Rand Paul has canceled Meet the Press, citing exhaustion. More likely, it’s really a terminal case of foot-in-mouth disease.
So how did we go from Paul Vows to Remain True to the Tea Party to Paul’s ‘Honeymoon’ Seems Over to Poll: Rand Paul Surges Ahead of Palin Among Voters Who Describe Themselves as Morons in such a short period of time? Okay, that last was tongue-in-cheek Andy Borowitz, but still...
Dave Weigel on a more serious note:
That is the north star for Paul. He does not believe that the Constitution allows the government to force businesses, landlords, etc. to change how they do business and who they do business with. And he fears that doing so in the name of positive social change puts us on a slippery slope to extra-Constitutional measures in the service of negative social change -- taking away guns, putting people in camps. You can disagree, but that's where he's coming from.
Now, if you disagree, can you prove him wrong? I think you can. As Errol Louis pointed out yesterday during our appearance on "Hardball," while many libertarians believe that America is more or less colorblind, around 500 discrimination cases are filed each week.
Paul's answer to this would be similar to his explanation of why it would have been better for the U.S. economy to have completely crashed than for taxpayers and the Federal Reserve to have temporarily bailed out banks. We should have endured the crash, stuck by our principles and rebuilt. If a man in a wheelchair can't get into a restaurant, he can raise a fuss, his neighbors can join him, and the restaurant can build a ramp in order to get more business.
Weigel gets to the heart of the matter. He's not a racist, but he is a wingnut. Look at what he says, look at what he believes. His name isn't from Ayn Rand (his full name is Randal) but his sensibilities are.
And how is that playing out so far? Not so good for Paul, the GOP or the tea party.
Kentucky GOP urges Rand Paul to avoid national spotlight
In an indication that he was heeding advice to limit his national exposure, Betsy Fischer, the executive producer of NBC's "Meet the Press," Tweeted late Friday afternoon that Paul said he was having "a tough week" and was trying to cancel his scheduled appearance on the show this Sunday. According to Fischer, such cancellations are rare, and only Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia have ever nixed planned appearances.
Oh, brother. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
And thank you, Rachel Maddow. Joan Walsh lays out what Rachel (and Joan, herself) are doing:
Rand Paul, and other Tea Party candidates, are going to continue to have to answer questions about their political views. Maybe the end of that process will be that they win over the country to their approach to government, and Democrats are tossed out on their ears in November. I think the end result is more likely to be that most of the rest of the country is either mystified, or horrified, by their magical thinking about the free market. (They are now in danger of costing Republicans a couple of Senate seats, in Nevada and Kentucky, that should have been easy pickups in November.)
But either way, it's time for them to step up and tell us how they'd govern -- not whine about the pesky media.
That includes his views on national security, domestic policy, and everything in between. Let's talk about, minimum wage, overtime, Iraq policy, business responsibility in the Gulf, Obama's attitude towards British petroleum... let's hear what you think, Rand! As Weigel suggests, let's skip the racism charge and have an honest debate about what you really think.
Jonathan Weisman:
"I'm not for having a civil war or anything like that, but I am for challenging federal authority over the states, through the courts, to see if we can get some better rulings," he said.
To supporters, such ideological purity has made the Bowling Green ophthalmologist a hero.
"He's going back to the Constitution," said Heather Toombs, a Louisville supporter who came to watch him at a meet-and-greet at a suburban home last week. "He's taking back the government."
But to Democrats, some Republicans and even some libertarians, Mr. Paul's arguments seem detached from the social fabric that has bound the U.S. together since 1937. The federal government puts limits on pollutants from corporations, monitors the safety of toys and other products and ensures a safe food supply—much of which Mr. Paul's philosophy could put in question.
Referring to the tea party v the GOP establishment, Democrat Chris Van Hollen lays out the undercurrent:
"They are understandably very suspicious of Washington Republicans because Washington Republicans would love to use them but then not adopt any of their policies and I think the Wall Street reform bill is case and point," Van Hollen said in an appearance on C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" program.
Dan Balz put it this way:
But what are the boundaries of the tea party movement's anti-government rhetoric? What role do the activists who have come to Washington to protest Obama's "takeover" of the health-care system see for the federal government? How would they bring the federal budget into balance and how quickly? What kind of regulation do they favor for big banks or corporations responsible for oil spills in the gulf? What else would they like to repeal beyond health care?
House GOP leaders will launch an effort this week aimed at producing an agenda for the party, but as long as the tea party is knocking off establishment-backed candidates, what are voters to conclude about who really speaks for the Republican Party?
Avoid talking about what you think, Rand, and you lose the tea party, but engage (see advice from Kentucky GOP) and you lose the country. Which will it be? I wonder.
