea Partier" like Demint taking over at Hertiage is probably seen as a real threat as evidenced by her very nasty attack above. Did she ever say such things about Demint prior to his announcement that he leaving the Senate for Heritage? I seriously doubt it. This attack is calculated.
ReplyDeleteAs for Rand, RW is right about the contrast in treatment. Rand obviously isn't viewed as much of a threat to neoconservatives, and I think some of them such as Rubin see him as a vehicle for the Republican Party to tap into libertarian oriented voters--and, as the 2012 elections showed, the Republican Party desperately needs those voters to win.
If that evil blood soaked harridan hates him so much maybe I should rethink DeMint.
ReplyDeleteRubin obviously wants (even) more legislation.
ReplyDeleteSo much for her "conservatism".
A neocon once again proves that their brand is basically just a sort of right wing, religious version of everything they used to badmouth liberals for. After all, why else attack someone not so likely to swallow whatever the Democrats are shoving down their throats?