Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

The Duping of the Left by Rand Paul

Last week’s filibuster by Rand Paul, the #standwithrand twitter tag, and controversy of whether or not progressives or liberals (take your pick, IMO they are pretty interchangable but I know that not everyone feels that way) should indeed “stand” with Rand got me to thinking about when and if it is every OK to stand with someone who is against everything that you stand for simply because you happen to agree with one thing they are currently doing.

I saw a series of tweets on Friday night by Nicole Belle that I found very interesting, especially the ones that said that Rand Paul knew the answer to his question before he started the filibuster, which means it was just one big publicity stunt, he was grandstanding.


Nicole Belle ‏@NicoleBelle

@TheDailyPetunia Then you didn’t understand what was going on. Paul already had his answer. That was grandstanding to launch his campaign.

She also pushed back at those liberals that thought that by not standing with Paul, you somehow did not care about government transparency or civil liberties.

Nicole Belle ‏@NicoleBelle

But liberals pulling the bullshit “More-liberal-than-thou” to other libs for refusing to #standwithPaul is the height of stupidity.

This is not the first time that someone completely opposed to everything progressives stand for got the support of some progressives for being a broken clock.

So was Rand Paul just trying to promote himself and his agenda, and even if so should it matter? I think yes, and yes.

This piece by journalist David Corn at Mother Jones, Rand Paul Exploits Drones Grandstanding With False Fundraising Letter should put to rest any question that Rand Paul did not do this out of concern. After pointing out that there are real concerns with our drone policy, White House communication about this policy, and how, when, and why drones are used in other countries, Corn concludes that

But decrying the administration for possible drone assaults against noncombatant American citizens within the United States is a phony issue, a modern-day equivalent of black-helicopter-phobia. In an unsurprising, it’s-really-about-politics move, Paul distracted from the real concerns, and the quickly written email pushing his Stand With Rand money bomb shows this senator as a crass operator untethered from the truth who’s eager to exploit his own grandstanding.

You still say, so what? BFD, he still was standing for what I think is right, even if he was not authentic, he brought attention to the subject! He asked what no one else was willing to ask! Who cares what else he stands for.

Who cares? Who cares that his views on civil rights are nothing like ours? He is still trying to explain his family’s opposition to civil rights, and told CNN last week,

It’s not all about race relations, it’s about controlling property, ultimately.

Like the Religious right, he wants small government, but big church,  who needs the constitution when you have biblical law?

Is mountaintop removal a bad thing? Nah, just needs some rebranding.

What else was Paul doing last Wednesday? NOT voting for VAWA. What a champ.

I could go on, but I think we all know that he is fighting against everything we fight for. I am a Democrat because I believe in what Democrats stand for. When they do something frustrating, like the administration is doing with the drone policy, it is up to us to raise the question and insist that the people we elected to congress do the same.

One inauthentic act that we happen to agree with does not inspire me to stand with someone so vile. Having someone like that do our bidding is not the answer. Call your congress peeps, insist that they do it, and cheer them on when they do.


74 comments

  1. And so much wrong with his political philosophy that should make progressives want to defeat him at every turn … not find common cause with him!!

    This comment chilled me to the bone:

    It’s not all about race relations, it’s about controlling property, ultimately.

    Why did that conjure up an image of a Southern slave owner bemoaning the loss of their “property” in the “War of Northern Aggression”? Maybe because Rand Paul is the epitome of white privilege?

    I wonder if the left-of-the-left who despise our Democratic president for not being “pure enough” are in the mode of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. I am reminded of the alliance between a faux progressive who hated Barack Obama and Grover Norquist. I guess those folks are still around, aren’t they?

  2. Hedwig

    might take this to mean some amateur bloggers rather than the professional left who hugged Rand last week.

    There are ways to agree with a view point, although Rand’s filibuster wasn’t principled it was theatrics, and not embrace the person. Several people now spoke of how they see the Libertarian idiot in a whole new light.

    Just like the media’s fetishism with the ‘brilliance’ of Paul Ryan, the fawning over Rand Paul last week was, at least, disappointing and, at most, disgusting.

  3. blue jersey mom

    A broken clock is right twice a day. Rand Paul saw an opportunity to grandstand and to bash the president. His views on civil right, women’s rights, and just about everything else are reprehensible. I would never do anything to raise his stature. T&R over at the orange as well.

  4. trs

    I agree with you – you have to look at the whole picture, not just one thing. You also have to look at why, if that person is against so much of what you believe in, they support one issue that you do. In this case, it’s all cynicism. Great writing! Keep it up.

  5. bill d

    Paul is a Snake Oil salesman and to gather all of those new customers by folks who will flat out tell you that they are too smart to fall for his schtick is downright hilarious.

    I have no problem with libertarians. If folks want to be a libertarian then fine be a libertarian. Don’t claim to represent some democratic party that never was and never will be, just go ahead and come out as a libertarian you’ll feel better in the long run people.

    If only we could get some sort of Rand Paul, Glenn Greenwald love child  to blindly follow, he could have all of the  snuggable warmth of Greenwald and the perfect hair of Paul. Oh well, a boy can dream.  

  6. DeniseVelez

    I rec’ed over at orange too.

    For me this a re-run of the excuses made by the “left” when they supprted the Miz Janes’ of the world who signed on with Norquist and Schafley.  

    I can’t say I’m surprised by the applause for Paul from the peanut gallery, since anyone who can be used to go after Obama is immediately embraced.

    It’s like the so-called leftists supporting his dad around marijuana. Total blindness towards his racism/sexism.

    You know – I’ve watched over the years some people go so far to the “left” in a circle that they wind up in bed with the right. Saw it happen with the Bob Avakian nuts, and the RU Maoists.

  7. raina

    Their contortionist acts to justify why they #stoodwithrand are hilarious.

    Someone over there made a comment that was spot on, something to the effect that the frustratistas refuse to give credit to Obama for the many things he does- but no public option!!! but dronezz!!! but we’re still in Iraq!!! but DOMA!!! on and on, but Rand gets one thing “right,” according to them, and oshgoshbigosh they sure as hell are gonna stand with him.  

  8. raina

    which I discovered via a link from another blog…

    (love the title)

    The Endless Drone of Sirota and Greenwald

    which Sirota jumped on board the “Stand with Rand” bandwagon, calling Paul’s filibuster of Brennan “heroic” and decrying progressives’ pointing out Paul’s history of near-unparalleled paleoconservatism and disregard for civil rights protections as an “insidious” example of unforgiving partisan politics. Sirota, of course, being an enlightened being who cares about the issues rather than the people espousing them

    If Sirota was merely jumping on the bandwagon, though, Glenn Greenwald, as you might expect, was towing it behind his 18-wheeler Prius. I’m not going to run down the various ways Greenwald has spun himself into apoplectic circles over the tendency of anyone with a brain and an appreciation of recent history to openly mock Rand Paul’s Senate floor stunt and to attempt to add context and nuance to the drone debate

    It comes down to this: Why is it so easy for guys like Glenn Greenwald and David Sirota to give a pass to Rand Paul’s stance on every other issue besides his phony outrage over the Obama administration’s use of drones, while never giving Obama himself an ounce of credit for any of his myriad progressive stances, instead holding him up as some kind of tyrant because of the one issue they seem to think is above all others?

    WRT a certian segment on GOS, sound familiar?

Comments are closed.