Family members say (Repug Congressman Ron Paul of Texas) has been shaken by the recent storm his son (Rand) has faced over remarks in which he seemed to take issue, on libertarian grounds, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.In absolutely no way, shape or form does Leibovich capture the true ugliness of what Rand Paul said, some of which is on display here…
At the outset of an interview on Capitol Hill, Mr. Paul placed the controversy — “the agitation,” he called it — off limits. But then he immediately referred to a recent column supportive of his son in the Congressional newspaper, The Hill, and volunteered that he had just telephoned the column’s author, Lanny Davis, a Clinton White House aide, to thank him.
Mr. Davis said, “I heard a father’s concern more than I did any political concern,” and described the conversation as emotional.
Mr. Paul conceded that it is easier to be the candidate under attack than to be a family member of one. “No matter how well you arm yourself, no matter how well you know the system,” he said in the interview, “it really hurts when it’s your son.”
(Rachel) Maddow:... How about desegregating lunch counters?Here’s another example…we had the brouhaha last year over the Valley Swim Club denying the largely minority kids from Creative Steps from swimming in their pools and enjoying themselves, even though they were invited. To Rand Paul’s way of thinking, then, was the swim club acting in accordance with Paul’s precious libertarian principles by rescinding the invitation, since the matter would have been, in Paul’s words, “(an) important philosophical (debate) but not a very practical discussion”? And the fact that someone is seeking solace from a contemptible worm like Lanny Davis, whose notion of morality is easily adaptable for the sake of the highest bidder, tells you how shaky the ground is upon which Rand Paul resides.
(Rand) Paul: Well what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says 'well no, we don't want to have guns in here' the bar says 'we don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each-other.' Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion...
Maddow: Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen's lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership. This is not a hypothetical Dr. Paul.
(Also, as noted here, Paul The Younger is not suffering from a shortage of egomania…and by the way, the sorry little episode he initiated has caused him to lose 17 polling percentage points in the last two weeks, as noted here.)
And by the way, since Leibovich and the Times have seen fit to write this utter puff piece flattering the Paul family every way possible, making it sound as if they’ve stepped right out of a black-and-white ‘50s TV sitcom, I will await a similar treatment on behalf of Rand Paul’s opponent Jack Conway. And I’m sure I’ll keep waiting.
Update: And by the way (again)...
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Update 6/8/10: WAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!Update 6/13/10: Add this to the pile, as it were, on Paul, as they say.
The archivist (from the National Archives) has promised that the full trove of 160,000 pages will be made public by June 28, when the Judiciary Committee is scheduled to start confirmation hearings (on Obama Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan).That is hilarious when you consider the following from here…
However, 263 pages will be withheld from the public because of “statutory restrictions,” a White House official said. Though Mr. Clinton could have barred their release under executive privilege, he has permitted senators to review them on a confidential basis, the official said.
Republicans were not pleased. Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, issued a statement saying he now had “new concerns that even when the documents are produced, they will not be produced completely and transparently.”
During (Chief Justice John) Roberts' confirmation, disagreement erupted among Senate members, commentators, and government attorneys about whether Roberts' writings as a government attorney, specifically as Principal Deputy Solicitor General, should be released to assist the Senate in fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities of advice and consent.12 Ultimately, the White House refused to release many of the documents, claiming they were protected by the attorney-client privilege.13 In contrast, Alito's writings as a government attorney in the Department of Justice, in which he explored important constitutional issues,14 were released to the public,15 as the White House did not seek to invoke the attorney-client privilege.And Kagan is currently the Solicitor General, which supersedes the rank Roberts held when Number 43 decided to withhold his paper trail (and gee, wouldn’t that have given us just a bit more insight into how Roberts, given the chance, would rule on behalf of his corporate “betters” at every opportunity?)
…the VAT is a drag on job growth. The last thing we want to do right now is reduce the buying power of a dollar through new taxes. But with a VAT, consumers would pay more at the cash register, businesses would pay more for accounting and the government would pay more to police tax payments.In response, I give you the following (here)…
The co-chairman of Obama's fiscal commission, former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), took issue last week with GOP attacks against the VAT as the panel met for the first time.And by the way, the proposal for a value-added tax came from Obama senior adviser Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve.
After hearing the criticisms, Simpson said, "You'd think you're coming in and slapping it on top of the income tax.
"If you do a VAT tax, you've got to do some adjustments to the income tax," he said.
The exchanges over the VAT between Republicans in Congress and Simpson have already become heated.
Rep. John Linder (R-Ga.), who has called for ending federal income taxes and using a national sales tax, suggested that the VAT would end up being a "money machine" that would lead directly to more government. When told about Simpson's concern that critics were distorting his panel's work, Linder attacked the former Republican senator for his support for gay and lesbian rights.
"How does he sort that out from his conversation about gay marriage?" Linder told The Hill, referring to Simpson's opposition to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
"Milton Friedman summed it up," he added. "The value-added tax is the most efficient way to raise revenues and government. It's the most effective way to increase the size of government."
Simpson fired back.
"What the hell is he talking about?" Simpson said. "That is bulls--t."
Under Ronald Reagan.
And do you want to know who else supports the idea of a VAT?
This guy, that’s who!Memo to Pitts and Gerlach: it’s pretty sad when you find yourself at odds with Mr. “You Lie!” himself, who, shockingly, is progressive on a matter of tax policy, as opposed to you two knuckleheads.
On May 22, I went to visit my congressman in Middletown to discuss an issue involving my mortgage. I got there early, signed in and was quietly waiting my turn when an unruly crowd led by Republican congressional candidate Mike Fitzpatrick suddenly came in brandishing cameras and shouting like a bunch of drunken frat boys that they wanted to see Patrick Murphy.Nice to see that informed voters in PA-08 are calling out Mikey Fitzpatrick for the wingnut that he truly is (and once more, to reward his opponent’s good behavior, click here).
Murphy emerged from a meeting he was having with a constituent and tried his best to calm the mob. The congressman repeatedly stated that this was official congressional business and a chance for constituents to meet one-on-one with him to discuss pressing matters. Anyone who wished to speak with him could sign in like everyone else, and he promised to stay however long it took to meet with every single one of us.
In no way was it meant to be a political event, but Fitzpatrick and his gang showed their lack of respect for both the congressman and the constituents there to meet with him by putting on a show for his own benefit and wasting everyone else's time.
Some in the crowd went even further when they began hassling constituents who were leaving their meeting with Murphy. An elderly gentleman, who said he was a WWII veteran and was there to shake the congressman's hand, was harassed by two individuals who were shouting at him that he wanted to take their money and give it to other people. It was a disgusting scene and an embarrassing one for anyone involved in that mob.
It is noteworthy to mention that most of those who came in shouting and demanding to meet with Murphy left after Fitzpatrick did, further illustrating the fact that they had no intention of ever talking with the congressman. It's clear that Fitzpatrick and his gang were there to merely cause a disturbance in an effort to get a "gotcha" moment and put it on YouTube. Well, they did put it on YouTube, and I encourage anyone with an Internet connection to go online and check out firsthand the ridiculous behavior of these individuals.
Because of the disruption, we were forced to wait even longer into the afternoon, but I am proud that Congressman Murphy stood his ground and continued to meet one-on-one with every constituent who stayed.
I'm a registered independent, and until last week, I was unsure whom I would support in November. Well, I'm sure now. I'm voting for the guy who takes the time to meet with his constituents and help them. The other guy can go back to making videos for YouTube.
Ernest Schulz
Croydon, PA
No comments:
Post a Comment