More Dale Peterson.
Dale Peterson has another video out. I’m not sure what moral decline has to do with the Auditor’s job, but this is good stuff. It’s the same backdrop as the “Leaving Americans Behind” video. I’m sure it was shot at the same time. I don’t know if he writes this stuff himself. I doubt it. But he sure knows how to deliver it. It feels like an old fashion camp meeting hell fire and brimstone sermon, although I don’t like to hear God referred to as ‘The Big Guy.” It’s too casual.
OK, this story is not new. I don’t know how I missed it. Peterson is running for Auditor of Alabama. There has already been a four way primary, and Peterson is in a run off. The run off is 15 July.
We posted here about the two run-ins with the law that Paterson had, so I am surprised to see him back on the scene. According to this website from Feb., he was found guilty on both charges and the sentence included some jail time which seems like overkill to me. He is appealing and had a jury trial scheduled for May. I have searched to see what came of that trial date, and couldn’t find anything. Peterson briefly and somewhat cryptically addresses the incidents here. He says he saw some doctors and had some tests and was diagnosed with “short-term memory problems” which he has addressed with medications and vitamins. While the incidents sounded medical to me, and I said so at the time, as someone who knows a little something about these things, I am skeptical that his explanation is giving us all the information, but I won’t publicly speculate further.
That said, Peterson seems to be taking a lower profile this time. Here is his ad for Auditor. It contains the recognizable imagery, but Peterson doesn’t speak.
Here, Peterson goes off on Obama about the Bergdahl prisoner swap.
First of all, I’m not sure what Bergdahl has to do with being Auditor of Alabama. Second, I don’t totally agree with Peterson here. I don’t in principle have an objection to a prisoner swap. As the original Bergdahl as deserter Rolling Stone article we discussed here makes clear, if we were going to end the war in Afghanistan, then we really had to get Bergdahl back. Ending the war and leaving him over there wasn’t really an option. I do, however, think the Administration handled it very badly, which they have no excuse for because the politics of it all were predicted precisely by the Rolling Stone article in 2012. Instead of announcing it like it was some sort of triumph, they should have announced it solemnly and prepared people for the controversy. Obama also was required by law to inform Congress, and his failure to do so should be pursued.
That said, I still find something very powerful about Peterson’s folksy, down home delivery. As things become less left vs. right and more the Elite and their minions vs. the people, I believe that people like Peterson will help bring that message home. I think it would serve us well to study his presentation. I’m not suggesting people play a role. You have to be who you are. But Peterson is going to be one type in the rebellion. Brainy outsiders like Brat and hopefully a couple of billionaire populists like Perot and Trump will contribute to the mix as well.
I love it. The Republicans have lost their Majority Leader because he supported amnesty. Hey, Republicans, think there’s a message in this somewhere? Huh?
It couldn’t have happened to a better sell-out. Here are the sweet details of Cantor’s major loss:
In one of the biggest political upsets in recent memory, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his primary election on Tuesday to a political unknown who focused his campaign on Cantor’s support for a path to citizenship for the children of immigrants.
Randolph-Macon College economics professor Dave Brat won the Republican primary in Virginia’s 7th Congressional District. Brat had 56 percent of the vote to Cantor’s 44 percent when the Associated Press called the race just after 8 p.m.
See those numbers? This wasn’t even close. It demonstrates how powerful the anti-amnesty sentiment really is. Instead of blowing $60 million to win over imaginary conservative minority groups, the Republicans should spend that money standing up for border security and the rule of law. That is, if they WANT to win.
This time at the GOP Convention in Texas. Rand Paul came in third.
Sen. Ted Cruz dominated the presidential straw poll at the Texas GOP convention on Saturday, pulling in 43.4 percent of the votes at the contest in his home state, far ahead of other possible 2016 contenders on the ballot.
In the survey, which is an informal read of the most committed conservatives in the party, the retired neurosurgeon-turned-conservative firebrand Ben Carson came in a distant second.
Carson, who was not in attendance, raked in 12.2 percent of the vote, barely beating out Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who pulled in 12.1 percent. Texas Gov. Rick Perry came in third with 11.7 percent, while well behind him was former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush with just 3.3 percent
It isn’t news that Ted Cruz won, but it is news, IMO, that Ben Carson came in second. I don’t know that much about Carson. He may be a good guy. And as I have said before, I’m not going to criticize him just because he is a non-traditional candidate, because I don’t think there are any traditional candidates out there so far who would advance our thing. But I have no real reason to think he is some sort of paleo. But this is further evidence that conservatives are desperate for a black candidate so they can say, “See look. We’re not racists.” Do these conservative not realize that this reinforces the liberal PC narrative?
Rand Paul seems to be on a mission to prove he can pander with the best of them. Now he says voter ID laws offend people so the GOP should back off. I suspect there are two things at work here. Rand is trying to get out in front on race in particular to cover his backside over his past questioning of the wisdom and constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act. (The fact that the CRA is unconstitutional and the fact that the opinion that prohibiting private discrimination is unwise is entirely defensible from a libertarian and conservative standpoint matter not at all.) Plus, I think he wants to establish that his “mavrick” credentials don’t all come just from being further to the right and/or more libertarian. But Paul, to those who pay attention, is starting to look like a grandstander in addition to just being wrong. Given the modern situation where people are deracinated and aren’t always known by their neighbors, of course you should have to have ID to vote. Why is this even being debated? What conservatives and libertarians should be debating is how we should restrict the franchise, not make it more easy to exercise.
What a story…
Donald Sterling is the most eeevil man in the world because, in what he thought was a private conversation with his Black/Mexican trophy wife, he made statements revealing he did not want her bringing black people to basketball games.
Yes, on the Hate-o-Meter, this is bigger than the Holocaust and slavery combined.
But the truly pathetic thing about this story is how Republicans took that ball and ran with it while screaming that the latest “most evil man in the world” was another racist Democrat. In the Bizarro world of the Republican Party, Republicans are the true inheritors of Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy of color blindness. Not only that, but – and they’re especially proud of this – Republicans are Israel’s best buddies, defending that country no matter what it does. As EVERYONE KNOWS, criticizing Israel’s policies is just a cover for anti-Semitism. Plus, defending Israel’s interests is what defines real conservatism. Really.
So once again, Republicans have endorsed leftist ideology. “Racism” is a leftist concept. Its core idea is that anything that impedes the leftist agenda is evil and irrational. But the word can be quickly modified to include racial hatred, or arguing that there are differences among the races, or that race even exists. By using the word, Republicans have implicitly agreed that it is not just wrong, but evil to hold views that can be considered “racist.” And never forget that it is leftists who get to define whether an idea, policy, group, or individual is “racist.”
This latest absurdity is amplified by revelations that Sterling was due to receive a lifetime achievement award from the NAACP, and that he is actually a registered Republican. Oops. Proving once again that lunacy can only lead to more lunacy.
and the Nevada Constitution Party affiliate (there called the Independent American Party) thanks them.
This story is a couple of days old now, but someohow I was asleep at the wheel and missed it. Once I started hearing about it I looked into the details and was outraged, but I wasn’t outraged at the naivete of an newly elected and obviously green Paulesq Campaign for Liberty backed Georgia House member. I was outraged by the calculated attack by Establishment hack Republicans who staged a piece of grand political theater to attack their right flank and put in his place a upstart who threatened to upset their old boys club.
In brief, Rep. Sam Moore submitted a bill to the Georgia legislature that was intended to decrease the authority of the police to arrest people based on vague anti-loitering laws. It contained language that would have loosened some restrictions on sex offenders and the hacks saw their chance to pounce on an uppity new House member whose focus on liberty threatens their reason for being. Whether that particular language was good law or not, what is at issue here is not a particular piece of legislation. What is at issue is the fact that a bunch of shameless hacks chose to grandstand rather than attempt to govern rightly. If the language was bad, either from an actual legislative standpoint or from a looks bad politically standpoint, then just calmly suggest to Rep. Moore that he might want to make some changes. For several House members to take to the floor to publically express outrage reeks of an orchestrated political hit job.
Here is some commentary on this travesty that gets it right.
And here is one that gets it wrong.
I include this particular example, among many that get it wrong, because I posted a comment below it. My comment is a bit harsh, but hardball from hacks begets hardball back.
Give me a break Jason. The Establishment Republicans deliberately used this opportunity to attack someone they see as a threat and not part of the old boys club and YOU KNOW IT! To pretend like this was all a legitimate uprising because of some truly awful offense is a deliberate sham. Any issues with the bills, whether actual or just potential opportunities for grandstanders to make rhetorical political hay, could have been addressed in a measured sensible way in a back room somewhere as is usually the case. More senior members of the party who were actually interested in right governing instead of striking a blow against their right flank would have quietly made suggestions to Rep. Moore with an eye toward protecting a new member rather than grandstand like a bunch of shameless peacocks. They have taken a page stright from the PC Cultural Marxist rightthink enforcement playbook with their “point and sputter” and feigned outrage game playing. Pretending not to recognize this does not make you a “statist” or a “patsy.” It makes you a co-conspirator. And I dare you to forever sacrifice your credibility as a political commentator to here for all the world to see pretend that you don’t realize that this was about political game playing and not about the merits or lack thereof of any piece of legislation.
I hate it when the left uses these tactics, but I expect it from them. It’s what mindless morally stunted leftists do, but when supposed conservatives do it to their right flank, it makes my blood boil.
Update: Here is an article that gives an explanation of the background of the bill.
The New York Times recently ran a front page hit piece against Rand Paul and the usual cast of boogeymen the centrists and liberals trot out every time they have one of their periodic spasms about alleged extremism. They attack a lot of different people and groups, but Rand Paul is the obvious target. He must have them running scared. It would probably blow their poor little pristine mainstream minds to know that some of us don’t think Rand Paul is extreme enough.
Lew Rockwell responds here
Tom Woods responds here (on FaceBook so I’m not sure everyone will be able to see it)
Ralph Raico here
Chris Rossini here
Update: Walter Block replies here
Tom Woods replies here on YouTube
My new column “Is Rand Paul the Best Non-interventionists Can Hope For?” is up at Intellectual Conservative. I plan to submit full length columns there more often. Here is an excerpt:
Bolton and King are clearly attempting to counter Rand Paul and his perceived libertarian tendencies, but this says at least as much about the paranoia and absolutism of the uber-hawks as it does about Rand Paul. Among non-interventionists, Rand Paul is widely viewed as a disappointment. The reasons for this warrant a separate article, but suffice it to say that while Rand Paul is better on foreign policy than your average Republican, he is not his father by a long shot.
Principled non-interventionists are often lectured by more pragmatic types that Rand Paul is the best we’ve got so we should make the best of it, but if the uber-hawks want a clear messenger like King or Bolton for their hawkishness despite the presence of more credible candidates who are mostly with them, why shouldn’t non-interventionists yearn for a clear messenger for their cause? While I think the super hawks are dangerously wrong, I admire that they are pro-actively seeking a spokesman to their liking for their message.
I would prefer that you comment at IC if you would like to comment, so it looks like my articles are attracking interest. Registration is required. Thanks.
Every year in the days leading up to the MLK Holiday, we are subjected to the absurd spectacle of mainstream and other neutered conservatives attempting to claim that MLK was one of our own. This rant is occasioned by several such posts I have seen today on FaceBook. I don’t know whether this is more pathetic or transparent, but it is clearly both. Anyone with any intellectual honesty at all should be able to see through this foolish narrative. It is rank historical revisionism, and I highly suspect that most of the people who do it know this. It certainly does not fool liberals who mock us for it. The only people it seems to fool is the mainstream conservative masses who lap it up. “See, we’re not the racists. It’s those evil Democrats who are the racists.” But I’m not convinced that even most of those folks believe it. It is simply a narrative thay can latch on to to innoculate themselves against charges of wrongthink, and think they can get the better of liberals in a debate.
MLK was a man of the left. This is not debatable. It is a fact. King is sometimes accused of being a communist (either big C or little c) by his opponents who have yet to sell out. While King was never, as far as we know, a Communist, he surrounded himself with Communists, addressed Communist front organizations, and attended a Communist front training facility (the Highlander Folk School). As I said with regard to Nelson Mandela, I don’t really like communist (big C or little c) as an epithet so I don’ necessarily hold his associations against him per se. MLK was a far leftist by the standards of his day and such people were bound to interact with Communists because that was the far left milieu at the time. But his associations with Communists and other radical leftists does contextualize who he was in his time. He is never accused of being a secret McCarthyite, for example, because that is not the milieu he traveled in. This was obvious and taken for granted by people at the time. Conservative voices like National Review and Human Events had no problem placing King on the left in his day. Attempts by conservatives striving to prove they are not politically incorrect to appropriate King and his legacy is a relatively recent phenomenon, and only passes the laugh test because enough time has passed and people forget their history.
The narrative goes something like this: King was allegedly a Republican. It was Republicans who were largely responsible for the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and mean nasty ol’ Southern Democrats who opposed it. If they’re really laying it on thick, they’ll cite Lincoln freeing the slaves and how blacks voted Republican during Reconstruction and for decades beyond. Since the Republican Party is supposedly the conservative party today, ipso facto, King was a conservative. While this is all technically true up to the assertion at the end, it is meaningless.
First of all, it is not even true that King was a Republican even thought this is widely asserted by the craven cons. See here for example. For the sake of brevity, I’ll let the link speak for itself, which it does, although I’ll take up Kings’ opposition to Barry Goldwater below.
That said, yes, it was Southern Democrats along with self-identified conservative (that should tell you something) Republicans like Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley who opposed the Civil Rights Acts, but Southern Democrats and self-consciously conservative Republicans were the conservative element of the day. It was liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans who supported it. Some free-market and small government conservatives will protest that Southern Democrats couldn’t have been the conservative element of the time because they openly loved their pork, which is true, but again largely irrelevant to the point at hand. (A lot of modern conservative Republicans love their pork too, despite their rhetoric to the contrary, but that is for another post.) The two parties have not always been aligned as they are today. The division of the two parties along perceived left vs. right lines was just beginning in King’s day as was the transformation of both parties, which is what makes this all more confusing than it ought to be.
Historically we have traditionally had two parties that were organized around the perceived commonality of interests of a rather diverse coalition of forces. The Republicans were the Court Party and the Democrats were the Country Party, so to speak, and whatever ideological considerations there were were primarily a pretext for self-interest. Since the 60′s, the parties have largely switched roles and taken on the left vs. right dichotomy. White Southerners have migrated to the GOP and blacks have migrated to the Democrat Party, the latter a phenomenon that started with FDR and the New Deal. Now why and how this happened deserves a discussion of its own, but happen it did and racial issues clearly had a lot to do with it. To pretend otherwise, as the PC cons do, is to be willfully ignorant.
The PC preening conservatives sit on their high horses and bash those bad ol’ Southern Democrats, but demographically speaking those old Southern Democrats and their progeny are the modern base of the GOP and they know it, although they may pretend not to. Five Deep South states, including my own state of Georgia, broke the strangle hold that Democrats had had on the “Solid South” when they voted for Goldwater in ’64, largely based on Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act. Did, the alleged Mr. Republican Martin Luther King support Goldwater in ’64? Inconveniently for the PC cons’ tidy little narrative, no he did not. See the link in paragraph 4 above. Most of those same states, again including my own state of Georgia, voted for George Wallace four years later in 1968. This gradual transition of the South from a Democrat to a Republican bastion was seen up through the Clinton elections. That transition is now complete. (And potentially being reversed again due to other demographic forces.)
Do the PC grandstanders assert that all these suddenly enlightened white Southerners who now dutifully pull the lever for Republicans are actually all transplants from the North and Midwest who have demographically displaced those mean nasty ol’ racist Southern Democrats who continue to remain a small remnant of the Democrat Party? In fact, the opposite is the case. It is the migration of liberal whites (along with immigrants) into the South that has made states like North Carolina turn purple. Who were the whites in North Carolina who pulled the lever for Obama in 2008 that gave the state to him? Was it the old Southern Democrat remnant? That is absurd on its face, and again the grandstanders know it. When they bash those mean ol’ racist Southern Democrats, they are bashing their own demographic base. But I guess scoring PC brownie points is more important to them than honor and intellectual honesty.
Regardless of what someone may think about Martin Luther King and his legacy, he was not a man of the right and to argue that he was is intellectually discrediting. The PC cons should just be honest and admit that they have turned over their intellectual man card to the Cultural Marxist Division of PC Rightthink Enforcement, and spare us all, left and right, their farcical historical revisionism.
Addendum: I understand why some conservatives might want to sit out the MLK debate in order to not bring the PC rightthink enforcement apparatus down on their heads. I think it’s weak, but I can understand it. But it is one thing to sit the debate out cautiously and another thing to join in the debate on the side of the Cultural Marxists. Even though their revisionism is obviously inaccurate, their regurgitation of it still feeds into the PC narrative and empowers the PC Beast. As I have said repeatedly, conservatives who feed the PC Beast are fools. They will never keep it from attempting to devour them and the civilization they say they want to conserve. They are contributing to their own demise. This is ultimately what I am decrying even more than the specifics of their MLK retelling.
Here is a Townhall 2016 straw poll. Vote if you like. It’s quick. You do have to enter your e-mail which will get you on some e-mail list, but I already get Townhall e-mails so no biggy. You can also always unsubscribe. I post this mainly to illustrate how abysmal the potential 2016 lineup is. I voted other/none of the above because write-in were not allowed.
Here is the list of candidates:
Jeb Bush, former Governor of Florida
Benjamin Carson, Doctor of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University
Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey
Ted Cruz, Senator from Texas
Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana
John Kasich, Governor of Ohio
Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska
Rand Paul, Senator from Kentucky
Mike Pence, Governor of Indiana
Rick Perry, Governor of Texas
Marco Rubio, Senator from Florida
Paul Ryan, Congressman from Wisconsin
Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania
Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin
Other/None of the Above
What a sorry lot. Rand Paul is the closest to acceptable. As I said before, we need to start talking up potential acceptable GOP primary candidates and potential Constitution Party and Libertarian Party candidates.
Here is the comment I left.
There is no one in this list that represents non-interventionist conservatives. Rand Paul comes the closest, but he has already drifted too far away from the principled non-intervention of his father. I will not vote for a GOP interventionist. If they don’t do better than this it will be third party for me in 2016.
Rubio appears to realize that a big “comprehensive” immigration “reform” bill isn’t going anywhere fast in the House. Now he is suggesting a piecemeal approach.
Politico is declaring immigration “reform” dead for 2013.
It is easy to get discouraged, but we can sometimes make a difference. Washington does listen to the people when we make them. Like they are doing here, and like they did on Syria. That doesn’t mean it’s not coming back, but I doubt it will ever pass a GOP controlled House.
He’s cut his hair. Is that a signal?
He says he’s considering it.
I would consider voting for him as a way to spite the system. Plus, his rallies and fund raising events would be so much fun.
I thought he was flubbing it all along. He was too tenative and wishy-washy, and he let Ted Cruz get way out ahead of him. He voted no on the final bill, but at that point his no vote was an easy call.
Steve Deace agrees. His thoughts are very similar to my thoughts. The Rand Paul part is one of ten “Lessons Learned.” The whole article is worth a read.
Rand Paul is still not sure who he is
He almost always votes the right way, but Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is certainly not his father—for better or for worse. He gets much closer to gray areas than his father ever did, flirting with disaster before eventually choosing the right side. He did on both the big fights this year—first with scamnesty and now with the defund Obamacare effort. He appears to be trying so hard to make himself a national figure in time for a 2016 presidential run that the identity that launched him in 2010 is being lost in the process. Is he the heir to his father’s revolution or has he become Ditch McConnell’s sidekick? You can’t be both. It appears he has yet to decide, but he better decide quickly. The passive-aggressive act is wearing thin with many liberty people I know, let alone dampening his efforts to successfully reach out to social conservatives.
Even Paul’s post no vote statement was weak and uninspiring.
Sen. Rand Paul today voted no on H.R. 2775, as amended, that will suspend the debt ceiling until February 7, 2014 and fund the government thru January 15, 2014.
“Tonight, a deal was struck to re-open the government and avoid the debt ceiling deadline. That is a good thing,” Sen. Paul said. “However, our country faces a problem bigger than any deadline: a $17 trillion debt. I am disappointed that Democrats would not compromise to avoid the looming debt debacle.”
I’m not a fan of Ted Cruz’s foreign policy, but Rand got played by Cruz here.
Rand is being too cautious for his own good. Someone needs to remind him that he’s an Eye Surgeon. He’ll still be able to make a living if he loses his current job.