04.30.2010 0

Times Check: Times Hit Piece Against Rand Paul Recycles Unfounded Accusations

  • On: 05/25/2010 02:41:02
  • In: Hard Left
  • Times Hit Piece Against Rand Paul Recycles Unfounded Accusations

    By Kevin Mooney

    Despite his substantial win over the Republican establishment in the Kentucky primary, U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul operates well outside of the American mainstream and is therefore unelectable, according to the liberal news media. He is also a champion of the Tea Party movement and therefore also a racist, The New York Times informs readers in a front page hit piece that is short on facts and long on unfounded accusations.

    Allegations of racism that have been directed against average Americans opposed to unconstitutional federal power grabs have been wearing thin for some time. Nevertheless, The New York Times remains convinced race can be used as a foil against the leading proponents of small government initiatives.

    This is evident from a front page hit piece directed against Rand Paul, a Tea Party favorite, who prevailed in Kentucky’s Republican primary with about 60 percent of the vote. Although he would have ultimately voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, certain provisions of the legislation run counter to First Amendment freedoms, he has observed. Sensing vulnerability, The Times has pounced and is working overtime to put Paul and his libertarian supporters on defense.

    Establishment Republicans who lost badly in Kentucky have been recruited here as part of an elaborate takedown effort that is not likely to abate anytime soon. Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell and other prominent party leaders had supported Secretary of State Trey Grayson who was overwhelmed by Tea Party activism.

    While it’s perfectly appropriate to point out that Rand’s primary victory is a source of consternation for some party officials, no effort is made to balance out the reporting with commentary from Republicans who are more committed to limited government. Outgoing Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY), who has been sharply critical of McConnell’s leadership, has been speaking with the press recently and could have been used as a source to add a fresh perspective.

    But the objective here is to close off debate and to delegitimize a candidacy that complicates the big government policy preferences of The Times. Even as the report concedes that Paul came down squarely on the side of 1964 bill, it proceeds to inform readers that he is probably unelectable in the Fall.

    “Still, it was not clear that he [Paul] had quelled rising concerns among Republicans about his ability to win in the general election, especially given his libertarian views in favor of limiting the role government,” the report says.

    Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the No.2 Republican behind McConnell, is quoted here and suggests Paul deals too much in the realm of fanciful theories that would not translate into practical policies. The Times also has it on the “strong” authority of Democrats that some of Paul’s proposals fall “out-of-the mainstream.” Meanwhile, the Washington D.C. spending binge that Paul opposes is somehow mainstream.

    The free speech explanation Paul gives for his stance on the civil rights bill is not dissimilar from the rationale the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other liberal pressure groups use to defend the rights of individuals and organizations who express hostility toward America. But somehow they do not wash here.

    “While those views reflect the libertarian philosophy that Mr. Paul and many Tea Party members have embraced, they are politically treacherous for someone making an appeal to the electorate at large, as Mr. Paul learned as he struggled with questions about whether he thought the government had a role in regulating food safety and working conditions,” so says The New York Times as it asks loaded questions.

    And how is it established that Paul is struggling after capturing a strong majority of his party’s vote?

    The report also feigns outrage over Paul’s use of a country club as the location for his election night celebration as opposed to a less ostentatious setting. Clearly, this is someone the newspaper has learned to fear. This much time, effort and ink would not be spent on a candidate who was genuinely unelectable.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a long-time Republican media darling for The Times, was also called upon to explain his constitutional interpretation of the Commerce Clause as a way of demeaning the Paul candidacy.

    “I just want to be on the record that I believe the Interstate Commerce Clause was properly used by the courts and the Congress to make sure that when you travel in this country you can’t be denied food and lodging based on your race,” the South Carolina Republican is quoted as saying.

    The Times might have asked Graham how he squares his support for campaign finance regulations with the First Amendment. But expansive interpretations of constitutional freedoms are only in vogue where it suits the ideology and ambitions of liberal editors.

    Kevin Mooney is the Executive Editor of Timescheck.com and a contributing editor to ALG News Bureau.


    Copyright © 2008-2021 Americans for Limited Government