Oh. That bad.
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
TPM: They're recounting in Maine (is Romney about to lose another one?)
In relation to this mess, TPM (via Politico) now reports:
The Maine Republican Party is recounting the vote totals from the Maine caucuses which mostly concluded last Saturday when Mitt Romney was declared the winner, reports Politico. Due to a snow storm, Washington County postponed its caucus and will be convening this Saturday to complete it. The state GOP has come under fire from Ron Paul supporters for declaring Romney the winner before all voting was completed.
Rachel asks...just what the hell is going on in Maine?!? (VIDEO)
Both videos for your viewing...confusion:
Tuesday Night:
Wednesday Night:
Tuesday Night:
Wednesday Night:
Friday, January 27, 2012
Capping off a busy week in GOP racism: Ron Paul. Willing AND Stupid?
Here we go...again. First Jenny Sanford, then Rick Santorum, Chris Christie, Jan Brewer, and certainly not forgetting Newt "Food Stamps" Gingrich...
Thus, I give you...today's Washington Post:
And...
And...
No, I suppose you wouldn't.
Andrew Sullivan, in serious slinging bullshit mode:
Ta-Neishi Coates (written before Sullivan):
Let me provide answer Mr. Sullivan's "question":
Now, Mr. Coates, can write his own response, but the answer is yes, provided Mr. Coates, me and rest of the black community were convinced RFK had not changed, that he was, deep down, hostile to African-Americans (or in the parlance of the time: Negroes). When RFK emerged from McCarthy's shadow, blacks were wary of him, but he eventually came out from under that cloud through good works, and more to the point, good deeds. He came out of that cloud enough so that Mother to the day she died, would almost burst into tears just thinking about 1968.
Ron Paul, through his own actions, and the actions and statements of his son Rand, remains racially hostile (at the very least racially suspect) to African-Americans, with their combined statements against the Civil Rights Act, and Lunch-Counters being a matter of "defending property", and not as a matter of Human Rights, etc.
Simply put, yes, Ron Paul is saying some stuff in front of GOP Debate Audiences, and that seems to be the limit of what he's willing to do. He's said some equally onerous things about race in recent memory that make us believe that the Ron Paul from the 1990s has not changed one damn bit.
Thus, I give you...today's Washington Post:
Ron Paul, well known as a physician, congressman and libertarian , has also been a businessman who pursued a marketing strategy that included publishing provocative, racially charged newsletters to make money and spread his ideas, according to three people with direct knowledge of Paul’s businesses.
The Republican presidential candidate has denied writing inflammatory passages in the pamphlets from the 1990s and said recently that he did not read them at the time or for years afterward. Numerous colleagues said he does not hold racist views.
But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.
“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.
And...
In the past, Paul has taken responsibility for the passages because they were published under his name. But last month, he told CNN that he was unaware at the time of the controversial passages. “I’ve never read that stuff. I’ve never read — I came — was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written.’’ Paul said.
A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.
“It was playing on a growing racial tension, economic tension, fear of government,’’ said the person, who supports Paul’s economic policies but is not backing him for president. “I’m not saying Ron believed this stuff. It was good copy. Ron Paul is a shrewd businessman.’’
The articles included racial, anti-Semitic and anti-gay content. They claimed, for example, that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. “seduced underage girls and boys’’; they ridiculed black activists by suggesting that New York be named “Zooville” or “Lazyopolis”; and they said the 1992 Los Angeles riots ended “when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.’’ The June 1990 edition of the Ron Paul Political Report included the statement: “Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”
It is unclear precisely how much money Paul made from his newsletters, but during the years he was publishing them, he reduced his debts and substantially increased his net worth, according to his congressional and presidential disclosure reports. In 1984, he reported debt of up to $765,000, most of which was gone by 1995, when he reported a net worth of up to $3.3 million. Last year, he reported a net worth up to $5.2 million.
The newsletters bore his name in large print and featured articles on topics ranging from investment advice to political commentary. Frequently written in first person, they contained personalized notes, such as holiday greetings from Paul and his wife, Carol.
And...
Hathway, the former Ron Paul & Associates secretary, said: “We had tons of subscribers, from all over the world. . . . I never had one complaint’’ about the content.
No, I suppose you wouldn't.
Andrew Sullivan, in serious slinging bullshit mode:
I cannot and will not defend the newsletters. And Paul's apparent lies about his involvement make the matter worse. And I don't think Paul is the "best vehicle" for advancing the ideas TNC cites. He's a very flawed vehicle, like most politicians and human beings. And I corrected immediately the record on the MLK holiday.
But when Paul has said what he has said in these debates, when he has walked into the lion's den of a GOP primary and attacked the criminal justice system for racial bias, lacerated the war on drugs, and cut to the core of the delusions behind American global aggression, he deserves to be judged on his recent history as well as his increasingly distant past. His message that more liberty makes diversity more possible is a vital one.
Would TNC have excoriated Robert F Kennedy in 1968 as someone who could not possibly channel progressive ideas because he was once a hatchetman for Joe McCarthy?
I acknowledge this newsletter incident is ugly, indefensible and, above all, cynical. I don't think it is all that matters in the remarkable late career of congressman Paul. And that hunting for heretics rather than celebrating converts is a losing political strategy.
Ta-Neishi Coates (written before Sullivan):
If you believe that a character who would conspire to profit off of white supremacy, anti-gay bigotry, and anti-Semitism is the best vehicle for convincing the country to end the drug war, to end our romance with interventionism, to encourage serious scrutiny of state violence, at every level, then you should be honest enough to defend that proposition.
What you should not do is claim that Ron Paul "legislated" for Martin Luther King Day, or claim to have intricate knowledge of Ron Paul's heart, and thus by the harsh accumulation of evidence, be made to look ridiculous.
Let me provide answer Mr. Sullivan's "question":
Would TNC have excoriated Robert F Kennedy in 1968 as someone who could not possibly channel progressive ideas because he was once a hatchetman for Joe McCarthy?
Now, Mr. Coates, can write his own response, but the answer is yes, provided Mr. Coates, me and rest of the black community were convinced RFK had not changed, that he was, deep down, hostile to African-Americans (or in the parlance of the time: Negroes). When RFK emerged from McCarthy's shadow, blacks were wary of him, but he eventually came out from under that cloud through good works, and more to the point, good deeds. He came out of that cloud enough so that Mother to the day she died, would almost burst into tears just thinking about 1968.
Ron Paul, through his own actions, and the actions and statements of his son Rand, remains racially hostile (at the very least racially suspect) to African-Americans, with their combined statements against the Civil Rights Act, and Lunch-Counters being a matter of "defending property", and not as a matter of Human Rights, etc.
Simply put, yes, Ron Paul is saying some stuff in front of GOP Debate Audiences, and that seems to be the limit of what he's willing to do. He's said some equally onerous things about race in recent memory that make us believe that the Ron Paul from the 1990s has not changed one damn bit.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Rick Santorum: Blind, Stupid and Willing... (VIDEO)
Here we go again.
If you want to know what I think about this, allow me to modify [somewhat] my blog post where I attacked Jenny Sanford for doing this exact same thing.
When you provide cover for the racism of others, as [Rick Santorum] does in that video? Well, you're either blind, stupid or willing. [Rick Santorum] isnotstupid. I think its too late in the day for anyone to be that blind as to racial disparity in this country, [but Santorum may be an exception.]
So that only leaves willing...someone willingly blind. And if you're willingly blind, if you're not willing to make and effort to see what's going on, what else am I to think of you?
Friday, January 20, 2012
Gingrich and Santorum are not the only racists in the GOP (Jenny Sanford anyone?) (VIDEO)
I watched this interview with Jenny Sanford, curious about what she had to say about Newt Gingrich. Now I’m never going to be curious about anything she has to say ever again.
There’s no other way to put this, but Jenny Sanford is a racist. I wish she wasn’t, but there it is. She’s a Southern Belle, who herself is the privileged daughter of other Southern Belles, who apparently thinks African-Americans like me been making all this Racism stuff up these last three hundred and fifty years.
To have Chris Matthews show her the video tape of Newt Gingrich actually being thanked for "putting Juan Williams in his place", and to have her say there was nothing wrong with that, that all this dog-whistle talk is a media fabrication, speaks volumes for her lack of character.
Actually, no it doesn’t. It tells me, plainly and simply, she’s a racist.
The big problem that exists in America today is that too many (mostly White) Americans think that one only meets the definition of racism if you're buring a cross on someone's lawn, and doing it when you're wearing a sheet over your head.
Not so. I see evidence of racism in small ways in everyday life, committed by people who if asked, even quiet rooms where such things are discussed, will insist that they're not racist.
But clutch your bag a little tighter in the elevator when a black man walks in? Follow around young black men in the store? Assume because of my Skin Color that I can't qualify for credit or a loan? These are judgments and actions being taken on the basis of my skin color.
And when you provide cover for the racism of others, as Jenny Sanford does in that video? Well, you're either blind, stupid or willing. Jenny Sanford is not stupid. I think its too late in the day for anyone to be that blind as to racial disparity in this country.
So that only leaves willing...someone willingly blind. And if you're willingly blind, if you're not willing to make and effort to see what's going on, what else am I to think of you?
Now, if you are a White Republican, and have a problem with what I'm saying. What can I say, but @#$^ off. I'm African-American. I know what racism is, you don't. I know what the dog-whistles sound like, you don't.
I get to judge what offends me, you don't.
You want another Dog Whistle? James Fallows of Atlantic Monthly (rightly) took Newt to task for his racial coding. Here's what an angry reader sent to him:
See that? Same mentality as Jenny Sanford.
And yes, that was racist, too.
Fallows promptly ripped the reader to shreds:
And what am I supposed to think of people who deny that what Newt is doing is being done on purpose?
Now the good news is that people get it. People (mostly notably, a lot of White people, like Fallows) are calling this stuff for what it is. Nothing makes me happier.
But clearly, Newt Gingrich, Rick "Blah People" Santorum, Jenny Sanford and this douchebag who wrote in to Fallows are not the only racists in the Republican Party or Conservative set. My problem is that within the party of Lincoln, the cancer is growing.
(By the way, you did notice we haven't even touched on the racist crap Ron Paul's done, right?)
I have known and continue to know a lot of Republicans in my life. The Republicans I know are primarily Eisenhower-style, Small Government, Fiscally Conservative, yet Socially Liberal types. Yes, they are out there...
...but they’re also out there providing cover for the racists that are out there, and now it is their silence that is starting to speak volumes to me.
You want more examples? How about this?
Or this from December of 2011?
Okay, so maybe that last one wasn't code so much.
Don't joke with us. We know the codes. Stop using them, or get called out for what you really are.
There’s no other way to put this, but Jenny Sanford is a racist. I wish she wasn’t, but there it is. She’s a Southern Belle, who herself is the privileged daughter of other Southern Belles, who apparently thinks African-Americans like me been making all this Racism stuff up these last three hundred and fifty years.
To have Chris Matthews show her the video tape of Newt Gingrich actually being thanked for "putting Juan Williams in his place", and to have her say there was nothing wrong with that, that all this dog-whistle talk is a media fabrication, speaks volumes for her lack of character.
Actually, no it doesn’t. It tells me, plainly and simply, she’s a racist.
The big problem that exists in America today is that too many (mostly White) Americans think that one only meets the definition of racism if you're buring a cross on someone's lawn, and doing it when you're wearing a sheet over your head.
Not so. I see evidence of racism in small ways in everyday life, committed by people who if asked, even quiet rooms where such things are discussed, will insist that they're not racist.
But clutch your bag a little tighter in the elevator when a black man walks in? Follow around young black men in the store? Assume because of my Skin Color that I can't qualify for credit or a loan? These are judgments and actions being taken on the basis of my skin color.
And when you provide cover for the racism of others, as Jenny Sanford does in that video? Well, you're either blind, stupid or willing. Jenny Sanford is not stupid. I think its too late in the day for anyone to be that blind as to racial disparity in this country.
So that only leaves willing...someone willingly blind. And if you're willingly blind, if you're not willing to make and effort to see what's going on, what else am I to think of you?
Now, if you are a White Republican, and have a problem with what I'm saying. What can I say, but @#$^ off. I'm African-American. I know what racism is, you don't. I know what the dog-whistles sound like, you don't.
I get to judge what offends me, you don't.
You want another Dog Whistle? James Fallows of Atlantic Monthly (rightly) took Newt to task for his racial coding. Here's what an angry reader sent to him:
Many times you present your perspective fairly, but in today's footnote comments about the South Carolina debate in your Final on Huntsman blog posting, one of two things is apparent. Neither alternative reflects well upon you.
You cited as a "dog whistle" Newt Gingrich's comment that Obama is "the food stamp President". By calling that a dog whistle you are dog whistling to your own constituencies about how terrible and racist those evil Republicans are.
You should certainly be aware that Newt Gingrich and other Republican candidates have many times in recent months made the argument that President Obama's administration has resulted in record numbers of Americans receiving food stamps, while record numbers of Americans are unable to find jobs. They then promise policies that will result in more jobs and fewer people needing food stamps as employment improves. They may make the point as well that it is more personally uplifting to feed one's family as a result of holding employment, than it is to be dependent on food stamp assistance.
Alternative one is that James Fallows is ignorant of this argument or fails to see that it might resonate with people of all races who hope to support themselves in the job market. That would imply an obtuseness that other evidence does not support.
Alternative two is that James Fallows understands this formulation but pretends not to for the specific purpose of unfairly accusing its proponents of racism. Given that the distribution of food stamp assistance is broadly represented among whites, Latinos, and blacks in America, even if the argument were "nobody should be receiving food stamps", which it clearly isn't, where is the racial viciousness supposed to come from? The ugly smearing appears to be coming from this hypothetical James Fallows alternative two.
Look, there are plenty of cultural, aesthetic, and policy issues you may have with the Republican South Carolina campaign. It might be wise to confine your arguments to those real differences rather than smearing people for slurs they do not make.
See that? Same mentality as Jenny Sanford.
And yes, that was racist, too.
Fallows promptly ripped the reader to shreds:
Here is a third alternative, the one I believe: that Newt Gingrich knows exactly what he is doing when he calls Obama the "food stamp" president, just as Ronald Reagan knew exactly what he was doing when talking about "welfare Cadillacs." There are lots of other ways to make the point about economic hard times -- entirely apart from which person and which policies are to blame for today's mammoth joblessness, and apart from the fact that Congress sets food stamp policies. You could call him the "pink slip president," the "foreclosure president," the "Walmart president," the "Wall Street president," the "Citibank president," the "bailout president," or any of a dozen other images that convey distress. You decide to go with "the food stamp president," and you're doing it on purpose.
And what am I supposed to think of people who deny that what Newt is doing is being done on purpose?
Now the good news is that people get it. People (mostly notably, a lot of White people, like Fallows) are calling this stuff for what it is. Nothing makes me happier.
But clearly, Newt Gingrich, Rick "Blah People" Santorum, Jenny Sanford and this douchebag who wrote in to Fallows are not the only racists in the Republican Party or Conservative set. My problem is that within the party of Lincoln, the cancer is growing.
(By the way, you did notice we haven't even touched on the racist crap Ron Paul's done, right?)
I have known and continue to know a lot of Republicans in my life. The Republicans I know are primarily Eisenhower-style, Small Government, Fiscally Conservative, yet Socially Liberal types. Yes, they are out there...
...but they’re also out there providing cover for the racists that are out there, and now it is their silence that is starting to speak volumes to me.
You want more examples? How about this?
Or this from December of 2011?
Okay, so maybe that last one wasn't code so much.
Don't joke with us. We know the codes. Stop using them, or get called out for what you really are.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
TPM: Rep. Ron Paul: "Education is Not a Right" (VIDEO)
You can vote for who you want to, but this is who you're dealing with:
No one has a right to anyone's wealth, I don't have a right to come to you and say my poor kid needs 500 dollars for an education, an education is not a right, medical care is not a right.-Ron PaulToday
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
You do know that the Federal Reserve has turned 80.9 Billion dollar profit, right?
First caught by Ezra.
By the way, in case you couldn't tell by now, I'm not much of a Ron Paul supporter. I don't like the guy. I don't trust the guy. I think he's a racist. I don't buy his bull@#$% about the Gold Standard. I generally understand what the role of the Federal Reserve is, but don't ask me to write a paper on it. I've heard of the Panic of 1907 (a.k.a., the Financial Crisis everyone in America would still be talking about if it wasn't for that Great Depression thing).
So when I saw this story in the Financial Times (not exactly a stronghold of Liberal thought), I was...you know...pleased!
By the way, in case you couldn't tell by now, I'm not much of a Ron Paul supporter. I don't like the guy. I don't trust the guy. I think he's a racist. I don't buy his bull@#$% about the Gold Standard. I generally understand what the role of the Federal Reserve is, but don't ask me to write a paper on it. I've heard of the Panic of 1907 (a.k.a., the Financial Crisis everyone in America would still be talking about if it wasn't for that Great Depression thing).
So when I saw this story in the Financial Times (not exactly a stronghold of Liberal thought), I was...you know...pleased!
US Federal Reserve turns $80.9bn profit
By Robin Harding in Washington
Published: January 10 2011 18:04 | Last updated: January 10 2011 18:04
The US Federal Reserve made a record profit of $80.9bn in 2010 and sent $78.4bn to the US Treasury as income poured in from its programme of quantitative easing.
The figures show how the financial crisis has turned the Fed into the most profitable bank in history, earning income of $88.1bn in 2010 but paying only $2.7bn in interest and $4.3bn in operating expenses.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Rep. Ron Paul is a blithering idiot. (VIDEO)
Sorry, I take that back. Calling Ron Paul a blithering idiot would give blithering idiots a bad name.
I wouldn't trust Dr. Ron Paul give me first aid. It's probably a safe bet that if you go to his son, the Senator from Kentucky, you'd probably go blind.
The following should serve as testament once and for all about this man's complete inability to understand even the most basic of economic concepts. Thank you Stephen Colbert, you may have done as big a service as Jon's recent efforts to get the 9/11 Health Bill passed. You exposed Ron Paul as a fraud.
Problem is, most people (especially his supporters) don't know it, or won't acknowledge it.
Well, watch the two clips...and learn something.
I was only pissed off at New York Times writer David Leonardht for not just cutting to the chase and calling Rep. Paul a @#$%ing moron to his face.
Did Rep. Paul really suggest utilizing Gold "Certificates" to represent how much gold you have?
And the difference between than the Federal Reserve Notes (Dollar Bills) in your pocket is...what exactly??
Don't expect an answer. Ron Paul's got his ideology...that and a room temperature IQ.
I wouldn't trust Dr. Ron Paul give me first aid. It's probably a safe bet that if you go to his son, the Senator from Kentucky, you'd probably go blind.
The following should serve as testament once and for all about this man's complete inability to understand even the most basic of economic concepts. Thank you Stephen Colbert, you may have done as big a service as Jon's recent efforts to get the 9/11 Health Bill passed. You exposed Ron Paul as a fraud.
Problem is, most people (especially his supporters) don't know it, or won't acknowledge it.
Well, watch the two clips...and learn something.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Gold Faithful | ||||
| ||||
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Gold Faithful - Ron Paul & David Leonhardt<a> | ||||
| ||||
I was only pissed off at New York Times writer David Leonardht for not just cutting to the chase and calling Rep. Paul a @#$%ing moron to his face.
Did Rep. Paul really suggest utilizing Gold "Certificates" to represent how much gold you have?
And the difference between than the Federal Reserve Notes (Dollar Bills) in your pocket is...what exactly??
Don't expect an answer. Ron Paul's got his ideology...that and a room temperature IQ.
Friday, May 21, 2010
So, my opinion doesn't count in this Rand Paul business?
Yesterday, thanks to Rand Paul, we received proof positive that the rotten racist apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.
I am of course speaking of Rand Paul’s not-necessarily disastrous decision to advocate for the repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
I say not-necessarily, because this is still Kentucky we're talking about. Not the most racist state in the Union (too many nominees to mention), but just about as racist as they come.
Mr. Paul's racism has, of course, generated a lot of chatter on the TeeVee, and in the blogosphere. In most cases, a lot of journalists went out of their way to say that Rand Paul was not a racist. Ezra Klein's post is but one example. There are more.
Why? Because he said so.
That was from the Maddow interview of May 19th.
Guess that takes care of that.
If this douchebag is going to so casually throw my rights (as an African-American) under the bus to serve his ideological aims, while his remain intact (what a coincidence), how does that not make him a racist?
Put another way, a better way by Adam Serwer (first highlighted by Ezra Klein):
But, there is another thing that has bothered me about this debate.
Where are the African-Americans? I mean, it's not like we don't have an opinion on this thing.
For some reason, the debate about Rand Paul, about his beliefs, about his racism, has happened exclusively in the province of white people.
That’s not to say that white people don’t have a say in this matter (in fact, some of my best friends are white people). But they are only half of the equation in any discussion about race in America. Worse still, they are not exactly experts when in comes to suffering under racism. (Though a some are experts at dishing it out.)
Sorry, fellow Liberals. I’m not trying to insult you, I’m just reflecting an honest truth. I know you hate racism. I know you will act against it whenever it’s identified for you. But any expertise you have comes from the outside looking in. You don’t live it like I do, or any African-American does.
It’s the same way I viscerally hate Anti-Semitism, from my gut. Still, I have to acknowledge that any Jew anywhere is better suited to speak to the issue than I am.
Following that, in a discussion about the harm Public and Private Institutions can inflict upon American Citizens of color, and the Government’s role in ending that harm, why weren’t there any African-American (people who are the authority on this kind of harm) on the TeeVee??
Yeah, we had Jim Clyburn. Twice. Both times on MSNBC. Once on Andrea, once on Keith.
That’s it?
Not that Jim Clyburn didn’t hit it out of the park, he did. He was great. He spoke for me, word for word.
But come on, you’re trying to tell me there weren’t more Black people who could talk about this?
Eugene Robinson? (MSNBC Regular)
Melissa Harris-Lacewell? (MSNBC Regular)
LeBron James? (It's not like he hasn't been in the news).
Tiger Wo--
Yeah, you're right. Scratch that. Bad idea.
It wasn’t until Rachel Maddow (who started his mess by taking an oft-reported local story and putting on said TeeVee) interviewed Benjamin Jealous of the NAACP that we had another black person talking about the subject.
Child, please.
Listen, it’s bad enough that you have a segment of the population desirous to go back to the “bad old days”. It’s bad enough that a moment of true racial transcendence (the election of the first black President) has become mired in an explosion of racial divisiveness.
But is it too much to ask, that if you have a discussion about race in America that we be a part of it?
Leaving African-Americans out may be the most offensive thing about all this.
I am of course speaking of Rand Paul’s not-necessarily disastrous decision to advocate for the repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I say not-necessarily, because this is still Kentucky we're talking about. Not the most racist state in the Union (too many nominees to mention), but just about as racist as they come.
Mr. Paul's racism has, of course, generated a lot of chatter on the TeeVee, and in the blogosphere. In most cases, a lot of journalists went out of their way to say that Rand Paul was not a racist. Ezra Klein's post is but one example. There are more.
Why? Because he said so.
But with regard to racism, I don't believe in any racism. I don‘t think we should have any government racism, any institutional form of racism.
That was from the Maddow interview of May 19th.
Guess that takes care of that.
If this douchebag is going to so casually throw my rights (as an African-American) under the bus to serve his ideological aims, while his remain intact (what a coincidence), how does that not make him a racist?
Put another way, a better way by Adam Serwer (first highlighted by Ezra Klein):
Paul's defenders will argue -- as conservatives did with Barry Goldwater -- that Paul himself is not a racist. Indeed, Paul said he finds racism abhorrent and would not frequent a segregated business. And Paul rather incoherently defended his position as being "the hard part about believing in freedom." This is a key statement because it rather poignantly expresses the utter selfishness at the heart of Paul's argument against the Civil Rights Act.
Paul would never face the actual "hard part" of his vision of freedom, because it would never interfere with his own life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Rand Paul would not have been turned away from a lunch counter, be refused a home, a job, or denied a loan, or told to sit in the black car of a train because of his skin color, or because of the skin color of his spouse. Paul thinks there is something "hard" about defending the kind of discrimination he would have never, ever faced. Paul's free-market fundamentalism is being expressed after decades of social transformation that the Civil Rights Act helped create, and so the hell of segregation is but a mere abstraction, difficult to remember and easy to dismiss as belonging only to its time. It's much easier now to say that "the market would handle it." But it didn't, and it wouldn't.
But, there is another thing that has bothered me about this debate.
Where are the African-Americans? I mean, it's not like we don't have an opinion on this thing.
For some reason, the debate about Rand Paul, about his beliefs, about his racism, has happened exclusively in the province of white people.
That’s not to say that white people don’t have a say in this matter (in fact, some of my best friends are white people). But they are only half of the equation in any discussion about race in America. Worse still, they are not exactly experts when in comes to suffering under racism. (Though a some are experts at dishing it out.)
Sorry, fellow Liberals. I’m not trying to insult you, I’m just reflecting an honest truth. I know you hate racism. I know you will act against it whenever it’s identified for you. But any expertise you have comes from the outside looking in. You don’t live it like I do, or any African-American does.
It’s the same way I viscerally hate Anti-Semitism, from my gut. Still, I have to acknowledge that any Jew anywhere is better suited to speak to the issue than I am.
Following that, in a discussion about the harm Public and Private Institutions can inflict upon American Citizens of color, and the Government’s role in ending that harm, why weren’t there any African-American (people who are the authority on this kind of harm) on the TeeVee??
Yeah, we had Jim Clyburn. Twice. Both times on MSNBC. Once on Andrea, once on Keith.
That’s it?
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Not that Jim Clyburn didn’t hit it out of the park, he did. He was great. He spoke for me, word for word.
But come on, you’re trying to tell me there weren’t more Black people who could talk about this?
Eugene Robinson? (MSNBC Regular)
Melissa Harris-Lacewell? (MSNBC Regular)
LeBron James? (It's not like he hasn't been in the news).
Tiger Wo--
Yeah, you're right. Scratch that. Bad idea.
It wasn’t until Rachel Maddow (who started his mess by taking an oft-reported local story and putting on said TeeVee) interviewed Benjamin Jealous of the NAACP that we had another black person talking about the subject.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Child, please.
Listen, it’s bad enough that you have a segment of the population desirous to go back to the “bad old days”. It’s bad enough that a moment of true racial transcendence (the election of the first black President) has become mired in an explosion of racial divisiveness.
But is it too much to ask, that if you have a discussion about race in America that we be a part of it?
Leaving African-Americans out may be the most offensive thing about all this.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Nate Silver: These were Ron Paul Rallies???
I think there's something to this. And knowing a bit about Ron Paul's background, the racism doesn't surprise me either.
Actually, I disagree with Nate on one part. A lot of these people do think the President is out to hand over the country to the Terrorists.
I didn’t wander down to the Capitol and National Mall on Saturday because I’m nursing a bum ankle from a spill I took playing pickup hoops. But I wish had been able to go, and I further wish I had developed even a crude survey instrument to administer to protesters. What I would have asked them is one, simple question, “Whom did you support in last year’s Republican primaries?”
My suspicion is there would be an unusually high number of people replying, "Ron Paul."
...
...strip away the angry rhetoric and easily-mocked signs to listen to what people are complaining about--and, perhaps more tellingly, what they are not complaining about--and the protesters sound eerily Paulesque. They are complaining about government intrusion: oppressive use of government (czars!), too much intervention in personal lives and markets (death panels!), long-term debt obligations (where will the money come from?!), and the proper role of the federal government (it's all so unconstitutional!)--that is, they fret that Obama is going to destroy America and American values from within. What the vast majority do not seem to be complaining about, so far as I can tell, is how the Administration is fighting and managing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or its overall security and intelligence posture--that is, they don't seem too worried that Obama is going to let America be destroyed from the outside.
Granted, a plausible explanation for a general absence of defense or foreign policy critiques is that the national conversation right now is focused squarely on health care coverage, deficits and debt, and domestic policy more generally. It may well be that if I poked a Saturday protester in DC he or she would have had something critical to say about Obama’s foreign and defense policies, too. Still, it's interesting to consider the possibility that the town halls of Summer 2009 are a rekindled version of Ron Paul rallies in 2007 and 2008. And one of the reasons I suspect this is the nature of the fervor itself--its tenor, its intensity, its certainty, and especially its language.
Actually, I disagree with Nate on one part. A lot of these people do think the President is out to hand over the country to the Terrorists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)