Ron Paul’s son is running for the U.S. Senate seat that is being vacated by Jim Bunning in Kentucky and the NYT is pulling out all stops to shortcircuit and discredit the libertarian insurgent. Like his father, Rand Paul is a phyiscian and a devoted constitutionalist. But he does not have enough government experience and falls outside of the mainstream, according to the liberal media…
Anytime a candidate for public office invokes the founding period and the virtues of limited government, there are sure to draw ire and animosity from The New York Times. This is very evident in an interview with Rand Paul that ran in the newspaper’s Sunday magazine. The Kentucky Republican is running for the U.S. Senate seat that incumbent Jim Bunning is vacating.
Paul is expected to compete in the GOP primary with Secretary of State Trey Grayson. The winner will face either state Attorney General Jack Conway or Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo, who are seeking the Democratic nomination.
Although Grayson was considered the front-runner and is favored by the party establishment, Paul is actually ahead in the polls could win in the May primary. Former Vice-President Dick Cheney and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have thrown in with Grayson.
But as the son of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the former presidential candidate, the 47-year-old ophthalmologist has a strong identity with the libertarian cause and a highly motivated base of Tea Party activists.
This is completely unacceptable from the perspective of The New York Times, which pulls out all stops to marginalize and de-legitimize an insurgent candidacy that is very much in step with average Americans who have expressed concern about the size and scope of the federal government.
For starters, The Times is scandalized because the younger Paul is not a career politician and has not spent any time in government. Here is how the Q and A unfolds:
Did you consider running for local office? Isn’t it a big leap to go from being a 47-year-old ophthalmologist in Bowling Green, Ky., with no experience serving in government, to being a United States senator?
I tell people that my biggest attribute is having not held public office, which is a great attribute to possess. I think people are looking for regular citizens. I don’t think it’s a prerequisite that you be in office for 10 or 15 years.
What about five minutes? You haven’t even served in government for five minutes.
Ans: I don’t think it’s necessarily a prerequisite. I’ve been active in politics for a group called Kentucky Taxpayers United for 15 to 20 years.
From here, the exchange disintegrates into accusations of racism made on the sly. This is the preferred fallback position the left wing uses to discredit Tea Party activists who are continuing to gain momentum.
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the new Republican media darling, emerges here as a foil against the more principled members of his party. One man’s “mainstream Republican” is another man’s unhinged big spender. In their effort to discredit the Paul candidacy, the Gray Lady may have unwittingly offered up the kiss of death to the establishment candidate.
Here is how the mainstream is defined:
Mainstream Republicans seem concerned that their party is being taken over by “angry white guys,” as Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina senator, said. He doesn’t want you to hijack the Republican Party.
Ans: I think this quote you are reading is about my father and not me.
It would not be reasonable Republicans who have a living memory of the Reagan Presidency the Gingrich Revolution to suggest that is Graham and other mainstreamers who have hijacked the party in deference to intrusive federal schemes.
But where the NYT has an agenda, there is no time for logic.
The interview concludes with a lecture in favor of Big Government:
But in light of your distrust of the federal government, where are you on an issue like seat belts? Federal legislation requiring people to wear seat belts could obviously save lives.
I think the federal government shouldn’t be involved. I don’t want to live in a nanny state where people are telling me where I can go and what I can do.
You shouldn’t trivialize issues of health and safety by calling them nanny issues.
The question is, do you want to live in a nanny state where the government tells you what you can eat, where you can smoke, where you can live, what you can do, or would you rather have some freedom, and freedom means that things aren’t perfect?
At least Paul gets the last word and as more Americans answer in the affirmative they will have considerably less patience for “mainstream Republicans” who covet positive press coverage.
Popularity: 1% [?]
