Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

[mrbowie]

I think that the state where I have resided for the past 11 years, Kentucky, is now the most embarrassing state in the union.

Thank you Rand Paul, Jim Bunning and Mitch McConnell.

I suppose one might say that Airzona, Utah or Idaho would be on a par with Kentucky, but I for one consider them to be foreign countries anyway!

[jazzcyclist]

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

I think Chris Matthews gave the fairest assessment of Mr. Paul.

http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archiv ... 24143.aspx

[jhc68]

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

I agree, Matthews' evaluation is a good one.
During the Maddow interview Mr. Paul kept insisting that her questions about a business owner's right to refuse admission on the basis or race were hypothetical and made bizarre analogies about the right of customers to tote guns into restaurants. He really talked himself into a corner.

[rasb]

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

I think most of our politicians, particularly those on the far right, would do well to avoid being interviewed by Rachel Maddow and/or Chris Matthews. These are very bright and articulate folks, and the politicans usually end up being chopped liver...

[guru]

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

Another gem by Paul.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2010 ... -American+

[Daisy]

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

His he named after Ayn Rand?

[kuha]

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

I don't think of Paul as "right wing"--the libertarian mindset combines elements of both "right" and "left". I give him a smidgen of credit for philosophical consistency (as Chris Matthews did), but reject his philosophy completely. As far as I can see, his campaign is nothing short of a flaming train wreck. It also points up the impossibility of ANY abstract "philosophical consistency" in the messy, compromised world of real politics.

[jazzcyclist]

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

I think most of our politicians, particularly those on the far right, would do well to avoid being interviewed by Rachel Maddow and/or Chris Matthews. These are very bright and articulate folks, and the politicans usually end up being chopped liver...

I'm a fan of Matthews and Maddow, but in this instance, her line of questioning reminded me a lot of Sean Hannity - "do you still beat your wife?" Paul was trying to speak about his libertarian views in a broad sense and Maddow kept trying to get a sound-bite out of the interview by talking about beating up folks at lunch counters. It would be like asking a gun control advocate, "do you want to prevent Black folks from buying guns"? If Paul had answered the narrowly parsed yes-or-no question that Maddow posed, his Democratic opponent would be using that video clip in TV commercials for the next six months. Of course the TV executives love that kind of partisan-opinionated TV since it produces better ratings, and as Roger Ailles said recently, "it's all about the money".

However, I think we all would have been better served if Maddow had explained to the neophyte politician Paul the dangers of not putting any limits on our individual freedoms. The courts decided long ago that in certain instances, it was okay to impinge on one person's constitutional rights in order to protect another person's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Are laws making it illegal to incite riots or watch child porn a violation of our 1st Amendment rights? Yes. Is the government violating a private gas station owner's 5th Amendment rights when it forces him/her to make the restrooms available to Black folks? Absolutely. Nevertheless, I think even the most hard-core libertarians would agree with a little less freedom in these situations.

[jazzcyclist]

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

It also points up the impossibility of ANY abstract "philosophical consistency" in the messy, compromised world of real politics.

Amen! Paul has the mindset of a college philosophy professor, who can afford to be ideologically pure, instead of a U.S. Senator who must compromise his/her ideology and balance it with pragmatism. Even his father, who was ideologically opposed to the Afghanistan War because he believes the War Powers Act is unstitutional, was pragmatic enough to vote to authorize Bush to launch the "War on Terror" anyway.

[jazzcyclist]

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

Another gem by Paul.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2010 ... -American+

I agree with Paul that Obama did do some grandstanding a few days ago, but I wouldn't call it un-American.

[kuha]

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

Nevertheless, I think even the most hard-core libertarians would agree with a little less freedom in these situations.

Good stuff, jazz, thanks.

On your last point, however, I can't be all that confident. "Hard-core" folks seem to ignore the fact that we must always balance liberties--or virtues--in a dynamic, pluralistic society. It is not usually a matter of "good vs. bad" ideas, but often of competing "goods," of different interpretations of "good." (See, for example, the writings of Isaiah Berlin.) As I understand it, I reject what I take to be Paul's notion that individual liberties should routinely outweigh a broader interpretation of the public good, or, if you will, of "collective liberties." It must always be a balancing act, and a process of informed, humane compromise.

[Mighty Favog]

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

I'm not quite ready to accept Rand Paul as a "pure" libertarian, considering his views on same-sex marriage and abortion (not gonna get this thread deleted by identifying them, you can look 'em up yourself). But I'll defer to my college roommate, who had once self-identified as a libertarian; when I asked him years later about his changed political views he said "Libertarians have some nice ideals, but they all seem to be really weird".

On the other hand, if a small minority in government doesn't have much if any real power but constantly reminds us there might be things we don't want the government to touch, I don't see it as a bad thing. While I disagree with the Pauls about the Civil Rights Act, I definitely agree with them on the Patriot Act. I have no idea how they feel about the 1960s-70s FBI infiltration of domestic protest groups, but I'd have to call them hypocritical if they didn't find it a huge overreach of government power.

[jazzcyclist]

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

Here's a gem I just came across in which blogger Scott Galupo quotes from a George Wil book:

The great civil rights legislation of the 1960s was, of course, designed primarily to improve the condition of the descendants of slaves. But it had another purpose. It was supposed to do what it in fact did. It was supposed to alter the operation of the minds of many white Americans. The most admirable achievements of modern liberalism—desegregation, and the civil rights acts—were explicit and successful attempts to change (among other things) individuals’ moral beliefs by compelling them to change their behavior. The theory was that if government compelled people to eat and work and study and play together, government would improve the inner lives of those people.

Galupo follows that up with this:

If your principles preclude you from reconciling yourself to the Civil Rights Act, or crucial parts of it, then you should really think about changing your principles—because they’re not really worth defending.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

FYI, Paul will be a guest on Meet the Press this Sunday. Give him credit for not being afraid to go back into the lion's den. How I miss Tim Russert.

[kuha]

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

with this:

If your principles preclude you from reconciling yourself to the Civil Rights Act, or crucial parts of it, then you should really think about changing your principles—because they’re not really worth defending.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Totally, absolutely, yes.

[Conor Dary]

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

FYI, Paul will be a guest on Meet the Press this Sunday. Give him credit for not being afraid to go back into the lion's den. How I miss Tim Russert.

Not any more.

'He seems first to have told Meet The Press that he was exhausted and had to cancel, according to MTP producer Betsy Fischer.

Now the campaign tells Dave Weigel: "Rand did Good Morning America today, set the record straight, and now we are done talking about it. No more national interviews on the topic."

I mean, what topic? His senate campaign? Spokesman Jesse Benton seems to have meant that he would no longer discuss his views on the Civil Rights Act. But that's it? He won't talk to the press anymore? From a campaign perspective these really are nightmare scenarios. I'm sure even the political operatives that are enjoying the hell out of watching this are still getting a cold 'there but for the grace of God' chill about the whole thing. But this is the big leagues.'

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archiv ... ?ref=fpblg