Sooner or later, I will break off my Daily Paul.  But not yet.

Once upon a time a long age ago, either in the wake of a Democratic Party defeat in 2004 or some Western Democratic Party victories in 2006, a debate raged over parts of the blogosphere about a supposed “Libertarian — Democratic Party” alliance.  From my mind, it was a debate dead on arrival, and amusing in its irrelevance.  But there were a few upshots, offered by the writers and bloggers at Reason magazine.  In the wake of the great Libertarian — Democratic Party debate, Reason offered up a hilarious celebratory article about some odd forgotten Gilded Age Democrat who fought the battles against William Jennings Bryan as an exemplary figure that the Democrats might model themselves after (No… seriously).  A bit more relevant was a pretty well deserved scolding that for Libertarian consideration, the Democratic politicians really would have to be “good on the issues” they should be good on as for swarths of their Liberal constituency — you know: cut defense, decriminilize drugs — but generally are not.  Touche, and touche indeed.

Do you know why I hold a special enmity toward Rand Paul that I do not hold toward Ron Paul?  Well, he’s not any good on those issues he should be good on.  As per a Time article which I saw from Te Nesha Coates who saw it with Andrew Sullivan.

Then again, in relating to the Ron Paul enthusisasts at the “Daily Paul” — Hey!  Where’s my Hemp???  So, if Rand Paul were to move these types of periphery interests into the forefront of what he’d fight tooth and nail, I’d probably go ahead and begrudgingly welcome his campaign, and a victory as a shake up of the Status Quo.  But I don’t see a coaliton building for that Patriot Act Reform to crowd in to the middle with Senator Feingold, and I don’t see any “Alternative Sources of Energy”, market driven or otherwise, crowding in to the middle coalition with, oh say Bernie Sanders…
… particularly as you consider today’s Rand Paul shoe drop (Media Smear to his Partisans).
Quote of the day, as from a link to talking points memo from prison planet’s “All Hands on Deck for the Great Rand Paul” coverage:

“I’m delighted that Rand Paul said that.  I think it’s magnificent. I didn’t realize that he was that good.  The spirit of non-discrimination ends you right up in compulsory bisexuality.”  — Walter Block, a libertarian professor of economics at Loyola University, and a senior fellow with the libertarian Ludwig Von Mises Institute.
Dearly dearly dearly.  Are we having fun yet?

But I have certain luxuries with Ron Paul.  Devoid of any meaningful “he’s not good where he should be”, what we are left with in Rand Paul is, oh I don’t know, the fiery pits of Hell — or the oily tarpits of Hell.:
“What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of ‘I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.’ I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business.  I’ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it’s always got to be someone’s fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen.”

I am prepping myself for a blasting of Barack Obama and his administration for his deference and corporate fealty.  For that, I bring about the Obama — Bush merger image — I trust you’ve seen it.  Understand, BP has pursued one hair brained scheme after another, whilst brushing off and minimizng the damage.  It is to stare at this quote:
TONY HAYWARD, BP CEO: The environmental impacts of this disaster is like to have been very, very modest. It`s impossible to say, and we will mount as part of the aftermath a very detailed environmental assessment as we go forward. But everything we can see at the moment suggests that the overall environmental impacts of this will be very, very modest.
And then to jump over to:
The British energy major – already under pressure from the US government – admitted the well was gushing out more than the 5,000 barrels a day it had previously estimated. It could not give a new figure for the flow, three weeks after the Deepwater Horizon rig owned and operated by its contractor Transocean exploded and sank, killing 11 men.
It is now siphoning 5,000 barrels a day up to a boat, but said although the flow had “noticeably reduced” there was still a plume of oil leaking into the ocean.
One scientist, Steve Wereley, associate mechanical engineering professor at Purdue University, believes as much as 70,000 barrels could be emerging per day, based on a video released by BP.
“This is not rocket science,” Mr Wereley told a US congressional panel. “All outside estimates are considerably higher than BP’s.”

The failure of the Obama Administration pops in the failure to, until now, regulate one of British Petroleum’s “Sweeping Under the Rug” manuevers.:

The U.S. government is ordering energy giant BP to find less-toxic chemicals to break up the Gulf of Mexico oil spill amid evidence that the dispersants are not effective and could actually make the spill more harmful to marine life. The Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday that BP has to choose an alternative dispersant by today and must begin using it by Sunday. So far, BP has put about 600,000 gallons of the chemical mixture Corexit 9500 on the surface and 55,000 gallons on the sea bottom.
“EPA wants to ensure BP is using the least-toxic product authorized for use,” the agency said in a statement. “We reserve the right to discontinue the use of this dispersant method if any negative impacts on the environment outweigh the benefits.”

Rand Paul doesn’t bring us much forward, does he?
Before I locate the Obama Bush image, I should really locate or create a Rand Paul — Bush merger image.  Notwithstanding that his shedding of various Libertarian impulses brings him to the Neo-Conservative position (Rand Paul: Neo-Con — suckers!!!), Rand Paul stands on the shoulder of his father and trades off of his name.  His organizational and fund-rasing apparatus, as kooky as it may be in spots, is essentially a stealing of Ron Paul’s.
Go back to the prison planet article, and we see quotations from Ron Paul.  We are back to the discomforting vision of George Herbert Walker Bush’s defenses of his son.  It occured to me, as I flickered past the opening of the Alan Colmes Show at midnight, and as he framed the Rand Paul controversy suggesting he’d be defending him, I had to wonder: what the hell is Alan Colmes doing interviewing Ron Paul?  I am reminded of November 2000, as the chads hung in Florida, when out from the shadows popped into view… James Bakker from the George Herbert Walker Bush Adminstration to do battle for George W Bush.

Rand Paul is the new George W Bush.

………………………

This entry was posted on Friday, May 21st, 2010 at 12:17 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.