Rand Paul

[Max]

If you don't mind me asking, I was curious as to why liberals hate Rand Paul so much. (I know we have a politics thread, but I just wanted to create a new thread that dealt with this specific topic.) I can certainly understand why liberals would hate Paul, but what I cannot understand is why he receives the same level of hatred that every other conservative receives.

Specifically, Paul is a very different type of conservative, as one who holds some positions that progressives find to their liking. For instance, he is against the Patriot Act and is against any preemptive wars. He also gave a lengthy and very eloquent filibuster that criticized President Obama for his use of killer drones. (It's sad that it was Paul--and not the anti-war left--who leveled most of the criticism at the president for this.) I'm not completely sure on this matter, but I also believe that he favors the legalization of some drugs.

The point of all this is that Paul is far from a cookie-cutter conservative, yet he still seems to receive the same level of hatred that someone like Mitch McConnell gets. (Ironically, Paul defeated Trey Greyson--a McConnell puppet--in the GOP primary; if not for this, Greyson would be senator today.) I think the fact that Paul is one of the very few politicians who refuses to pander should be applauded, even if you strongly disagree with some (or even much) of what he stands for. I actually disagree with Paul on several of his issues (like drug legalization and the Patriot Act), but find it so refreshing that he is so courageous in standing up for unpopular beliefs. I would support him for president if he ran. (I'm not delusional enough to believe that he could actually win, but don't all the political experts say that a Hillary victory is inevitable? Since that's the case, it's much better to lose and stand for something as opposed to lose and stand for nothing.)

[quartermainefan]

Hey Max, good to see you!

Rand Paul is an !@#$%^&*]. He really reached when he lectured Hillary that had he been president should would have been fired. This guy with no chance of being president is lecturing the person who is the current odds on favorite to win if she runs. His libertarian views suddenly evaporate when it comes to abortion and suddenly he is in the business of making medical decisions that may overrule doctors and mothers. His recent comments about race relations expose him as a buffoon or a liar. And his threat to filibuster gun control is completely disgusting, and almost cries out for cosmic ironic justice the next time there is a Giffords type incident.

His father is a charming, amusing guy, the darling of the white supremacist crowd, and occasionally these guys do get things right. Rand Paul was right on the drone filibuster. That may be the only thing he was ever right about.

[Max]

It's great seeing you as well, Qfan!

Your eloquent post makes some valid points. I'm probably the only one who feels this way, but even despite some of his controversial moves, I'm just puzzled as to why liberals wouldn't find him among the least objectionable conservative senators. (But, as I said earlier, I can certainly understand why liberals hate him.)

[Delia]

He's a very interesting figure. From eye doctor to US Senator is certainly a weird trajectory, but his father was a gynecologist so I guess that kind of transition runs in the family. I understand why many on the right admire him. He is an unconventional, atypical politician and a true maverick. He's a relatively fresh and young face in a party that is full of old, very conventional, boring and very conservative men.

I don't think Rand Paul is 'hated' by liberals anymore than any other national conservative figure. If anything some admire him for his drone filibuster. On substance most liberals agreed with what he was saying about drones and how the program lacks oversight, congressional approval, etc. Code Pink - the radical leftist anti-War group - named him their favorite senator after the drone filibuster. The fact that he is fine with pot and is less hostile to gays may win him some approval from liberals. And anyways if he was a true libertarian, he'd support gay marriage or at least say the federal government should stay away from the issue.

But most liberals disagree with him sharply because of his views on race. He fell apart at the seems when he appeared on Rachel Maddow's show (and he hasn't been back since). Maddow called him out on his ridiculous opposition to various civil rights acts and laws that have been popular, successful, and on the books for decades. (Also, his father's old newsletters were full of repugnant racism that was quite embarrassing for him when he ran for president last year.) Paul's brand of libertarianism would in effect allow racial and gender discrimination by private businesses and employers. I think that's absolutely terrible and his refusal to comprehend the consequences of what would happen if his extreme libertarianism was ever implemented shows how shallow he truly is.

Other liberals dislike Paul because he is the leader of the obstructionist bloc of Senators. He filibusters anything and everything that even remotely opposes his ideology, which few people in this country actually agree with or understand.

But, I personally dislike Rand Paul because he's a true ideologue. He did not go to Washington and the US Senate because he wanted to legislate or help out his state (Kentucky). He went there to prove points, to promote his own ideology and now it seems run for president in 2016. What local or Kentucky issues has he championed?