Rand Paul would like to welcome you all to the 17th century.
With each passing minute it becomes more apparent that this guy is dangerous!
If sanity prevails in Kentucky, which I'll admit is open to question, a Democrat will be elected to the US Senate come November.
After trying unsuccessfully to spin his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Mr. Paul went on today to burnish his extremist credentials.
On Friday he called the Obama administration “un-American” for taking a tough stance with BP over the company’s handling of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Who should The President take a tough stand with, the fish?
It seems Mr Paul disagrees with The President's insistence that BP be held accountable — and pay — for the oil spill cleanup and damage.
“What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, ‘I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,’ ” Mr. Paul said. “I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. I’ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it’s always got to be someone’s fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen.”
His Democratic opponent, Jack Conway, the state attorney general, said on Friday: “Rand Paul apparently has a deeply held conviction that corporations should be allowed to do what they see fit without oversight or accountability.”
Also in the Friday “Good Morning America” interview, Mr. Paul extended his belief that too much blame was being laid at the feet of business, by alluding to the deaths of 29 workers at a Massey coal mine in West Virginia last month. “We had a mining accident that was very tragic,” he said. “Then we come in, and it’s always someone’s fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen.”
In other words Mr. Paul's answer to the American people is shit happens, get over it. As we all know, neither accident just happened. Corners were cut and safety standards were watered down by the previous Republican administration in the name of short term corporate profits.
By Friday afternoon, Mr. Paul’s campaign had canceled his scheduled appearance on Sunday’s “Meet the Press” program. Apparently even Mr Paul's handlers think he is dangerous.
When it comes to going back to the 17th century the people of Kentucky need to loudly say...
Hell No, We Won't Go!
Showing posts with label Kentucky. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kentucky. Show all posts
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
KENTUCKY...BACK IN THE HOOD?
After breaking a barrier that stood for 234 years by electing the first African American as President of the United Sates, something that many Americans never thought they would see in their lifetimes, America earned a newfound admiration throughout the world. At long last, it seemed, we over came. At long last, the promise
of America that all men are created equally and can achieve anything their abilities allowed had been fulfilled.
It was a long 234 years, filled with pain and striving and it could not have happened without a series of important incremental gains. The most important of which was the 1964 Civil Rights Act which for the first time codified Thomas Jefferson's promise into law thereby extending it to all Americans.
Indeed, things have changed dramatically since the days when men in hoods, supported by the wink of the law, could terrorize and murder those that they deemed unworthy. Invariably, such change brings out the most extreme among us, those who would seek to take the country back to its darkest days.
This brings us to the phenomena that is The Tea Party. After the greed and incompetence of the last administration led to the disintegration of 8 million jobs, people became angry and afraid. Can you blame them? But the question must be asked why is that anger directed at Barack Obama? It can not be because he is not doing a good job because clearly, he is doing quite well considering the rubble he was handed upon taking office. No, it has to be something else.
People who are angry and afraid and who are searching for answers are easily led and it seems that the worst among us, aided, abetted and whipped by Fox News have seized control of the tea partiers. What else would explain such misplaced anger?
Early on, Republicans, careening from their losses in the most recent national elections cynically latched onto the nascent Tea Party as a way to gain some traction in the national debate. I don't think that they bargained for what it has come to stand for.
On Thursday, The Tea Party's Rand Paul who not two days earlier won the Republican nomination in Kentucky to run for the U.S. Senate, suggested in a series of television and radio interviews, that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was too broad and should not apply to private businesses, such as but not limited to
lunchonettes. A postition so deeply held that he can not bring himself to utter the words that might cause us to think otherwise even though he tried.
The Republican establishment, led by the Senior Senator from the State of Kentucky, who also happens to be the Republican leader in the Senate perhaps recognizing the extreme direction of the Tea Party, even for them, had backed a more moderate, that is to say a mainstream conservative candidate. He lost and now Republicans are left to wonder if they will be able to put the genie back into the bottle or whether Rand Paul will be able to put Kentucky and the nation back in the hood?
of America that all men are created equally and can achieve anything their abilities allowed had been fulfilled.
It was a long 234 years, filled with pain and striving and it could not have happened without a series of important incremental gains. The most important of which was the 1964 Civil Rights Act which for the first time codified Thomas Jefferson's promise into law thereby extending it to all Americans.
Indeed, things have changed dramatically since the days when men in hoods, supported by the wink of the law, could terrorize and murder those that they deemed unworthy. Invariably, such change brings out the most extreme among us, those who would seek to take the country back to its darkest days.
This brings us to the phenomena that is The Tea Party. After the greed and incompetence of the last administration led to the disintegration of 8 million jobs, people became angry and afraid. Can you blame them? But the question must be asked why is that anger directed at Barack Obama? It can not be because he is not doing a good job because clearly, he is doing quite well considering the rubble he was handed upon taking office. No, it has to be something else.
People who are angry and afraid and who are searching for answers are easily led and it seems that the worst among us, aided, abetted and whipped by Fox News have seized control of the tea partiers. What else would explain such misplaced anger?
Early on, Republicans, careening from their losses in the most recent national elections cynically latched onto the nascent Tea Party as a way to gain some traction in the national debate. I don't think that they bargained for what it has come to stand for.
On Thursday, The Tea Party's Rand Paul who not two days earlier won the Republican nomination in Kentucky to run for the U.S. Senate, suggested in a series of television and radio interviews, that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was too broad and should not apply to private businesses, such as but not limited to
lunchonettes. A postition so deeply held that he can not bring himself to utter the words that might cause us to think otherwise even though he tried.
The Republican establishment, led by the Senior Senator from the State of Kentucky, who also happens to be the Republican leader in the Senate perhaps recognizing the extreme direction of the Tea Party, even for them, had backed a more moderate, that is to say a mainstream conservative candidate. He lost and now Republicans are left to wonder if they will be able to put the genie back into the bottle or whether Rand Paul will be able to put Kentucky and the nation back in the hood?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
