May 26, 2010
How Meghan McCain blew it (and, by “it”, surprisingly, I’m not talking about a man’s…)

Posted at 12:01 pm, in: Conservative Movement, Democrat Party, Elections, Entertainment, Federal Spending, Hollywood, Jason Mattera, John McCain, MSM, Obama, Personal Responsibility, Private Property, Propaganda, Regulation, Republican Party, Responsibility, Senate

I have said before, rarely do I have as much fun on this blog as when I get to trash Meghan McCain. Luckily, I got a little present today when I went to check out if she had written anything lately. It turns out, she has. And, once again, her ignorance is on full display:

I’ve been intrigued by Ron Paul and his so-called revolution ever since the Texas renegade began making waves on the presidential trail in 2008—and his supporters began crashing nearly every major Republican event since he dropped out of that race. I can’t help but interpret the congressman’s cult-like, libertarian-leaning following as yet another indicator of a growing resentment of all people incumbent and in power in Washington.

First of all, let’s be clear. RON Paul is an incumbent who has proudly served in Congress for the better part of the last forty years–he left Congress and returned to his medical practice in 1984 only to return to the House in 1997, where he has been serving the state of Texas and the rest of America ever since. I believe that would make RON Paul the incumbent holder of the office, which would preculde “the congressman’s cult-like, libertarian-leaning following” from being “yet another indicator of a growing resentment of all people incumbent and in power in Washington.”

Meghan opens her blog post by arguing that support of Ron Paul, an incumbent, is an indicator of the growing resentment of “all people incumbent and in power.” He is an incumbent in power but, in her tiny, empty, brain, support of him is just another sign of the growing resentment of incumbents in general. I don’t even need to call her stupid at this point; her stupidity speaks for itself.

Oh, but she goes on:

So, almost by default, my fascination spills over to his son Rand Paul and his recent Senate primary race in Kentucky. Last week, the younger Paul claimed the state’s Republican nomination—thanks, in large part, to vast Tea Party support. Yet less than 48 hours later, he (now infamously) declared on The Rachel Maddow Show that, while he’s against racism and prejudice, he essentially believes that any business owner has a right not to serve a person because of his or her race, and that he would have voted against the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.

To me, what’s most significant about this series of events is how quickly Paul—the Tea Party movement’s first truly notable candidate, both in name and national prominence—imploded on the national stage.

When someone runs for office, essentially, all he or she must do is answer questions about what he or she believes and why these beliefs will best serve the country. Yet anyone watching Paul’s interview with Maddow could see that he was unable to do that. Worse, he managed to confuse voters further about just where his libertarian ideals stand, raising new questions about his extreme libertarian view of how our country should be governed.

I know that Meghan may have been preoccupied promoting gay marriage, tweeting boob shots, and embarrassing herself more generally, she might have missed the fact that Rand Paul is not the first notable, national figure backed by the Tea Party movement. There is room for honest disagreement and discussion about this, but with the qualifiers of being both notable and national I would argue that Scott Brown was the first national and notable Tea Party movement candidate. Remember him? He was the 41st vote against Obamacare. He turned “Teddy Kennedy’s Seat” from blue to red and returned it to it’s rightful owners, The People. Ringing any bells, Meghan?

Meghan needs to settle it down, just a tad. It’s times like these she proves that she doesn’t understand Conservative, Republican, or Libertarian ideologies but rather the caricature of these ideologies as presented by the MSM. It is not racist to believethat the federal government has no right to tell a private business owner who he or she must serve, employ, etc. As the business owner, it should be their choice and in a free market system would be at their own peril.

Many moons ago, when I was still just a young rabble-rouser in college, my friends and I in the College Republicans (obligatory shout-out to Jason Mattera) offered a Whites Only Scholarship. Instantly, we were labeled as RAAAAACIST (remember, there are still five A’s in racist). Everyone kind of missed the point that was our point. All race based scholarships, including ones awarded solely to minority students excluding white, Asian, Native American, etc. students based solely on the color of their skin, were racist.

As we always did after pulling a stunt like this, we followed it up with an educated, conservative speaker on the topic. For the issues we were trying to address this time around, we had booked Reginald Jones with the help of the Young America’s Foundation. He came and spoke to a very large audience and said he supported our scholarship. It was our right to do it and if the minority students had a problem with it, instead of squashing our rights to offer our scholarship, they should exercise their rights to offer their own with criteria determined by them. But, this is all besides my original point.

Mr. Jones also spoke about the rights of private business owners. He didn’t have a problem with a business only hiring whites, blacks, hispanics, etc. He admitted, as a black business owner, he only hired blacks. His choice. If people disagreed with his choice, they could take their business elsewhere. If enough people did that, he would be out of business or have to change his policies, but that choice is his as a private business owner.

If a restaurant were to refuse to serve blacks, they would automatically be constricting their customer base by denying service to potential customers. That would be bad for business. In addition to that, there would be many people of different races and ethnicities so offended by a restaurant’s refusal to serve members of a certain race based solely on their race, they would lose even more customers that way. And, if I decided to open up a business next door with a big sign that let the world know that my restaurant served everybody, I would steal more business from him and eventually he would be forced to close down.

Even if he wasn’t forced to close down, what would be the big deal? If people want to be racist or bigoted, as long as they’re not hurting anyone else or infringing their rights, what should it matter? I don’t care if the local golf course doesn’t allow women, and not just because I don’t play golf, but because I can just go to another gold course that does. This is the kind of freedom of choice that both I and the golf course should be able to exercise in order to be in line with the freedom this great country stands for.

This is what Rand Paul was getting at. The federal government has no right to tell a private business owner who they must serveor employ. The federal government has no more right to tell a black person he must serve whites than tell a white person he must serve blacks. Period. This provision in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of business owners and their private property. It is an unconstitutional interference in, and manipulation of, the free market system Republicans are supposed to stand for. This is why to anybody who has a brain and understands what the Republican Party claims to stand for could never suggest that Rand Paul imploded on the national stage or that he is a racist or a disgrace to the Tea Party movement. Perhaps he could have better explained his position, but it wouldn’t have matter because morons in the MSM lambasted him, painted him as a racist, and passed it on to slobbering idiots like you who have regurgitated the lie without giving his ideas any critical thought.

Let’s continue with your nonsensical rant:

Paul’s nomination could have been a moment of triumph for the Tea Party movement, as well as for Republicans, but instead it was an embarrassment. And I felt the disappointment firsthand, given that I agree with and support numerous things the Tea Party represents. Like many Americans, I’m angered by the intense spending going on under the Obama administration. But when the movement was given the opportunity to present specific solutions and answer real questions, its leaders nominated someone who—yet again—revealed weird, racist undertones, no matter how he wants to spin it.

I disagree with you that Paul’s nomination is an embarrassment rather than a triumph for the Tea Party movement, Republicans, and the country. Contrary to what you claim to think–as I strongly believe you are incapable of thinking as proven every time you speak, blog, or tweet–Rand Paul did not reveal “weird, racist undertones.” And, a quick question for the brainless wonder, what other candidate has the Tea Party movement nominated that revealed “weird, racist undertones?” The Tea Partiersas racists narrative has been disproven and is growing old. This is just another example of Meghan’s obliviousness to what is going on in this country. She is just a parrot for the left, claiming to be a member of the right.

But, wait, there’s still more:

I respect Paul’s ideological commitment to libertarianism, of which it’s quite obvious he’s a die-hard supporter, even if there are reasons there’s no real libertarian senator. And I, too, believe that the government should stay out of people’s lives as much as possible. Yet Paul seems to be taking these beliefs to an extreme, one that’s making even fellow Republicans uneasy.

With the midterm elections fast approaching, and the 2012 elections around the corner, let’s hope Paul isn’t a canary in the coal mine, if you will, for Republicans, but a cautionary tale. The lesson is clear: If we don’t nominate formidable candidates with wider appeal and a broader message, our party is dead in the water.

Yes, Rand Paul could just be an anomaly; the next Tea Party candidate who rises to national prominence could be the answer to the movement’s prayers. Yet I believe that Paul offers a lens into the Tea Party’s broader problems. While anger over the way the country is run is valid, when it comes to specifics—and to direct, clear solutions—things fall apart.

Paul’s role within the Republican Party (if any) has yet to be determined. But one thing I am sure of is that, until we start nominating candidates who have more realistic views of the complex world we live in and stop seeing things strictly in black and white (no pun intended), we are going to continue losing elections and becoming punch lines for late-night talk-show hosts.

I would love to hear what Meghan thinks are the reasons there is “no real libertarian senator.” I get the impression that she is implying there is no “real” libertarian senator because libertarian philosophy isn’t popular enough among voters to allow a libertarian candidate to win. I don’t think that’s the case, at all. I think that the Republican Party, if it stuck to what it’s supposed to stand for rather than what people like her and her father stand for (Democrat Lite), would be a perfect place for libertarian candidates (read: Ron Paul). Also, to run as a third party candidate instead of on the Republican ticket would lessen their chances of winning, no matter how broad their appeal, because our system is designed to ensure that only the two major parties are represented. RON Paul candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in the last election is a perfect example of this.

No need to worry about RAND Paul being a canary in the coal mine. I have said before, the Tea Party movement is not necessarily a Conservative, Libertarian, or Republican thing. That’s how the press wants to paint it so they can brush it off, just as they tried to paint it as extreme, bigoted, violent, etc. They tried to marginalize and subtract from it. Unfortunately for them, that hasn’t worked because the TPM has broad appeal to people from all political walks of life, even those who have never been political before. The fact is, the government has gone too far and everyone knows it. No amount of fear mongering about those scary Tea Partiers is going to change that and in order to correct course the public will vote increasing numbers of libertarian leaning candidates in no matter what ticket they are on. Republicans should be thankful their primary voters are smart enough to put them ont he Republican ticket so they can correct the Republican Party and put it back on the side of the people instead of ont he side of government power.

People are very specific about what is wrong and how to fix it, and I believe that many of the candidates have been very specific about this, as well. Once again, you are regurgitating the left/MSM meme that the right has no solutions, no plan. That’s garbage. Big government folks like you might think that less government is a non-answer, a solution dodger, but the TPM and those people identifying with it think that is the solution to our problem, smaller government, less restrictions, and more freedom. Government can’t fix a problem, it can only create and exascerbate problems that it originally created.

Here’s what Meghan doesn’t get, Republicans need to stop taking advice from their enemies on who they should nominate; who is “electable.” That’s how they ended up with her father as their presidential candidate in the last election and we all know how well that turned out. The Republican Party needs to offer a stark difference, a real alternative, to what the Democrats are pushing and a libertarian-conservative ideology is just that. Late night talk show hosts are liberal. Let them make jokes. This isn’t about being the most popular kid among the media and show business elite. This is about offering candidates who will scale back government, taxes, and spending and restore our individual freedoms as endowed to us by our Creator. That’s what the Republican Party is supposed to stand for, but I guess Meghan didn’t get that memo.

Why does this woman have a job? Did Congress pass a bill that deemed her too big to fail? She is a perfect example of all that is wrong with America. She has no understanding of our history, generally, and our political history, specifically. She doesn’t even understand or know the history of the political party she claims to belong to. She offers no insight or original thought. Every blog about politics that she posts is just a reiteration of the liberal talking points. Instead of pontificating on subjects she knows nothing about, why doesn’t she just go back to whoring herself out in a more traditional way? Never mind. People aren’t going to pay for what they can already get for free.