H.A. Goodman posted a lengthy article on why he, as a "liberal Democrat" will vote for Rand Paul in 2016.
Let me be clear, I don't give one fig who H.A. Goodman supports for any position. All I care about is that Goodman (and all media) use current and complete facts when writing about people they support.
After reading his piece, it's clear to me that H.A. Goodman's article is intellectually dishonest. Goodman intentionally misleads his readers by omitting important and serious facts about Rand Paul's real positions. Goodman clearly has an 'agenda' and is willing to forego journalistic integrity by omitting facts. In my view, when a journalist omits facts, then that journalist is lying.
But, what agenda does H.A. Goodman have? Does Goodman hate Hillary so much that he is willing to print false praise on Rand Paul?
Notice, Goodman tweeted "Greenwald
hates Hillary too." Get that? "too" as in "also."
So Goodman "hates Hillary too" and Goodman is going to use his power as a journalist to puff-up Rand Paul by leaving out facts that contradict Goodman's agenda. What is Goodman's agenda? Goodman's tweet shows: he hates Hillary.
Ok, I know I don't have the "readership" Goodman has, but, this diary will show H.A. Goodman's puff-piece on Rand Paul is filled will serious errors and Goodman, like many in the media, omits facts that contradict Goodman's agenda for personal gain. (I will not link to his article because I don't think it deserves the clicks.)
H.A. Goodman listed 10 points (reasons) why he will vote for Rand Paul in 2016. This diary goes through Goodman's points and adds facts that Goodman intentionally left out. I felt the most misleading and incredibly intellectually dishonest point Goodman wrote about was number 6. So, I will start with 6 and then use reverse chronological order to add facts that Goodman intentionally left out.
Goodman's number 6:
6. Rand Paul publicized the issue of a possible government drone strike, on American soil, against American citizens ... Eric Holder actually answered that theoretically, yes, drone strikes to kill Americans on U.S. soil could be viewed as legal, depending on the circumstance. If this doesn't frighten you, then vote for Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush, since neither one cares about this matter ... only Rand Paul and a few others have shown outrage over the potential of our government to possibly target its own citizens.
~ H.A. Goodman puff-piece (emphasis added)
With just a little research Goodman would know that Rand Paul does support droning Americans on US soil.
April 23, 2013
RAND PAUL: “I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”
~ Rand Paul on Fox News
"imminent threat" and "
alleged shoplifting" will get you droned by Rand Paul. So much for "Due Process" but equally important, Rand Paul is
not "
outrage[d] over the potential of our government to possibly target its own citizens" as Goodman falsely claims.
Keep in mind, President Obama has not "droned" any Americans on US soil. But rightwingers have never let facts get in the way of a good fearmongering plot.
So as not to be intellectually dishonest like Goodman, I will add information that Goodman used and include information Goodman intentionally left regarding Rand Paul's droning of Americans on US Soil. Pay close attention to dates.
Rand Paul Senate website Rand write,
"In the letter, Sen. Paul states: "The question that I and many others have asked is not whether the Administration has or intends to carry out drone strikes inside the United States, but whether it believes it has the authority to do so. This is an important distinction that should not be ignored."
~ Feb 20, 2014 Letter from Rand Paul
Attorney General Eric Holder replied to Rand Paul.
“As members of this Administration have previously indicated, the U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so.
.... The questions you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical It is possible, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront. I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the President could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001.”
~ March 4, 2013. Letter from AG Eric Holder
(hmm ... Pearl Harbor comes to mind as to an instance where the US government would have used "drones" to fend off the attack.)
Ok, so Rand Paul was livid by Holder's reply and put out a misleading press release:
AG Holder Asserts Authority to Conduct Drone Strikes on U.S. Citizens
"The U.S. Attorney General's refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening - it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans," Sen. Paul said.
~March 5, 2013 Rand Paul press release
(emphasis added)
"
more than frightening" ... "
affront to Constitutional due process."
RAND PAUL "No American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court," Paul said.
~ March 7, 2013. Rand Paul filibuster
"
without first being found to be guilty by a court," Ok, surely Rand Paul didn't mean to imply that droning an American to death would be appropriate Capital Punishment ... right?
So, in a vacuum, if these are the only pieces of information you read regarding Rand Paul and droning Americans you may conclude Rand Paul would never drone an American ... and that's exactly what H.A. Goodman wants you to conclude which is why Goodman intentionally left out the rest of the facts that show Rand Paul does support droning Americans on US soil.
Watch Serial Plagiarist Rand Paul flip a position quicker than an Etch-A-Sketch.
Within a few weeks of Rand's March 7 filibuster, Rand Paul not only said that would drone Americans on US soil if there is an "imminent threat," but, in an even "more than frightening" statement from Rand Paul, is Rand Paul said he would drone an alleged shoplifter on US soil who is leaving a store with $50.00.
Yep, Rand Paul said he would drone an alleged shoplifter on US soil who was coming out of a store, (so much for Rand's "without first being found to be guilty by a court")
April 23, 2013
RAND PAUL: “I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”
(emphasis added)
Rand Paul could not care less about "due process" -- to quote Serial Plagiarist Rand Paul, "
drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening - it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,"
At one point, (point 10) H.A. Goodman writes:
I want someone who can protect us from ourselves and protect us from the media/terrorist driven fear that keeps America in endless war and allows attorney generals to rationalize a drone strike on American soil.
~ H.A. Goodman
Well then Mr. Goodman, that person you're looking for is
not Rand Paul.
I am stunned that H.A. Goodman did not research Rand Paul's current position on "droning Americans on US soil" since it is obviously a very important issue to Goodman, and should be to all Americans for that matter.
Moving now to Goodman's number 10:
Rand Paul could be the answer to our philosophical conundrum as a nation ... I want someone who can protect us from ourselves and protect us from the media/terrorist driven fear that keeps America in endless war and allows attorney generals to rationalize a drone strike on American soil.
~H.A. Goodman
Answer to our philosophical conundrum
Moving to Goodman's Number 9:
9. Neoconservatives hate Rand Paul. They like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush a lot more, and The Weekly Standard, National Review, and others have voiced their reservations about a Rand Paul presidency. If neocons disagree with you, then you must be doing something right.
~H.A. Goodman
Ok, that's true.
Moving to Goodman's Number 8:
8. Rand Paul will not gut the economic safety nets of this country in the manner espoused by Paul Ryan and others. He doesn't want to dismantle Social Security.
~ H.A. Goodman
Actually, Rand Paul
does want to dismantle Social Security and a host of other "safety nets."
Rand Paul, Mike Lee (R) & Lindsey Graham (R) introduced legislation to raise retirement to age 70 cuz you know coal miners in Kentucky are way too agile at age 65 to retire.
From Rand Paul's website:
The senators propose a gradual increase in the Social Security full retirement age to 70 by 2032.
In fact, Rand Paul is on record as saying Social Security is a "
Ponzy Scheme" and Rand wants to privatize Social Security and increase the retirement age. Added together, Rand Paul is on record as wanting to dismantle Social Security (and Medicare).
From Daily Caller:
RAND PAUL “You tell a 25-year-old that he’s going to be 70 when he gets Medicare or Social Security and I think he’ll say, ‘No big deal, I wasn’t positive I was going to get it anyway.’ So I think young people are going to be more than willing to embrace this,” he said. “Young people are more than willing and ready.”
From
National Memo
Rand Paul's Plan Would End Medicare As We Know It For All Seniors, Raise Retirement Age to 70.
"Paul’s plan would immediately privatize Medicare, shifting all retirees into the same plans offered to members of Congress."
Other safety nets Rand Paul wants to dismantle:
Rand Paul wants Block Grant funding for: Medicaid, food stamps, CHIP, and other nutrition assistance programs.
Food Stamps:
Rand Paul says Food Stamps are just like slavery:
RAND PAUL: “As humans, yeah, we do have an obligation to give people water, to give people food, to give people health care but it’s not a right because once you conscript people and say, ‘Oh, it’s a right,’ then really you’re in charge, it’s servitude, you’re in charge of me and I’m supposed to do whatever you tell me to do.”
~ August 2013, Rand Paul (emphasis added)
Other nutrition assistance Programs:
Rand Paul wants to limit number of children unwed mothers can have
RAND: PAUL: “Maybe we have to say ‘enough’s enough, you shouldn’t be having kids after a certain amount. I don’t know how you do all that because then it’s tough to tell a woman with four kids that she’s got a fifth kid we’re not going to give her any more money. But we have to figure out how to get that message through because that is part of the answer.”
~Jan 2014, Rand Paul to Kentucky Chamber of Commerce (emphasis added)
Moving to Goodman's Number 7:
7. Rand Paul could bring back an era in American politics when conservatives and liberals socialized with one another.
Party!
I don't necessarily want politicians use taxpayer money to "socialize" and I don't give a damn if they "socialize" with each other at all. I just want them to do their damn jobs.
Moving to Goodman's Number 5:
5. Sen. Paul thinks Edward Snowden was treated unfairly as a whistleblower and should have only spent "a few years" in prison. No other candidate in 2016 would dare take that position.
First, a current theme in H.A. Goodman puff-piece makes a lot of presumptions. The biggest is Goodman is pretending the only candidates "in 2016" will be: Hillary, Jeb and Rand Paul.
Second, with just a little research, Goodman would have learned that Senator Bernie Sanders (I) of Vermont is seriously considering running for President in 2016.
Last year Huffington Post reported Bernie Sanders may run for US President in 2016
November, 2013,
And according to the Free Press, "Sanders says he is willing to consider making a run if no one else with progressive views similar to his ends up taking the plunge."
Moving to Goodman's Number 4:
4. POLITICO states Hillary Clinton is "Wall Street Republicans' dark secret" in 2016. I don't see Clinton as being any more liberal than Paul on Wall Street or banking, although perhaps she'd be more willing to save failed corporations than the Kentucky Senator.
Maybe? Maybe not?
August 31 2009, Rand Paul's campaign wrote
U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul on Monday pledged not to accept campaign contributions from any U.S. Senator who voted for the bank bailout and challenged his opponents to follow suit.
May 18, 2010: Rand Paul won the May 18, 2010 GOP Primary and became fast-friends with GOP Establishment leader Bank Bailout TARP author Mitch McConnell and suddenly decided that receiving money from US Senators who voted for the bank bailouts was actually, really okay.
June 11, 2010 (24 days after Rand Paul won the GOP Primary). Rand Paul's campaign announced TARP Bank Bailout author Mitch McConnell would throw Rand Paul a "pricey" fundraiser in Washington DC.
McConnell is offering his fundraising prowess after opposing Rand Paul in the primary. The June 24 event includes a reception and dinner at the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Individual tickets go for $1,000 with sponsorships at $5,000 per group, Paul campaign manager Jesse Benton said.
So, I guess H.A. Goodman doesn't really know how quickly Rand Paul would bail out banks making his number 4 complete speculation with facts to support his claim.
Moving to Goodman's Number 3:
3. Rand Paul has teamed up with liberal Democratic Sen. Cory Booker to reform the criminal justice system. Their bill would improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans who've been adversely affected by non-violent criminal sentences.
That's good.
Moving to Goodman's Number 2:
2. The Los Angeles Times has referred to Paul as "one of the foremost critics of the government's domestic spying program." In early 2014, Sen. Paul filed a lawsuit against the NSA over domestic spying.
That's good. And if Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and/or many other candidates hop in to 2016 campaign, they'll be against NSA spying too.
Moving to Goodman's Number 1:
1. Rand Paul will be more cautious with waging war than Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush. Sen. Paul has called Obama's ISIS war illegal and isn't against defending American interests through military intervention, but stresses the importance of Congress making these decisions. Hillary Clinton, in contrast, thinks we should have armed the Syrian rebel groups several years ago.
~ H.A. Goodman
With a little research H.A. Goodman would know Rand Paul
does support "
Obama's ISIS war." Rand Paul even said he would have acted earlier than Obama and would not rule out putting boots on the ground.
RAND PAUL: “In no way have I said that we shouldn’t do anything about ISIS,”
~ Rand Paul on Hannity Radio
RAND PAUL: If I had been in President Obama’s shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS ... He [Obama] should have asked for authorization for military action and would have, no doubt, received it.
"
no doubt, received it" I can only guess that means Rand Paul would have voted to go to war with ISIS
Rand Paul went on to say
RAND PAUL: Once we have decided that we have an enemy that requires destruction, we must have a comprehensive strategy—a realistic policy applying military power and skillful diplomacy to protect our national interests.
Rand Paul then diverges into fearmongering (which Goodman claims he despises)
RAND PAUL We must also secure our own borders and immigration policy from ISIS infiltration. Our border is porous, and the administration, rather than acting to protect it, instead ponders unconstitutional executive action, legalizing millions of illegal immigrants.
Rand Paul goes double-down on fearmongering:
RAND PAUL: Our immigration system, especially the administration of student visas, requires a full-scale examination. Recently, it was estimated that as many as 6,000 possibly dangerous foreign students are unaccounted for.
I will preface what I am about to say with this: I do not support a war with "ISIS" and do not support sending troops or boots to Iraq. I do not support anything the United States, along with our silent Congress is doing with regard to Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, ISIS mess.
That said, The War Powers Resolution of 1973 allows a President, no matter their skin color, 60 days to gain consent from Congress and requires to end ‘hostilities’ within 30 days if no consent from Congress. President Obama issued the first strikes against "ISIS" on September 23, 2014 when Congress decided it was more important to go on their 52 day vacation than it was to pow-wow about the conflict. So, I don't know if Rand Paul is accurate to say bombing ISIS is "illegal" at this point.
I am not a Hillary defender by any stretch of the imagination, but Goodman is being intellectually dishonest when he writes
"Hillary Clinton, in contrast, thinks we should have armed the Syrian rebel groups several years ago."
From Hillary Clinton book
"The best I could say for it was that it was the least bad option among many even worse alternatives," she wrote.
H.A. Goodman wrote:
Hillary Clinton alone has gone back and forth on enough issues to make the former Secretary of State a human version of Pong
Yes she has. In my view, however, Rand Paul has "gone back and forth on enough issues" to make Rand the Ping & the Pong.
I don't care who H.A. Goodman supports. And, I'm not even trying to change his mind. In order to remain intellectually honest, Mr. Goodman should update his article and include all the facts about Rand Paul ... anything less would be perpetrating lies about Rand Paul's record.
So, what is Goodman's agenda? Does Goodman hate Hillary so much that he is willing to print false praise on Rand Paul?
