JONATHAN CHAIT JUNE 2, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
[Guest post by Isaac Chotiner]
Representative Ron Paul, in Iowa:
"We're not on the verge of having a king, but we are on the verge of having way too much dictatorship in Washington, D.C.."
Senator Rand Paul, in Washington D.C.:
"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."
11 comments
In the country of the blind, the man with one eye is considered dangerous.
- AllanL5
June 2, 2011 at 2:49pm
Silly Chait. Like Ron Paul actually cares about that stuff. He's too busy telling you how the Federal Reserve is going to eat all our children. Ron Paul doesn't care about black people. Read his newsletter.
- Crock1701
June 2, 2011 at 2:54pm
Silly Crock. Geez. This post was written by Isaac Chotiner. So now J. Chait is getting blamed for Chotiner's work? Further, as I am always saying. hermeneutic skills are in short supply out here. I. Chotiner juxtaposed two statements, entirely contradictory, by a father and his son. IC well knows about the newsletters; Jamie Kirchick did an expose on them in 2008 right here at TNR.
- liberalref
June 2, 2011 at 3:30pm
Appallingly, I discovered recently that Rand Paul occasionally says things I agree with; I threw up in my mouth a little upon hearing him railing against the Patriot Act on CSPAN and finding that he represents a good chunk of my views on the matter. Nonethless, it's important to remember that expecting intellectual consistency (or intellectual anything, for that matter) from the ideological upbringing that produced such a person is about as sensible as expecting a genetically perfect child to emerge from the Rothschilds or the Windsors.
- janus
June 2, 2011 at 3:31pm
May bad Lib Ref. I missed the byline on Chait's blog. It happens (One more reason to miss The Plank, I suppose.) The point remains though: Contradictory though they may seem, they aren't, because the father's dictatorship is all about economics, and taxes, and government spending. Things like locking up subversives (especially dark skinned subversives) is not a key issue for him, no matter how many little soundbites pop up in debates.
- Crock1701
June 2, 2011 at 3:50pm
"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." Oh, is Sen. Paul referring to rallies at which white people wear T-Shirts and carry signs that read "The Tree of Liberty Must Occasionally be Watered with the Blood of Patriots and Tyrants?"
- dubyadoubte
June 2, 2011 at 4:09pm
Well, it seems Ron and I do have common ground after all; given the number of Tea Party Republicans stinking up Congress, I too think we are dangerously close to (actual) dictatorship in Washington, D.C.
- GSpinks
June 2, 2011 at 4:19pm
Oh, and I can't believe Republicans are already bringing up Rev. Wright! Once again, I shouldn't be surprised, but my cynicism with Republicans is still apparently weak. Although, I'm not surprised at how dangerously close Rand is to squelching the first amendment altogether with that statement.
- GSpinks
June 2, 2011 at 4:23pm
How is he dangerously close to squelching? Isn't what he proposed an actual squelching of the First Amendment? I swear, he's such a fucking creep ...
- NR409654
June 2, 2011 at 6:25pm
When will we get Rand Paul vs. Rand Paul? Hasn't he consorted with some near-seditious Tea Party types himself? Get to investigating, gang.
- cspencef
June 2, 2011 at 8:12pm
NR, if you assume the "slippery slope" then certainly, and if you take a broad definition of the notion of sedition, then most probably. But if you take a narrow definition of the notion of sedition, that would simply add to the list of forms of speech not covered by the first amendment, like slander and libel. I am simply allowing for this less drastic interpretation by acknowledging the proximity of his statement to the abolishment of the 1st amendment. Of course, we all know it's just a dog whistle, and that he would never actually want to abolish the 1st amendment...until after he's declared himself dictator for life and abolished the federal government.
- GSpinks
June 3, 2011 at 12:29pm