Okay, so here's what I am wondering about. I am certainly not the first or the only one but when something seems really stupid to me I am compelled to say so.
Rand Paul, like his father, Ron (and who in the hell names his child after Ayn Rand anyway? I am thinking this one happened without mom's input) is pretty firmly ensconced in the wacko section of the Tea Party - wait, I don't think they have wacko section, being pretty much dominated by wackos. I say this even though I am fairly sympathetic to well reasoned libertarian positions.
Well reasoned being the rub. Rand claims to be a libertarian (even though the Libertarian Party of Kentucky says it ain't so). And indeed some of his positions are consistent with libertarian (or classical liberal) traditions.
One however sticks out: Rand states on his web site that he is believes that life begins at conception and that he supports a constitutional amendment giving full rights of citizenship to the contents of a woman's womb.
Forgive me if I am missing something, but Rand, a purported libertarian supports the full on intrusion of the government not only into the life of a woman, but into her body as well.
Rand, a libertarian, who believes that the Civil Rights act should not be applied to private businesses (you know, like lunch counter at Woolworth's - and yeah I know he did all kind of dancing when he got shit for it, but I believe what he said the first time) believes the the civil rights of an unformed clump of cells trump the civil rights of its host. That an entity virtually indistinguishable from a pig fetus (yeah I know that the human fetus has human DNA, but then so do my dead skin cells. We gonna give them civil rights? 'Cause I know that they probably have some complaints about all that sun I exposed them to) has rights indistinguishable from the fully actualized woman in whom it exists.
Funny thing is that Rand also says - on the same website that "America can prosper, preserve personal liberty, and repel national security threats without intruding into the personal lives of its citizens." So, yeah I want to see if I am getting this straight Rand (or any one of the entirely brainless folks who supported him in their zeal to "throw the bums out). Libertarianism only applies to men? Wait, sorry, heterosexual men?
What Rand is doing here is courting the "pro-lifers" (who are generally all for the wars that Rand opposes) and the religious wingnuts in the great state of Kentucky( let's not forget that Kentucky is the home of the Creation Museum.) In doing so he is copying the Bush strategy - cobble together a coalition of disparate elements and then ignore all but the rich ones when you get in office.
Does he really believe this bullshit? Well he says he does, but I am skeptical. Not that I am expecting him to make sense or anything, I am just thinking that he hasn't put a lot of thought into it. You know, kind of like Sarah Palin ( a Rand supporter) claiming foreign affairs bona fides based on her states's proximity to Russia.
Sarah and Rand - just two little peas in a pod…er… tea bag.
Posts
well said brother
ReplyDelete