# The Media Treatment of Rand Paul - Knee Jerk Reactionism by Mental Midgets **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 23, 2010, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445 "2010-05-23T08:12:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/301 "2010-05-26T19:31:32Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > Hey that’s the slogan of the **French** revolution\*! Clearly, you ain’t no real 'Merkin. > > (\*Minus the “pick one” part, of course) Hey if we can steal anthems, make a few changes and call them our own songs, we can damn sure steal a slogan. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/302 "2010-05-26T19:32:44Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > Hey that’s the slogan of the **French** revolution\*! Clearly, you ain’t no real 'Merkin. > > (\*Minus the “pick one” part, of course) 😛 True enough. But Enlightenment thinkers including John Locke (the other one, not the one on LOST) in his “Second Treatise on Government” (1692) offered language alluding to basic rights to life, liberty and property. These ideas and their further development by others were influential both to French revolutionaries and to American ones as well. There is much in parallel regarding ideas of citizenship, duty, and inalienable rights. But that’s off the topic. The topic was pointing and laughing at the Pauls and their apologist \*\*jrodefeld \*\*for reasons detailed above. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/303 "2010-05-26T19:47:32Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > 😛 > > True enough. But Enlightenment thinkers including John Locke (the other one, not the one on LOST) in his “Second Treatise on Government” (1692) offered language alluding to basic rights to life, liberty and property. These ideas and their further development by others were influential both to French revolutionaries and to American ones as well. There is much in parallel regarding ideas of citizenship, duty, and inalienable rights. But that’s off the topic. > > The topic was pointing and laughing at the Pauls and their apologist \*\*jrodefeld \*\*for reasons detailed above. Wait, I though we were pointing and laughing at **jrodefeld** for (a) constantly asserting that the Pauls believe things\* directly contradicted by their own website and/or (b) professing that the Pauls’ dissembling about their views is a-ok because at least they aren’t typical politicians.\*\* \*e.g., legalizing marijuana, getting gov’t out of the marriage biz \*\*because those typical politicians are always going around lying about their beliefs, dammit! ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/304 "2010-05-26T20:11:23Z")
From the [Washington Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/26/AR2010052602334.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics), via another thread in Our Own GD: > [@](#): > > A week after a come-from-behind victory over the GOP’s establishment candidate in a Kentucky Senate primary, Rand Paul is facing a possible challenge by the Libertarian Party and is shaking up his staff after comments he made about racial segregation caused a firestorm. > > Despite his pedigree as the son of former Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul, Libertarian Vice Chairman Joshua Koch said Rand Paul has betrayed the party’s values with stands he’s taken, and they were considering finding a candidate to run for the seat… > > “He had gone from being an outsider candidate to a tea party candidate to an establishment candidate in the past nine months,” Koch said. “It’s a complete identity crisis. I’ve never seen anything like it.” The article goes on to state that a Libertarian Candidate for Senator would help the Democrat’s chance. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/305 "2010-05-26T21:12:50Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > From the [Washington Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/26/AR2010052602334.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics), via another thread in Our Own GD: > > The article goes on to state that a Libertarian Candidate for Senator would help the Democrat’s chance. Apparently the REAL Libertarians are not too pleased with Rand Paul’s philosophical wavering. Their insistence on ideological prurity at the near complete expense of electability is …well…interesting. These dudes are hardcore about their ethos, almost manically so. They’re like the Taliban. > [@](#): > > Once an ally, Koch had strong criticism for Paul, who won the Republican Senate nomination last week by trouncing the GOP establishment candidate, Secretary of State Trey Grayson. > > “He had gone from being an outsider candidate to a tea party candidate to an establishment candidate in the past nine months,” Koch said. “It’s a complete identity crisis. I’ve never seen anything like it.” > > Insisting Paul is no Libertarian, Koch called Paul and his Democratic opponent, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, “faces of the same bad coin.” > > The Libertarian Party doesn’t have a strong presence in Kentucky. But the race is being closely watched as Democrats seek to reclaim a seat that is being vacated by retiring Republican Sen. Jim Bunning, a 78-year-old former major league pitcher who opted not to seek a third term. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/306 "2010-05-26T21:48:46Z")
> [@astro](#): > > Their insistence on ideological prurity at the near complete expense of electability is …well…interesting. These dudes are hardcore about their ethos, almost manically so. Which is a major reason why I think they would be utter disasters if given power. They do make me think of the Communists; once in power, they’d hold to their ideological purity no matter how unworkable their ideals turned out to be in practice. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/307 "2010-05-26T21:52:04Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > It looks like **jrodefeld** thinks they’re wrong on those issues, but he’s cool with them flip-flopping or or lying about their views to get elected. Because these guys aren’t typical politicians, you see. Clearly, IOKIYRP. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/308 "2010-05-27T10:59:06Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > I don’t know whether \*\*jrodefeld \*\*thinks they’re right when they’re \*fur \*these or \*agin \*them. I believe he said Rand Paul’s public positions are wrong on all three issues. > [@astro](#): > > Apparently the REAL Libertarians are not too pleased with Rand Paul’s philosophical wavering. Their insistence on ideological prurity at the near complete expense of electability is …well…interesting. These dudes are hardcore about their ethos, almost manically so. They’re like the Taliban. Ideological purity is important to plenty of voters, although I guess you could argue it’s more important to minority parties because they tend to hate _the system_ and don’t want to compromise their values. And I don’t like the Taliban comparison. It’s a big stretch to compare a group that wants to curtail government power with a group of theocratic madmen who pass anti-music and pro-beard laws and beat women for going to school or leaving the house without a male to watch over them. And to be honest there are also some indications the Taliban are willing to compromise, at least at gunpoint. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2010, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/309 "2010-05-28T21:40:05Z")
Rand Paul demonstrates his [ignorance of the US Constitution](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gQVREKmjiAG7r_74Bs--OoD5dyugD9G01EE00): > [@](#): > > U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul is stirring it up again, this time by saying he opposes citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are illegal immigrants. > > Paul, who a week ago won the GOP primary, told a Russian TV station in a clip circulating on political Web sites Friday that he wants to block citizenship to those children. > > “We’re the only country I know that allows people to come in illegally, have a baby, and then that baby becomes a citizen,” Paul told RT, an English-language station, shortly after his win over GOP establishment candidate Trey Grayson. “And I think that should stop also.” This is a direct contradiction of the fourteenth amendment, and any fool who thinks it can be changed with legislation cannot reasonable be called a constitutional scholar. Once again Rand Paul demonstrates he is no libertarian, but a right wing opportunist exploiting populist fears of brown immigrants. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2010, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/310 "2010-05-28T22:16:43Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Rand Paul demonstrates his [ignorance of the US Constitution](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gQVREKmjiAG7r_74Bs--OoD5dyugD9G01EE00):This is a direct contradiction of the fourteenth amendment, and any fool who thinks it can be changed with legislation cannot reasonable be called a constitutional scholar. Once again Rand Paul demonstrates he is no libertarian, but a right wing opportunist exploiting populist fears of brown immigrants. Is this fair? Does he say it should be done through legislation? I actually support the idea. It’s one thing if you are in this country with a work or tourist visa, but why should a kid born to people who are here illegally automatically be a citizen? It’s a historical quirk. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2010, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/311 "2010-05-28T22:19:46Z")
Rand Paul is either ignorant or lazy or both. Anyone born in Canada (since the relevant legislation was passed in 1977) is a citizen, but I guess only America exists to Rand and the voters he wishes to cultivate. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2010, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/312 "2010-05-28T22:25:01Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > It’s one thing if you are in this country with a work or tourist visa, but why should a kid born to people who are here illegally automatically be a citizen? Because that is what it says in the Constitution. Libertarians are originalists in that respect, so advocating a position that contradicts the Constitution is hardly evidence of libertarianism. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2010, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/313 "2010-05-28T22:39:30Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Because that is what it says in the Constitution. Libertarians are originalists in that respect, so advocating a position that contradicts the Constitution is hardly evidence of libertarianism. Besides, how is that increasing the cause of liberty to tell an innocent “you can’t have any”? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2010, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/314 "2010-05-28T22:39:51Z")
Well, let’s look at what the Originalist (ie, the guy who wrote that clause) had to say: [Citizenship Clause](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause): > [@](#): > > Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding Indians, who maintain their tribal ties, and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” It is only subsequent SCOTUS rulings that have given us the meaning we ascribe to that clause today. I guess he’s spot on, then! ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2010, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/315 "2010-05-28T22:42:39Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, let’s look at what the Originalist (ie, the guy who wrote that clause) had to say: > > [Citizenship Clause](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause): > > It is only subsequent SCOTUS rulings that have given us the meaning we ascribe to that clause today. > > I guess he’s spot on, then! Only if the persons in question are the children of ambassadors or foreign ministers. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/316 "2010-05-28T22:47:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, let’s look at what the Originalist (ie, the guy who wrote that clause) had to say: > > [Citizenship Clause](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause): > > > [@](#): > > > > Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding Indians, who maintain their tribal ties, and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” > > It is only subsequent SCOTUS rulings that have given us the meaning we ascribe to that clause today. > > I guess he’s spot on, then! You left something out. > [@](#): > > Howard additionally stated the word jurisdiction meant “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now” and that the United States possessed a “full and complete jurisdiction” over the person described in the amendment. Other senators, including Senator John Conness, supported the amendment, believing citizenship ought to be extended to all children of foreigners born in the United States. I’ll allow everyone to draw their own conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2010, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/317 "2010-05-28T23:11:26Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > You left something out. > > I’ll allow everyone to draw their own conclusions. I don’t see what difference that makes. If you want “the originalist” view, you have to go the origin. The guy who wrote it. It’s no surprise that other Senators had other ideas about what it meant. Frankly, the term “originalist” is used around here without much understanding of what it actually is-- as if there were some objectively knowable “original” meaning that can be teased out by reading the papers of the various legislators involved. But that’s hogwash. The papers often tell us contradictory things, and they never tell us anything about legislators who voted, but left no commentary behind. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/318 "2010-05-29T00:09:36Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Rand Paul demonstrates his [ignorance of the US Constitution](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gQVREKmjiAG7r_74Bs--OoD5dyugD9G01EE00):This is a direct contradiction of the fourteenth amendment, and any fool who thinks it can be changed with legislation cannot reasonable be called a constitutional scholar. Once again Rand Paul demonstrates he is no libertarian, but a right wing opportunist exploiting populist fears of brown immigrants. OK, let’s not even get into what the Constitution says and what the “original” intent was, because that’s a debate that can go on forever. Let’s just focus on what Rand Paul said. Seems to me all he’s saying is that he wants to change the definition of who is a citizen in order to exclude the children of people who are here illegally. That is hardly controversial, and hardly unusual for most countries. But even if it were, what’s wrong with wanting to change the constitution? Are you trying to say that a Libertarian would never want to amend the constitution if he disagreed with a part of it? ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/319 "2010-05-29T00:22:56Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Frankly, the term “originalist” is used around here without much understanding of what it actually is-- as if there were some objectively knowable “original” meaning that can be teased out by reading the papers of the various legislators involved. But that’s hogwash. The papers often tell us contradictory things, and they never tell us anything about legislators who voted, but left no commentary behind. So the people who wrote it and voted on it are useless to determine what the “original” intent was? Thank god we have you and Rand-fucking-Paul around to clear it up then. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/320 "2010-05-29T00:28:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Are you trying to say that a Libertarian would never want to amend the constitution if he disagreed with a part of it? In the context of the portrait of libertarianism posed by the OP, yes, that is what I am saying. The OP has consistently portrayed Rand Paul as a constitutional scholar who sees the Constitution as a suicide pact that is inviolate. I don’t know if that applies to all libertarians, but my comments are directed at the OP and his portrayal of Rand Paul and his particular flavor of libertarianism. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445.md?page=17)