Saturday, May 22, 2010

What the Hell Was Rand Paul Doing On MSNBC?

Joe Scarborough asks the most obvious question surrounding the whole Rand Paul affair. As I wrote at the time, you can't even debate nuanced states-rights positions with radical leftists, much less Rachel Maddow, who's basically a kook netroots blogger with her own television gig:
I'm not sure how Dr. Paul prevails here. I do know that it takes either a tremendous amount of courage or a tremendous amount of stupidity to take such a firm yet thoughtful stand on the left's signature bludgeon of political demonology.

And check the interesting roundup from Max Fischer, by the way, "Rand Paul Inspires Debate on Barry Goldwater's Legacy." As many have noted, this is a deeply intellectually --- honestly intellectual --- political debate. Indeed, that's why David Weigel has stood firm in his defense of Rand Paul (with links). I'm a big fan of Goldwater too, much more so than Rand Paul, because Goldwater was a firm advocate for a robust national defense. Frankly, I doubt I'd ever vote for Paul given his disastrous libertarian isolationism.

Interesting, in any case.

RELATED: From Lisa Graas, "Louisville Tea Party Organizers Defend Rand Paul."

3 comments:

Old Rebel said...

"I doubt I'd ever vote for Paul given his disastrous libertarian isolationism."

This is bizarre.

For one thing, assuming by "isolationism" you mean he's anti-war, RP in fact supports the war in Afghanistan. He insists on a formal declaration of war, as well as a time-line, but he is on record as supporting it.

But the rest of the implication here is just too-other worldly. Despite the gruesome waste of lives and dollars, these wars have made us less secure and the ME less stable. The fault lines caused by these wars are spreading chaos in both regions, and Afghanistan is shaping up to be a major defeat.

Paul DID run on an anti-Patriot Act platform, and promised not to launch a war of aggression against Iran, and the voters responded. Popular opposition to the Neocon Wars is what put Obama in the White House. Thanks a bunch for that!

Donald Douglas said...

"Despite the gruesome waste of lives and dollars, these wars have made us less secure and the ME less stable."

Blaming America again? That's why I don't support you paleo freaks. We're not less secure and the Middle East is not less stable, but of course I rely on much more informed sources.

Old Rebel said...

Whoa! You cite a Neocon think tank to defend Neoconservatism?

Another masterful move.

In fact, the article you link to does a good job of attacking a straw man: "In the following years, their trajectory was generally seen as a short-lived aberration, a rapid rise and fall ending in the failure that was the Iraq intervention, discrediting once and for all their idealistic militarism. In other words, neoconservatives are now seen as something of the past."

Of course the "idealistic militarism" pushed by Neocons is very much alive. That's why small-government conservatives are alarmed by the Obama regime. Check out Obama's Neocon address to the cadets at West Point, and you'll see what I mean.