Rand Paul's thug has his day in court

By Richard K. Barry 

Here's an interesting update on a post I wrote back in October. You may recall that a Rand Paul campaign worker stomped on the head of liberal activist Lauren Valle, who was engaged in a bit of peaceful political theatre at a campaign event during the Kentucky senate race, which, of course, Paul eventually won.

It seems the perpetrator of the violence, some jerk by the name of Tim Proffit, will serve probation and pay medical expenses stemming from the assault.

According to a piece in Roll Call:

Profitt acknowledged that prosecutors had enough evidence to win a conviction but he didn't admit guilt, according to Assistant Fayette County Attorney Jackie Alexander. He will undergo unsupervised probation for a year and pay $600 for Valle's medical bills.

Valle was posing outside the debate as a representative of RubliCorp, a fake company invented by the liberal group MoveOn.org to criticize Republican ties to corporate America. She had been trying to give Paul a RepubliCorp employee of the month "award" when she was confronted.

It seems to me that Mr. Proffit got off easy. The right is all for law and order as long it doesn't involve their transgressions, I suppose.

I don't intend to rank the significance of various forms of violence, but there is little that pisses me off more than violence committed against people engaged in non-violent political speech. There is no way that the punishment here is appropriate considering the actions of this bastard.

Give me a break.

To refresh your memory, here's some footage from the incident:

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Craziest Republican of the Day: Rand Paul

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Tea Party Republican Rand Paul is a libertarian, and on occasion admirably so (like when he opposes the Patriot Act), but it seems that his enthusiasm for liberty is disturbingly selective and comes with an unhealthy dose of typical Republican police-state authoritarianism. As he told Sean Hannity last Friday:

I'm not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they've been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they've been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn't be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that's really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison.

That's right, this libertarian, this oh-so-courageous defender of freedom, thinks that you should be put in jail if you attend a political event he doesn't approve of, an event at which "radical" things are said.

Now, despite his claim, he was probably thinking primarily of Islamic "radical political speeches," but whether Islamic or not, define radical.

Does it just mean "promoting the violent overthrow of our government"? But, then, where would the line be drawn? And who would draw it? And don't you think "radical" would come to mean so much more?

And what about the pesky little thing known as the First Amendment?

This would be the thin end of the wedge straight to a slippery slope.

But perhaps this should come as no surprise, As Think Progress notes, Paul actually isn't as much of an advocate of civil liberties as his reputation might suggest:

[A]side from his admirable stance on the Patriot Act, Paul's record shows he's hardly the paragon of civil liberties he claims to be, but rather is "indistinguishable from the rest of the GOP on national security issues," The American Prospect's Adam Serwer noted last year. He's said he will "always fight" to keep GITMO open; has said "[f]oreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution"; and has never taken a strong public stance against torture, staying silent most recently after the killing of Osama bin Laden.

"I believe that America can successfully protect itself against potential terrorists without sacrificing civil liberties," his website says. Apparently speech is not a civil liberty.

I guess his libertarianism is a matter of partisan and ideological convenience to him. He is when he is and isn't when he isn't. And when he isn't, as here, he's downright un-American.

**********

The good thing is, if there is any good here, he might just put himself in jail.

Yes, he attended an event at which a radical right-wing militia advocated extreme and treasonous violence -- and yet claims he didn't hear a thing! How convenient.
 

If they're for it, we're against it.

By Capt. Fogg

The natural state of men, before they were joined in society, was a war, and not simply, but a war of all against all.

-Libertas, Thomas Hobbes -


Scanning the Facebook page of my congresscritter, Tom Rooney (R-FL) I find the real interest not to be the simplistic banalities and the strained attempts to generate outrage against Barack Obama. It's not the continuing effort by Rooney to portray the assistance being given NATO's actions in Syria as a constitutional violation; it's more about the truly demented calls for impeachment by the people who post there; calls that remain in view without comment by Mr. Rooney, who claims that he maintains the page to be more "in touch" with the sentiments of his constituents rather than as a tool to promote irrational rage for political purposes.

If he has some constituents other than me who disagree with the "Oh I just hate, hate him" and "Oh he just makes me sick" and the "he uses the constitution to line his bird cage" swamp dwellers, they must indeed like me, be very reluctant to post comments there under their real names. He's created a milieu quite hostile to reason and reasonable people offering constructive criticism.

Yes, of course there are many questions about the legality of George W. Bush's legacy, some of which -- too much of which -- remains in place, but the War on Obama is not really based on his alleged and often misrepresented constitutional infractions, and we know it because they weren't presented as such during the previous administration and indeed were eagerly supported by the reactionary beasts who hang out on the Rooney page to congratulate themselves and outdo each other on the size of their hate. Indeed, that place is a microcosm of our war against ourselves, a war of all against all.

It's not that I like Senator Rand Paul or his familiar pose of principled outrage, but I am indeed on his side when it comes to addressing the real constitutional outrage of the Patriot Act. I have to smile at what may be the end of his naivete because it isn't the Democrats at war with the Leahy-Paul Amendment, designed to allow greater oversight of ever increasing Government warrantless surveillance powers under that cynically named act. It's the Republicans supporting precisely the kind of power they pretend to oppose while posturing as libertarians to the frothy-mouthed and furious rabble.

“Unfortunately, what we’re finding now is that the Democrats have agreed to allow me to have amendments but my own party is refusing to allow me to debate or present my amendments.”

Said Paul. Imagine that.

But as the man said, the joining of people into a society serves to prevent the chaos of nature, and I have to ask myself whether the effort to portray anything social or designed for the common good as the unqualified evil of Socialism, did not have the promotion of that very bellum omnium contra omnes; everyone at war with everyone and every man for himself as a purpose. Perhaps when everyone is against everyone, such things as consistent viewpoints are illusory as is anything resembling principle. If you're for it, I'm against it may be as close as we can get.

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Elephant Dung #27: Rand Paul takes aim at Donald Trump's questionable Republican cred

Tracking the GOP Civil War

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(For an explanation of this ongoing series, see here. For previous entries, see here.)

I'm not exactly a fan of Rand Paul, the Tea Party Republican senator from Kentucky. But I've got to hand it to him, he's a funny guy and he's got a knack for hilarious one-line swipes at fellow Republicans. Earlier this month, he took aim at Newt Gingrich. Yesterday, his target was Donald Trump:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Thursday took a swipe at billionaire businessman Donald Trump, demanding to see his "Republican registration."

While speaking at a breakfast with New Hampshire Republicans one day after "The Donald" visited the Granite State, Paul riffed off the potential GOP presidential candidate's "birther" questions.

"I've come to New Hampshire today because I'm very concerned," said Paul, according to The New York Times. "I want to see the original long-form certificate of Donald Trump's Republican registration."

Paul's comments follow up on some GOP-aligned groups' effort to discredit Trump as a conservative. The free-market Club for Growth has accused Trump of being a liberal for his previous support of universal healthcare and his desire to raise tariffs on China.

It's hard to be a successful Republican when you've got both the Tea Party (via Rand Paul) and the Club for Growth aligned against you. Which is no doubt partly why Trump has so enthusiastically embraced the whole Birther thing and is now channelling his racism (what else is it?) into suggesting that Obama is an affirmative action case.

Now, is Trump a Republican? Yes, no doubt. His wealth-based sense of entitlement and megalomania would seem to indicate that he leans to the right, as would his pro-business (or, to be more precise, pro-Trump business) views. But his own political history is mixed. He has espoused various liberal positions over the years, and he was a registered Democrat for years. As he himself has acknowledged, if prior to his current courting of the Republican base, he's an independent, and he has voted for and financially supported both Democrats and Republicans.

None of this should disqualify Trump from being a Republican today, but of course the Republican Party, and in particular its powerful Tea Party wing, is all about party purification. They're the new Bolsheviks. If you're not Republican enough, Republican as they define it, they'll purge you from the party. We're seeing this happen again and again, with the Tea Party and others on the right challenging even established conservatives like Orrin Hatch, Richard Lugar, and John Boehner. The Republican Party is descending into madness, as I've said many times, and all this ongoing purge is accelerating that descent.

Trump has the media platform, not to mention the temperament, to fight back against those who would challenge him, including Paul. But Paul's onto something. Birtherism aside, Trump just isn't the sort of Republican, if truly Republican at all, to win over enough of the grassroots base to win the nomination, even if he manages to lure some of the party establishment (like Ralph Reed). He's got the anti-Obama attack going, and that's sustaining his popularity in the party, but were he to run that popularity would likely fracture once he was actually subjected to any sort of sustained scrutiny of his record. In that sense, he's got a Romney problem, and it's the sort of problem that's virtually insurmountable. Just ask Mitt.

And just ask Rand, who threw a pile of dung at the upstart Trump. If The Donald insists on remaining in the Republican spotlight, there will no doubt be much more to come.

Elephant Dung #24: Rand Paul slams Gingrich and Fox News over Libya

Tracking the GOP Civil War

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(For an explanation of this ongoing series, see here. For previous entries, see here.)

Via Think Progress, the radical libertarian senator from Kentucky took swipes at both Newt Gingrich and Fox News at Wednesday's Congressional Correspondents Dinner: 

I was happy to see that Newt Gingrich has staked out a position on the war, a position, or two, or maybe three. I don't know. I think he has more war positions than he's had wives.

And:

There's a big debate over there. Fox News can't decide, what do they love more, bombing the Middle East or bashing the president? It's like I was over there and there was an anchor going, they were pleading, can't we do both? Can't we bomb the Middle East and bash the president at the same time? How are we going to make this work?

I rarely (i.e., never) do this, but allow me to put my hands together for Sen. Paul. Those are some truly biting comments. The one about Gingrich is not just on the mark but hilarious. And the one about Fox News gets it exactly right, the tension not just at Fox News but among Republicans generally (with some exceptions).

Was he just trying to be funny? Maybe. (You can see a wry smile after the Gingrich line.) But he knew what he was doing, and he knew just how to twist the knife.

Nicely done.

Craziest Republican of the Day: Rand Paul

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So what are Republicans doing after that "shellacking" of the Democrats in last November's midterms?

Well, they watched lamely while the lame-duck Congress did some amazing things (passing New START, repealing DADT), and while President Obama's popularity rose steadily, they voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, purely a symbolic vote in the House that was widely ignored or ridiculed, and now they're just failing about in search of something, anything to hang their extremist right-wing hats on.

And that doesn't even include committing political suicide in Wisconsin as they watch their popularity plummet over their assault on labor (and on working people everywhere), not to mention throwing up what is, so far, a fantastically lame 2012 presidential field.

Oh, and they're complaining about toilets. Yes, toilets:

Senator Rand Paul's toilets don't work, and he blames the Department of Energy.

At a hearing of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Thursday, Mr. Paul lambasted Kathleen Hogan, deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency at the Energy Department, telling her that the department's "hypocrisy" and "busybody nature" has "restricted choices" for consumers rather than made life better for them.

"You don't care about the consumer really," Mr. Paul said. "Frankly, my toilets don't work in my house, and I blame you."

Boo-freakin'-hoo. Consumers have more than enough choice and the concern here is the environment, which under Republican rule would simply be exploited to the very last drop of all remaining natural resources. What is wrong with trying to conserve water, with using technology to make our use of natural resources somewhat more efficient, more responsible and sustainable? Please. It's just a low-flush toilet, not some high-tech gizmo, and they work pretty damn well.

Not that Paul gives a shit. He just wants to freedom to rape the environment with as much recklessness as he desires.

But this isn't isolated Republican craziness. The entire GOP is anti-environment -- oh, sure, they'll go out into nature, but only to drill for oil and kill defenceless animals -- just as it is anti-science. Indeed:

The hearing was called not to examine toilet policy, but to consider two proposed bills, one that would update energy efficiency standards for appliances and a second that would repeal a measure passed in 2007 to phase in new efficiency standards for light bulbs beginning next year.

The new standards would make the current form of 100-watt incandescent bulbs obsolete. Those bulbs have long been known to be particularly inefficient, emitting far more heat than light.

Conservatives have taken up the cause of the incandescent light bulb, saying the government is trying to dictate to Americans what kind of light bulbs they can use in their homes.

This is also incredibly stupid. Again, it's not about consumer choice, let alone about freedom, it's about being responsible environmental stewards. And it's also about innovation, about technological progress, about jobs. There will continue to be more than enough choice; indeed, innovation will open up more choice than ever. Besides, how much choice will there be when there's no fresh water left, or when there's so little that we'll need to ration it?

And, seriously, defending inefficient (and dangerous) light bulbs? Is that really the great Republican issue of the day? I get that they're trying desperately to frame this anti-environmentalism as pro-freedom (and anti-government), but no one outside of their base really buys their "nanny state" fearmongering and all they're doing, as they flail about like this, is coming across as incredibly ignorant and remarkably crazy.

Which of course they are. Just add this to the list.

Wherein I praise the 26 House Republicans who voted with 122 Democrats to block an extension of especially egregious Patriot Act provisions

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The forces of freedom, even in the minority, triumphed earlier today in the House:

A measure to extend key provisions of the Patriot Act counterterrorism surveillance law through December failed the House Tuesday night, with more than two-dozen Republicans bucking their party to oppose the measure.

The House measure, which was sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and required a two-thirds majority for passage, failed on a 277-to-148 vote. Twenty-six Republicans voted with 122 Democrats to oppose the measure, while 67 Democrats voted with 210 Republicans to back it. Ten members did not vote.

The measure would have extended three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are set to expire on Monday, Feb. 28, unless Congress moves to reauthorize them. One of the provisions authorizes the FBI to continue using roving wiretaps on surveillance targets; the second allows the government to access "any tangible items," such as library records, in the course of surveillance; and the third is a "lone wolf" provision of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act that allows for the surveillance of targets who are not connected to an identified terrorist group.

The vote came as several tea party-aligned members of the new freshman class had been expressing doubts about the measure.

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who highlighted his opposition to the law during his upstart 2010 Senate campaign, signaled Monday that he may vote ultimately vote against an extension when the measure comes up in the Senate, likely later this month.

Look, I'm a proud Democrat, but where Republicans deserve praise I'll happily give it. And for this they -- or at least 26 of them -- do. (If that aligns me with Rand Paul, however much I may dislike him, so be it.)

And shame on the 67 Democrats who voted with the majority of Republicans.

And shame, too, on President Obama, who wants a three-year extension of these provisions. (Because, of course, he's enthusiastically keeping much of the Bush-Cheney national security state in place -- so much for all that change we thought we might be able to believe in. Think there would have been so much enthusiastic support for him if he's been clearer about his policy priorities?)

When Rand Paul and Tea Party House Republicans make you look bad, you know you're doing something horribly wrong. And Obama is doing just that.

**********

For some political perspective on the vote, see The Nation's John Nichols:

Most House Republicans -- including supposed defenders of the Constitution such as Michigan Congresswoman Michele Bachmann -- went along with their leadership. In so doing, they failed to address fundamental concerns, raised by conservatives and liberals, about Patriot Act abuses of the very Constitution that theyread aloud at the opening of the current Congress.

But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, led the vast majority of House Democrats in opposing any extension. In all, 122 Democrats -- roughly two-thirds of the party's House caucus -- voted "no" to extending surveillance authorities that the American Civil Liberties Union warns "give the government sweeping authority to spy on individuals inside the United States and, in some cases, without any suspicion of wrongdoing. All three should be allowed to expire if they are not amended to include privacy protections to protect personal information from government overreach."

Joining the Democrats in voting "no" were 26 Republicans, including Texas Congressman Ron Paul and a number of other senior Republicans with records of breaking with their party on civil liberties issues, such as Tennessee's John Duncan Jr. and South Carolina's Walter Jones Jr. Joining them were several new members of the GOP caucus, such as Illinois Congressman Randy Hultgren and Michigan Congressman Justin Amash.

The vote came Tuesday evening after a heated floor debate, which saw Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, call on members of both parties to obey their oaths to defend the Constitution.

"The PATRIOT Act is a destructive undermining of the Constitution," Kucinich told the House. "How about today we take a stand for the Constitution to say that all Americans should be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and to make certain that the attempt to reauthorize the Patriot Act is beat down."

Against the lobbying of the Obama administration and the determined efforts of House GOP leaders -- who kept what was supposed to be a 15 minute open for 25 minutes as they tried to corral the needed seven votes -- Kucinich's argument carried the day.

Very well done, Dennis. Though as this vote suggests, most Republicans and many Democrats are more than willing to disobey their oaths.

And when this extension comes up for a simple majority vote, the forces of freedom will lose. The Republican Party will make sure of that, and President Obama won't get in the way.

Michele Bachmann 2012? Yes, she can!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Run, Michele, run! Run like the wind!

As ABC News is reporting (and see also her local Star Tribune):

Forget the fervent chatter speculating that Tea Party favorite Rep. Michele Bachmann is considering launching a campaign to challenge Sen. Amy Klobuchar for the Minnesota U.S. Senate seat in the next national election cycle. Think bigger.

ABC News has learned that Bachmann, R-Minn., also is seriously weighing whether to seek the Republican nomination for president in 2012.

A source close to the three-term congresswoman said Bachmann will travel to Iowa this month for multiple meetings to seek advice from political forces there and party elders close to the caucus process before coming to a final decision regarding a potential presidential run.

There's a lot of badness in the news -- those birds falling from the sky, the GOP taking over the House, the Canadian Juniors crapping out against Russia -- but this is awesome news.

I've written before that Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour is the perfect Republican, given his corpulence (he's got the right Republican look), his racism, his fealty to corporate profiteering, his corporate lobbying, and his white Southern roots, but an argument can be made that Bachmann, more even than Palin, is similarly perfect, that is, that Barbour and Bachmann represent the two leading strains of today's Republicanism.

There's a lot they have in common, but Bachmann complements Barbour with her Tea Party bona fides, her ridiculous conspiracy theorizing, her self-focused faux feminism, and her general right-wing craziness. Forget Pawlenty, Romney, and Thune, these two are as Republican as it gets.

So how about Barbour-Bachmann 2012? Add crazy libertarian Rand Paul to that ticket and you've got it all covered.

Anyway, let's not get ahead of ourselves. For now, let's just encourage Bachmann to run. Not that she really needs any earthly encouragement. She has God behind her, remember?

Go for it, Michele! Your destiny awaits!