15 Reasons Why Rand Paul Is Definitely Not A Friend to the Left
Yesterday on his MSNBC telecast, Ronan Farrow, like too many other seemingly naive members of his generation, confessed to being a fan of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in spite of the fact that Farrow, seconds earlier, aired a clip of the senator vocally endorsing the idea of “traditional marriage” and attributing the redefining of marriage as the leading cause of poverty in the U.S.
We’ll circle back to the surge of fanboy admiration for the would-be Republican presidential frontrunner, but first some history.
The ascendancy of Rand Paul might be the one true barometer for the mainstreaming of the political fringes. If you recall, as I do, the previous two presidential elections, you might remember how Paul’s father, former-Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), was widely considered to be the wacky wild-card candidate during the GOP primaries in 2008 and 2012. As the analogue to, say, Dennis Kucinich on the Democratic side, no one other than his legion of doomsday-bunker-squatting, money-bombing John Galt disciples seriously regarded Ron Paul as a serious candidate and therefore laughed at his hopeless candidacy.
In just about every Republican debate, whenever Ron Paul was humored with a question or two and subsequently filled his time with fantastical libertarian tall-tales from aboard his huffing, puffing, whimsical steam-powered jalopy, the other candidates along with with most of the audience-members could barely contain their snickering and smirking.
But just two short years following the 2012 primaries, Rand Paul, who’s generally the same political creature as his father is widely regarded as a serious contender for the GOP nomination. This is how deeply into the pits of screwball insanity the political discourse has descended. The Son of Weirdo Ron Paul is the real deal.
And it seems as if this surge of relevancy for Rand Paul in the presidential sphere is partly fueled by easily-deceived, privileged voters on the left who are climbing aboard an all new whimsical wheezy jalopy, evidently unaware that Rand Paul is an opportunist who’s views are generally anathema to progressivism. Among those naive leftists are Ronan Farrow and Ralph Nader in spite of his horrendous views on an entire roster of critical issues, many of which are torn from his father’s mystical playbook.
Simply because he occasionally tosses a few token scoops of chum to the left (then quickly backpedals), the left appears to be more than willing to ignore the following positions… CONTINUE READING
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Bob Cesca
Bob Cesca is the managing editor at The Daily Banter (www.thedailybanter.com) and a Huffington Post contributor since 2005. He's worked in journalism since 1988 as a print writer/editor, a radio news anchor, a digital media columnist/editor, a book author and blogger. He's the co-host of the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast and a Thursday regular on the syndicated Stephanie Miller Show. He's appeared on numerous other radio shows including the John Phillips Show and Geraldo Rivera Show in Los Angeles. Bob has been a commentator/analyst on the BBC (TV and radio), MSNBC, Current TV, CNN and Sky News. Following him on Twitter: @bobcesca_go
22 responses to 15 Reasons Why Rand Paul Is Definitely Not A Friend to the Left
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Will August 7th, 2014 at 08:04
President Paul and VP Cruz has a nice ring to it…
EnuffBull August 7th, 2014 at 08:53
… on a ballot for me to poop on!
Pilotshark August 7th, 2014 at 09:34
Paul/Putin 2016 the teapublicans wet dream :-)
M D Reese August 7th, 2014 at 16:27
Netanyahu/Putin! (Mexico and Canada better watch it!)
M D Reese August 7th, 2014 at 16:29
Paul will love it when Cruz comes over to the West Wing and starts telling Paul’s staffers what to do…
arc99 August 7th, 2014 at 16:47
I agree. Their 2016 concession speech will be fascinating.
Will August 7th, 2014 at 08:04
President Paul and VP Cruz has a nice ring to it…
EnuffBull August 7th, 2014 at 08:53
… on a ballot for me to poop on!
Pilotshark August 7th, 2014 at 09:34
Paul/Putin 2016 the teapublicans wet dream :-)
M D Reese August 7th, 2014 at 16:27
Netanyahu/Putin! (Mexico and Canada better watch it!)
M D Reese August 7th, 2014 at 16:29
Paul will love it when Cruz comes over to the West Wing and starts telling Paul’s staffers what to do…
arc99 August 7th, 2014 at 16:47
I agree. Their 2016 concession speech will be fascinating.
NW10 August 7th, 2014 at 08:10
http://cagle.com/working/100520/englehart.jpg
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) August 7th, 2014 at 08:10
http://cagle.com/working/100520/englehart.jpg
Tommy6860 August 7th, 2014 at 08:52
I don’t need 15 reasons, I have one solid reason; he’s a republican.
R.J. Carter August 8th, 2014 at 11:01
Whereas I look at any candidate and count the number of reasons for them being no friend to the Left as being the same number of reasons I should probably consider voting for him.
Tommy6860 August 7th, 2014 at 08:52
I don’t need 15 reasons, I have one solid reason; he’s a republican.
R.J. Carter August 8th, 2014 at 11:01
Whereas I look at any candidate and count the number of reasons for them being no friend to the Left as being the same number of reasons I should probably consider voting for him.
mea_mark August 7th, 2014 at 09:19
He is a tool of the Oligarchy, no way. A flat tax is a regressive tax, putting the burden of financing America and protecting the interest of the rich on the poor and middle-class.
Robert M. Snyder August 7th, 2014 at 10:44
The people who say that X percent of Americans pay no income tax may be technically correct, but they frequently omit the fact that every working American pays a flat 7.65% of their gross income in payroll taxes (SS & Medicare) if they work for someone else, and 15.3% if they are self-employed.
However, it is also a fact that the payroll tax is a flat tax. In fact, only the first $117K of income is subject to the SS payroll tax, so the effective payroll tax rate decreases with income above $117K. A person having a gross income of $234K would effectively pay about half the rate of someone earning under $117K. So the payroll tax is actually a great example of a regressive tax.
I suspect that many who oppose flattening the income tax would welcome the idea of flattening the payroll tax (by removing the income threshold). Personally, I would favor a combined approach of making BOTH taxes flatter. That would make the payroll tax a little less regressive while making the income tax a little less progressive.
I recently had a conversation with a 95-year-old gentleman who was a Social Security branch office administrator for much of his career. He retired 40 years ago and has presumably collected SS for most of that time. He said “President Roosevelt never expected us to live this long.”. This man was 15 when the Social Security Act was passed in 1935. At that time the payroll tax was one percent.
mea_mark August 7th, 2014 at 09:19
He is a tool of the Oligarchy, no way. A flat tax is a regressive tax, putting the burden of financing America and protecting the interest of the rich on the poor and middle-class.
Robert M. Snyder August 7th, 2014 at 10:44
The people who say that X percent of Americans pay no income tax may be technically correct, but they frequently omit the fact that every working American pays a flat 7.65% of their gross income in payroll taxes (SS & Medicare) if they work for someone else, and 15.3% if they are self-employed.
However, it is also a fact that the payroll tax is a flat tax. In fact, only the first $117K of income is subject to the SS payroll tax, so the effective payroll tax rate decreases with income above $117K. A person having a gross income of $234K would effectively pay about half the rate of someone earning under $117K. So the payroll tax is actually a great example of a regressive tax.
I suspect that many who oppose flattening the income tax would welcome the idea of flattening the payroll tax (by removing the income threshold). Personally, I would favor a combined approach of making BOTH taxes flatter. That would make the payroll tax a little less regressive while making the income tax a little less progressive.
I recently had a conversation with a 95-year-old gentleman who was a Social Security branch office administrator for much of his career. He retired 40 years ago and has presumably collected SS for most of that time. He said “President Roosevelt never expected us to live this long.”. This man was 15 when the Social Security Act was passed in 1935. At that time the payroll tax was one percent.