Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Why is Rand Paul Running Muslim-Baiting Attack Ads?

By Alex Seitz-Wald


Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul has worked hard to distance himself from his party’s hawkish foreign policy, carefully cultivating an image as libertarian hero that may one day carry on the legacy — and potentially presidential ambitions — of his father, Rep. Ron Paul. He goes out of his way to criticize his party’s foreign policy, writing an Op-Ed on CNN.com last week attacking Mitt Romney’s “bellicose[ness]” in the Middle East during the debate. Paul has railed against military interventionism, vowed to cut the defense budget, called for a reduction in military bases overseas and otherwise alienated himself from the party’s powerful neoconservative wing as much as possible.

But there’s one area where Paul’s self-described libertarian freedom agenda is trumped by the ugliest type of neoconservative fear-mongering: Muslim-baiting. RandPAC, Paul’s political committee, is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars attacking three Democratic senators for voting for foreign aid to Muslim countries. Paul introduced a bill to cut off foreign aid to Egypt, Pakistan and Libya.  While there are some totally valid arguments supporting his bill, instead of making them, the commercials go for the nastiest attack possible, essentially accusing Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Bill Nelson of Florida and Sherrod Brown of Ohio of siding with jihadis and terrorists over Americans.

“Instead of putting hard-working West Virginians first, you voted to send billions of taxpayer dollars to nations where they shout ‘death to America,’ kill our Ambassador and allow radical Islamists to burn our embassies,” a petition on the RandPAC website accompanying the Manchin ad reads. “As one of your constituents, I demand that you start putting the interest of American taxpayers above those of Anti-American regimes and radical jihadists overseas.”

The ad was vicious enough that Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham crossed party lines to defend Manchin. “I’m sorry that my colleague Sen. Rand Paul felt that he needed to get involved and has gotten involved,” Graham said on a conference call with reporters. That comment drew a quick rebuke from Paul, who accused Graham of “supporting a Democrat in a general election.”

But there seems to be a pattern here: When Muslims come into the picture, Paul’s laissez-faire politics go out the window. Paul — whose championship of private-property rights has led him to oppose even the Americans With Disability Act — didn’t support the right of Muslims to build an Islamic community center in lower Manhattan near ground zero.

Read the rest here.

21 comments:

  1. His point is being taken out of context. He would, as a libertarian, remove all foreign aid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree....there are two seperate issues at play...one being Rand the totalitarian with Neocon tendencies...and the other where he is against foreign aid(which is the correct view).

      The problem is the article/write up is mixed up and not coherent.

      As we see Rand Paul become even more idealogically confused(which I thought was impossible) it becomes harder to tell what his stances are...but you can see from later quotes in the write up his totalitarian, pro-state tendencies even though he's right on the issue of foreign aid.

      Now that Rand is unmasking his real viewpoints(and their inconsistency) it will be easy for anyone with an agenda(like Seitz-Wald) to further confuse things so they fit an agenda.

      Delete
    2. @Matt Hulsey: "He would, as a libertarian, remove all foreign aid" seems to imply that Rand Paul is a libertarian, instead of a conservative with libertarian sympathies.

      The issue is not that his point is being taken out of context, but that his point is expressly being taken IN context - that his context for removing foreign aid is not from an appeal to principle (let's get our own house in order; we'll encourage private organizations to donate time and money; we want any money going to regular people there, not just the government lackeys; we cannot justify giving even good "friends" of the government money that is already being loaned to the US in the first place; we'd rather encourage the people with good will, than risk being caught - again - in an embarrassing bribery scandal; we feel uncomfortable giving funding to a government that seems willing to use it to attack us and our allies) but from the most emotionally unstable perspective possible.

      On the other hand, if Sen. Paul tried to put in a blanket "don't give money to nations that attack US interests or US military not actively fighting anywhere." we might have to stop giving money to the State of Israel. Hmm, now there's a dilemma...(end sarcasm)

      Delete
    3. Rand Paul is not a libertarian, a free-market-private property capitalist, nor a non-interventionist. He's just another unprincipled political hack and an opportunist. He was probably also placed here by extraterrestrials just to annoy the hell out of us. Oh, well.

      Delete
  2. Wow.... what a terribly written article. Once Lindsey Graham's name popped into it, I knew Rand was doing something right.

    Hmmmm, what is really creepy is that Salon.com & Sen. Graham seem to be have some common ground. Whew... almost want to throw up thinking about that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. “Instead of putting hard-working West Virginians first, you voted to send billions of taxpayer dollars to nations where they shout ‘death to America,’ kill our Ambassador and allow radical Islamists to burn our embassies,”

    I'm no fan of the untrustworthy Rand Paul, but i fail to see what is factually wrong with the above.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What a crappy, ill-premised article. Rand has done some very anti-libertarian things. Duh! He himself said he's not a libertarian. But that article badly misses the mark.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I still have some hope that Rand will see the light, but I can't disagree with the points made by Mr. Seitz-Wald in his article.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't see much of a problem with it as long as he's calling for ending foreign aid and not for more military interventions. A lot of people don't like Muslims so it might be an effective strategy. Politics is by nature a dirty thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. so,you are saying that he is not a truth teller.and will tell people whatever they want to hear as long as it fetches him votes. just awesome and heroic

      Delete
    2. If he has to lie to get the (mostly) good policies through that he does I have no problem with it. Most people have to be lied to.

      Delete
  7. Agree. And anyone annoying supercilious Sen Graham gets a point or two.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rand is a Neocon tool, despite his "libertarian" posturings and inconsistent rhetoric. Rand vs Graham? Kabuki theater.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You have to be a moron not to understand what Rand is trying to do?

    Issue is simple. Cutting foreign aid. But to do this you need to convince people. Since many people are neocon islamaphobes who already hates these people, Rand is framing his message to fit them.

    You can make tons of arguments, for cutting foreign aid, and Rand is using the best one that serves the purpose. Hitting vulnerable democratic senate candidates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice try.

      He's got no problem with "aid," i.e., keeping them on the imperial dole. No, what he's actually proposing is withholding our usual bribe until certain nations "behave themselves." Once they do, the money will start flowing again.

      Note no mention of Israel; if he was really down with cutting or eliminating foreign aid, it would be on that list.

      Delete
  10. First of all, Rand doesn't consider himself as a libertarian. He calls himself a "Constitutional Conservative". People expect him to be just like his father, but in reality he is his own man. He can think and speak for himself. I had a chance to speak with him in Bowling Green and he told me this. The hard facts are simply once Ron Paul retires, he's gone. No one is going to fill those big shoes. There are other Senatorial candidates who are currently running and consider themselves Austrians or at least Free Market economists. One is Dan Bongino in MD. and the other is Kurt Bills in Minnesota.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The more noise about foreign aid and government spending the better. I don't care if our cash muslim, buddhist, christian, or atheists, it's still not justified. Rand Paul is a thorn in the side of the State Dept, just as Ron is to the FED. I would prefer to measure the man by the fruits of his labors, in Rand's case, his voting record.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I highly commend Rand Paul for what you wrongly call his "Muslim-baiting." In reality Paul simply has a handle on Islam, whereas, the author of this, Alex Seitz-Wald, apparently doesn't.

    Islam is ORGANIZED CRIME operating under the guise of religion, and the Quran itself is AN INSTRUMENT OF CRIME. For it commands ALL Muslims [not some or a few of them] to kill, oppress and annihilate all who don't believe as they do.

    See this educational video here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w

    Additionally, each and every right under the Constitution is subject to restraint or forfeiture, if it conflicts with the constitutional rights of others. For example, we all have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness under the Constitution. But if you kill your neighbor because his dog crapped on your lawn, you can lose all those rights.

    So too things like the "Jim Jones kool-aid party" and what the Quran commands are NOT protected under the Constitution. Courts are required to apply the "balancing of the scales" analysis, when opposing sides in a case maintain that they have a right under the Constitution. And the judge must determine WHICH side has the greater claim to "right" under the Constitution and which side would suffer the greatest harm by allowing the opposing side to exercise the right that they claim.

    To put things in perspective, YOU play the judge in the following case, then tell us your verdict:

    Side A alleges it has a right to kill, oppress and annihilate anyone who refuses to believe as they do.

    Side B alleges that they have a right to NOT be killed, oppressed or annihilated.

    So please tell us, WHICH side, side A or side B, would you rule in favor of.

    If you say side A, then you have violated the Constitution. If you say side B, then you have ruled that Islam is NOT a "religion" for 1st Amendment purposes.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I highly commend Rand Paul for having the sense to recognize Islam for what it is:


    Islam is ORGANIZED CRIME operating under the guise of religion, and the Quran itself is AN INSTRUMENT OF CRIME. For it commands ALL Muslims [not some or a few of them] to kill, oppress and annihilate all who don't believe as they do.

    See this educational video here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w

    Additionally, each and every right under the Constitution is subject to restraint or forfeiture, if it conflicts with the constitutional rights of others. For example, we all have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness under the Constitution. But if you kill your neighbor because his dog crapped on your lawn, you can lose all those rights.

    So too things like the "Jim Jones kool-aid party" and what the Quran commands are NOT protected under the Constitution. Courts are required to apply the "balancing of the scales" analysis, when opposing sides in a case maintain that they have a right under the Constitution. And the judge must determine WHICH side has the greater claim to "right" under the Constitution and which side would suffer the greatest harm by allowing the opposing side to exercise the right that they claim.

    To put things in perspective, YOU play the judge in the following case, then tell us your verdict:

    Side A alleges it has a right to kill, oppress and annihilate anyone who refuses to believe as they do.

    Side B alleges that they have a right to NOT be killed, oppressed or annihilated.

    So please tell us, WHICH side, side A or side B, would you rule in favor of.

    If you say side A, then you have violated the Constitution. If you say side B, then you have ruled that Islam is NOT a "religion" for 1st Amendment purposes.

    ReplyDelete
  14. My comment will be visible after approval? HUH?

    You posture yourself as upholders of our freedoms under the Constitution, yet you infringe upon my right of Freedom of Speech?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Douchebag, it's his site. Your "freedom to speak" hasn't been abridged(as is obvious by the fact we can see what you just typed). Even further though, his property rights trump your want to rant non-sensically.

      "Freedom of speech" applies to you bitching to gov't as laid out by the Consitution...not forcing your rants on other people.

      Just remember you can go to another site and say your piece or step away from the keyboard, get some daylight and shout at the top of your lungs unmolested if you own your own place.

      Delete