Rand Paul’s Presidential Aspirations Death Watch Update

(Posting this without proofing, which I will do later. H/t to @talkradio200 and @AG_Conservative for putting me onto the posts.)

Wherein Rand Paul helpfully provides confirmation bias vis. my “Rand Paul Is Dangerous” post of a mere four days ago:

Apparently those tantalizing poll numbers from New Hampshire have Paul the Younger feeling a bit sparky. All good, Drone Boy. Forget that it’s April, 2014, and that the 2016 general election is more than 2-1/2 years away. Show us your hand early. Meaning, remind us on regular basis that the crazy-ass shit you said in the day (that you’re trying to nuance away from) is what you still believe.

For some reason, Paul the Younger decided to vent in National Review, of all places, about the push-back he was receiving in response to his incoherent–and more than a bit asinine–Washington Post op-ed. Perhaps Rand was responding to Ramesh Ponnuru’s link to a piece he did for Bloomberg. Hard to tell, since Rand leans heavily on petulant generalities and unnamed neocon strawmen in his National Review piece.

Rand’s public butthurt begins:

The knives are out for conservatives who dare question unlimited involvement in foreign wars.

Ah. Are we to the nuanced part yet?

Can’t help but wonder if he first wrote long knives, and thought better of it.

And “unlimited involvement in foreign wars”? Dude. A slight variation on the nonsense that caught my ear about “endless wars” during your grandstanding drone filibuster. Bullshit straw man.

Foreign policy, the interventionist critics claim, has no place for nuance or realism. You are either for us or against us. No middle ground is acceptable. The Wilsonian ideologues must have democracy worldwide now and damn all obstacles to that utopia. I say sharpen your knives, because the battle once begun will not end easily.

Interventionist? But it’s not fair to call you an isolationist, right?

Advocates of realpolitik, as distinct from reflexive paleo-libertarian-anarcho non-interventionists, are fleeing from realism?  Oh.

For or against. Is this from your presumably forthcoming memoir, Nightmares Of My Batshit Crazy Dad?

What is this middle ground you speak of, Rand? The middle ground you proactively deny that your interventionist neocon enemies occupy?

Damn! Wilsononian, eh?

This is multiple false dichotomy straw man asshat claptrap worthy of the sort of fascism you project on your ideological opponents.

And repeat the knives like it’s a crappy chorus in a crappier song. It doesn’t make you sound paranoid at all.

Conservatives who want to read libertarian conservatives out of the movement should reread some old copies of National Review first.

Anyone get the feeling this is a Twitter conversation with a Leftist, right before ones Algonquin Roundtable interlocutor suggest that we turn off Fox News and read a book once in awhile?

From Frank Meyer to William F. Buckley Jr. to George Will — indeed, to Ronald Reagan — there is a strain of libertarianism endemic to conservatism.

I’ll cut you some slack on the use of the word “endemic,” and assume you weren’t using it in the epidemiological sense.

George Will might have a thing or two to say about that. Since the other folks are all dead, it was nice you invoked one person who could respond to your assertions.

And he goes on to paraphrase Meyer, expropriate Buckley, predictably invoke Iraq as the alpha and omega of neocon interventionism like any paleo and/or Leftist worth the name. Ho hum.

Later in the piece comes the dog whistle:

According to Peter Beinart, Norman Podhoretz, one of the founding neoconservatives, wrote that “in the use of military power, Mr. Reagan was much more restrained” than his more hawkish fans had hoped.

So either Rand Paul doesn’t know (which he sure must, given his lineage) that he just engaged in dog whistling–or else he does.

And so Paul the Younger concludes:

So as today’s young aspiring Buckleyites sharpen their knives to carve up conservatives who propose a more realist and nuanced approach to foreign policy, they should realize they’re also pointing daggers at some of their own.

So now it’s daggers? (Well, at least there’s a bit of variety there.) First a couple of vague Sturmabteilung allusions, and then a bit of Julius Caesar?

Not a bit surprisingly, some folks at National Review were having none of this farce: Ramesh Ponnuru seems like someone politely scraping something off his shoe, and Quin Hillyer expands on Ramesh’s remarks.

We have a real bullshit artist on our hands here, folks. The fruit hasn’t fallen nearly as far from the tree as we may have imagined in 2010.



Image source.  H/t Mark Larsen for the idea.

Reading Assignment. Yes, It Will Be On the Final.

Go read “The Misguided Resurgence of Marxist Collectivism,” by Donald Douglas at AmericanPowerBlog.

No excerpts here. Read the whole thing.


I’ll take Reichstag Fire for $100, Alex.

The Easter truce in Ukraine was violated, purportedly by Ukrainian ultra-nationalists, Breitbart reports, quoting The Kyiv Post (bracketed comments were added by me):

CarveyChurchLadyA correspondent for Rossiya 24, a [Russian] state-run news station, said four cars drove up to the checkpoint and opened fire at the pro-Russian militiamen guarding it, killing three of them and seriously injuring another. Two “attackers,” shot by the pro-Russian group, were also killed, the correspondent said….

In a video report, Life News ["a news and gossip site known to have Kremlin ties"] showed what it said was the body of one man killed during the shootout next to weapons, ammunition and gear left behind by Right Sector [a Ukrainian ultra-nationalist umbrella group] members at the scene. It also showed crisp U.S. $100 bills, uncreased printed satellite images of Slovyansk from Google Maps and a business card of Right Sector leader and presidential candidate Dmitro Yarosh that it said had been left by the “attackers.”

Not surprisingly, there’s just a bit of skepticism afoot concerning the very convenient Russian “proof” that Ukranian nationalists were behind the attack. And not just skepticism, but mockery, according to Radio Free Europe’s website:

In an interview with Ukraine’s Channel 5 television station, Right Sector spokesman Artem Skoropadskyy said the Kremlin “staged an act of provocation.” He also noted that the business cards were reportedly found in “completely burned-out vehicles,” a claim he said was “completely absurd.”

Whatever the case, an Internet meme was quickly born, with mocking images of Yarosh’s black-and red business card bearing his name, phone number, and e-mail address being tied to many of the world’s biggest mysteries.

The article includes this excellent example:

Illustration above by @zhgun.

An Easter Message For Militant Atheists


See also, “Why Are So Many Atheists Such Insufferable Assholes?”

CLA Radio 04/25/14: Guitarists


The next ConservativeLA Radio show (on Duane FM in the HughniverseFriday, 04/25) will concern itself with guitarists and guitar music. This is not a best-of list, but simply stuff I like.

Hope you can stop by, listen to the show, and join us in chat!

Spoiler Set List:

Robert Fripp: Water Music I
Robert Fripp: Here Comes The Flood
Audio Clip: Spinal Tap
Mahavishnu Orchestra: Dance of Maya
Audio Clip: Spinal Tap
Wes Montgomery: ‘Round Midnight
Audio Clip: Spinal Tap
King Crimson: Frame By Frame
Duane Eddy: Peter Gunn Theme
Audio Clip: Steve Vai Talks About Zappa Audition
Frank Zappa: Shut Up ‘n Play Yer Guitar
Django Reinhardt: Djangology
Les Paul: Steel Guitar Rag
Cream: Badge
Audio Clip: Spinal Tap
Link Wray: Apache
Audio Clip: Spinal Tap
Dick Dale: Misirlou
Audio Clip: Spinal Tap
AC/DC: Beating Around The Bush
R.L. Burnside: Going Down South
Audio Clip: Spinal Tap
Gov’t Mule: Broke Down on the Brazos
Status Quo: Down The Dustpipe
Audio Clip: Cheech & Chong
Seasick Steve: You Can’t Teach An Old Dog
Chuck Berry: Havana Moon
Buddy Guy: Living Proof
Junior Brown: Surf Medley
Buddy Miller: Cattle Call
Brian May: Guitar Extravagance
Audio Clip: Eric Clapton Interview (1999)
Cream: N.S.U.
Blind Willie Johnson: Dark Was the Night
Bruce Cockburn: Sunrise On the Mississippi
Leo Kottke: Coolidge Rising

Rand Paul Is Dangerous

I supported Rand Paul’s 2010 Senate campaign, a mistake that I deeply regret. I did not adequately research his views. I did not do adequate due diligence.

As it turns out, Rand Paul’s world view is largely indistinguishable from his father’s, however deftly Rand attempts to distance himself from the nutbaggery of Ron Paul.

The first red flag, for me, was Rand’s idiotic drone filibuster, complete with a cypto-Leftist Paulite reference to “perpetual war.”

Then came his demonstrable ignorance as to the relationship between NSA activities and the Fourth Amendment.

Now comes this alarming trip down memory lane from The Washington Free Beacon:

Rand Paul: Nuclear Iran Not a Threat to U.S., Israel
Endorsed Bilderberg conspiracy theories before winning Senate seat

Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) denied that a nuclear Iran would pose a national security threat to the United States or Israel in a 2007 radio interview with talk show host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones….

In a recent Washington Post column, Paul said he does not support containment of a nuclear Iran, but believes it should be an option….

Paul recently came under fire from conservative columnists after Mother Jones unearthed a 2009 speech in which he suggested Vice President Dick Cheney supported the Iraq War because of his past work for defense contractor Halliburton….

Paul has also endorsed “One World Government” conspiracy theories, including theories about the Bilderberg Group, a closed-door annual conference that brings together influential political and financial leaders from around the world….

I strongly recommend that you read the entire Washington Free Beacon piece here. Follow the links there as a well, particularly to his Washington Post piece–the most incoherent assemblage of double-talk I’ve ever read.

And I suggest you read the Free Beacon piece even if you’re a huge Rand Paul fan, because you’re going to be hearing a lot about it going forward, and may as well get used to it.

Remember, this is the guy who said (in answer to a question from Alex Jones in 2011):

“You’re basically what I would call a chip off the old block. Your policies are basically identical to your father, correct?”

“I’d say we’d be very very similar. We might present the message sometimes differently.. I think in some ways the message has to be broadened and made more appealing to the entire Republican electorate because you have to win a primary.”

Pretty much sounds like Paulite taqiyya to me.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.