Today is Jack Conway's moneybomb.
***Please donate today.***
Let me refresh you on all the reasons Rand Paul cannot be the next Senator of Kentucky. Let Conway get you warmed up:
Rand Paul's philosophy is a more transparent version of the cognitively dissonant philosophy that tea baggers love: government is bad. But here's the fine print: "unless I don't have to sacrifice shit and it benefits me in some way."
We see this philosophy at work in how Rand Paul approaches Medicare:
But on Thursday evening, the ophthalmologist from Bowling Green said there was one thing he would not cut: Medicare physician payments.
In fact, Paul — who says 50% of his patients are on Medicare — wants to end cuts to physician payments under a program now in place called the sustained growth rate, or SGR. “Physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living,” he told a gathering of neighbors in the back yard of Chris and Linda Wakild, just behind the 10th hole of a golf course.
It gets better.
But Paul's campaign confirmed that he receives far more funding from Medicare than Medicaid, and roughly half of his medical income comes from the two programs.
What else? Rand Paul thinks that an economic collapse would lead to a Hitler in the United States:
“If we get economic calamity even worse than we have now, you will lose your rights. And we have to be vigilant and watch.
What happened in Germany, when the Weimar Republic printed up so much money and you carry it around in wheelbarrows? There was a collapse, and they actually voted in a Hitler. You could get something like that in our country if we're not careful and vigilant.”
No baseless fear mongering there! While we're on the subject of Nazism is bad, why does Paul not like Nazis? Because they're proponents of big government!
PAUL: Nazism is government socialism's big government...there’s nothing about Nazism that would even appeal remotely to people who like what I stand for because I’m for limited constitutional government.
Paul does two things here: one is that by saying the problem with Nazism is that it was "big government" and "socialism", he fails to clarify how this can be distinguished from the Tea Party's polemical characterization of the Obama administration, which of course is "it's an institution of socialism and big government." So even when denying charges that he has neo-nazi supporters, he still manages to play into the Tea Party's outrageous and despicable narrative. The second thing he did was fail to acknowledge what was really wrong with the Nazis: they were evil, genocidal maniacs who killed millions and left a legacy of horror. As usual, Paul caters to the fuckwits who view Hitler more as a villain from a TV show as opposed to an actual and despicable human being.
Don't underestimate that clip: what he didn't say is just as important as what he did say, if not more.
What else? Oh right: Rand Paul hates the Fourteenth Amendment:
"We’re the only country I know of that allows people to come in illegally have a baby and then that baby becomes a citizen. And I think that should stop also."
First of all, the law is pretty clear here:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
Secondly, Rand Paul doesn't know a lot about other countries. There are quite a few countries that grant birthright citizenship.
What else? Rand Paul not only views the great Americans with Disabilities Act as a step too far and an example of big government, he also doesn't know what the law reads. When Paul uses this hypothetical scenario to convey his objection:
PAUL:"Let's say you have a local office and you have a two story office and one of your workers is handicapped. Should you not be allowed maybe to offer them an office on the first floor, or should you be forced to put in a hundred thousand dollar elevator?"
He betrays his ignorance of the very law he criticizes, which actually states that you are NOT obligated to do so in this instance.
"Elevators are not required in:
(a) private facilities that are less than three stories or that have less than 3000 square feet per story unless the building is a shopping center, a shopping mall, or the professional office of a health care provider, or another type of facility as determined by the Attorney General; or
(b) public facilities that are less than three stories and that are not open to the general public if the story above or below the accessible ground floor houses no more than five persons and is less than 500 square feet. Examples may include, but are not limited to, drawbridge towers and boat traffic towers, lock and dam control stations, and train dispatching towers."
What else? Rand Paul believes the battles against discrimination are over:
"In 2010, there are battles that need to be fought, and they have nothing to do with race or discrimination, but rather the rights of people to be free from a nanny state."
Fucking white privilege. He'll deny the abundance of research on discrimination out there because he's an empathy deficient fuckwit who's never been on the ass-end of it. Hell, that's just racial discrimination too. What about gender discrimination and LGBT discrimination? Those battles are over too? And I'm not sure which is more pathetic: Rand Paul's vacuous criticism of Title II of the Civil Rights Act, or the fact that he's too much of a coward to stand by his view. Regardless, his philosophy reflects a view that only the government can infringe upon the rights of citizens, as private property is a sacrosanct right. He's wrong. Civil rights protect citizens from unjustified infringement from both governments and private companies alike.
What else? Oh, here's a big one: if Rand Paul were hit with an ethics scandal, he'd pardon himself. Another example of how "big government" is bad unless it can be used to his own benefit. Last time I checked, public servants were supposed to be accountable to uhh... the public?
What else? Rand Paul tries to make apologia for the coal industry after the deaths of two coal miners by claiming accidents happen:
“We had a mining accident that was very tragic,” he told Good Morning America. “But then we come in and it’s always someone’s fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen.”
Who cares about the safety records, right? From the same link:
Since the start of the year, the mine has tallied 214 citations for federal safety violations, according to data compiled by the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Sixty-five of those were deemed “significant and substantial,” indicating that they are “reasonably likely to result in a reasonably serious injury or illness.” Eleven of them are related to roof-support systems, the failure of which is the likely cause of last night’s collapse.
And with substantially less regulation, the problem would only be exacerbated. Apparently his "accidents happen" apologia also applies to BP as well. But more to the point, coming down on the company hard is apparently unamerican:
What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, you know, “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 maybe sometimes accidents happen.
Never mind the fact that problems with the rig were apparently known beforehand, but the culture fostered fear of reprisal if it got reported. But since when was it "unamerican" to come down hard on a company for negligent safety standards that got people killed? When was it "unamerican" to ensure the livings of those whose economy lay in the Gulf are restored?
A cherry on top of this pile of bullshit: when asked about the age of the earth, Rand Paul not only passes on the question, he implies the question is highly controversial:
"I forgot to say I was only taking easy questions (crowd laughs). [...] I’m gonna have to pass on the age of the earth. I think I’m just gonna have to pass on that one."
Passing on this question is kind of like passing on the question "Do you believe gravity is an actual force?" Science has given us much insight on the age of earth, whereas "creation science" has given us jacksquat. By passing on this question, he implies that "both sides" have legitimate viewpoints and has enabled the pseudointellectuals and the fundamentalists.
What else? Rand Paul doesn't believe drug abuse is a pressing issue as far as Kentucky's problems go. Regardless of where you stand on the legalization of certain drugs, trivializing the consequences of their abuse, on a personal level and on a community level (i.e. drug violence), is just disgraceful.
To summarize, Rand Paul is an incredibly ignorant man who's an unabashed opportunist with no sense of personal accountability. He lacks all the qualities necessary to exercise good governance, and simply cannot be allowed to serve in the United States Senate. I have focused more on Rand Paul's deficiencies as a politician—and as a human being—but this should not be construed as implying that Conway brings nothing to the table besides not being a fucking moron. On the contrary, as far as Kentucky politics go, he's a solid Democrat and we really lucked out when he beat Mongiardo in the primary. I've focused more on Rand Paul though because the prospect of his election to the Senate absolutely fills me with dread.
We must ensure that we get a solid Democrat representing Kentucky's interests.
***Please support Jack Conway by donating to his moneybomb today.***