Stand With Rand—Or Fall With Paul? His Awful, Stupid, Hispandering Speech Shows He’s Really Part Of Conservatism Inc.’s Cheap Labor Racket
Print Friendly and PDF

During her tremendous CPAC address, Ann Coulter called out fake anti-Establishment Republicans who refused to stand against mass immigration. She said:

The scapegoat of a fake Republican Establishment which is allowing the real Republican establishment to plot and scheme undetected. My example of this is, 'What public policy will harm average Americans, drive up unemployment, change America permanently in negative ways, and on the other hand, is supported by businessmen who will never vote for a Republican anyway?' Amnesty for illegal aliens. And half of elected Republicans support it, as far as I can tell most talk radio and TV hosts support it.

There is no better example of this “fake anti-Establishment Republican” than Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, the hero of the Tea Party movement, the “Liberty Movement” (not the same thing), and winner of this year’s CPAC straw poll. Paul recently cemented his putative anti-Establishment credentials by filibustering Obama CIA nominee John Brennan—to the indignation of John McCain who blustered that Paul was a “wacko bird.”

Paul has been blundering around on the immigration issue since the 2012 election. At one point, he appeared to couple Amnesty with a moratorium on future legal immigration, and at another he cited Milton Friedman on the incompatibility of mass immigration and the welfare state. But he’s also repeatedly endorsed the so-called Path To Citizenship, since at least last November. After an earlier Paul “plan,” Editor Peter Brimelow noted that Paul was apparently confusing citizenship with legal residence (the “Green Card”) and commented:

My impression of Rand Paul is that he literally hasn't thought about the immigration issue (not unusual for cloistered libertarians) and doesn't really understand it.

So Paul’s speech today (March 19) before the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce is not quite the bombshell breakthrough that is being played up in the Main Stream Media [MSM] as part of its Shock-and-Awe Amnesty marketing campaign.

Paul did officially came out in favor of total Amnesty (again) and increasing legal immigration (again); and against E-Verify. But, typically, within hours he was backpedaling [Rand Paul: I didn’t back faster path to citizenship, by Aaron Blake and Rosalind S. Helderman, Washington Post, March 19, 2013]. And, evidence of his continuing chaos, while Paul was assuring the Hispanic Chamber that “if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you,” his Senate website still carried his campaign claims that he opposed Amnesty and viewed illegal immigration as “a clear threat to national security.”

Nevertheless, Paul’s speech was not merely awful, but stupid. Despite setting himself up as the great enemy of Obama/McCain bipartisan establishment, Paul parroted every cliché voiced by Obama/McCain on immigration—and then became even worse.

Paul even filled his speech with bits of Spanish (which he left untranslated, saying “Republicans who criticize the use of two languages make a great mistake”—although creeping institutional bilingualism is a direct threat to his overwhelmingly monolingual Kentucky constituents). And, of course, ridiculous fawning anecdotes about hard-working Hispanics (“Growing up in Texas I never met a Latino who wasn’t working.”) He even quoted poet Pablo Neruda in Spanish, presumably not realizing he was a Communist, and went on at lachrymose length about the pedagogical achievements of Jaime (Stand And Deliver) Escalante, presumably not realizing that these have been questioned—or that Escalante, homesick, eventually went home to Bolivia.

Let’s review a few clichés:

On Deportations

"De Facto Amnesty"

  • Rand Paul: “But what we have now is de facto amnesty.”
  • John McCain: “The reality that’s been created is a de facto amnesty,” [How The GOP Is Talking Itself Past The ‘Amnesty’ Trap, by Benjy Sarin, Talking Points Memo, January 29, 2013]
  • The Truth: As I pointed out in a previous column, the proper response to not enforcing the laws is to enforce them, not get rid of them. And for a variety of reasons I laid out in that column, the status quo, bad as it is, is still better than amnesty.

On Hispanic Values:

  • Rand Paul: “Republicans have been losing both the respect and votes of a group of people who already identify with our belief in family, faith, and conservative values. Hispanics should be a natural and sizable part of the Republican base.”
  • John McCain: "I know their patriotism, I know the respect for the family, the advocacy for pro-life, I know the small business aspect of our Hispanic voters." [McCain woos Hispanics and launches Spanish web site, Reuters, May 5, 2008]
  • The Truth: Hispanics are more likely than whites to have abortions, less likely to own businesses, favor big government, etc. And they are never going to vote Republican.

On Seeking the Middle Ground:

  • Rand Paul: “The solution doesn't have to be amnesty or deportation—a middle ground might be called probation, where those who came illegally become legal through a probationary period.”
  • Barack Obama: "If the majority of Americans are skeptical of a blanket amnesty, they are also skeptical that it is possible to round up and deport 11 million people. They know it's not possible… Now, once we get past the two poles of this debate, it becomes possible to shape a practical, common-sense approach that reflects our heritage and our values.” [Remarks by the President on Comprehensive Immigration Reform,, July 1, 2010]
  • John McCain: The Gang Of 8 proposal gives illegals a “probationary legal status”.
  • The Truth: No one is calling for mass deportations, so they are seeking middle ground with a straw man.

You get the idea.

And in some ways Paul is actually worse than McCain and Obama. Both of them at least give lip-service to mandatory E-Verify or some sort of mandatory employment verification. But Paul rejects E-Verify—and even hints that he opposes all employer sanctions: “My plan will not impose a national ID card or mandatory E-Verify, forcing businesses to become policemen.”

Oh yeah? So why isn’t he campaigning against federal income tax withholding?

I also cannot help but notice the timing of Paul’s speech. Yesterday, the Republican National Committee endorsed amnesty as part of its $10 million minority outreach/ raise more money from Big Business program. Having one of the most trusted Tea Party Senators on board helps boost the RNC’s much-questioned (and questionable) credentials.

This would not be the first time that Rand Paul surreptitiously worked with the GOP Establishment. After his famous filibuster, Paul claimed it was a spur-of-the-moment decision. As CNN reported at the time:

The decision to take to the Senate floor with questions on drones was a last minute one, Sen. Rand Paul explained in an exclusive interview with CNN Thursday, detailing how he wasn't totally prepared to remain standing for thirteen hours straight.

"We had no plan and I had the wrong shoes on, my feet were hurting the whole day," Paul told CNN Chief Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash, adding that since the Senate leadership typically decides who speaks on the Senate floor, it's often difficult to begin a traditional filibuster.

"One of the reasons filibusters don't occur is because they carefully guard the floor from letting it happen. And it was left unguarded," he said.

[Rand Paul on filibuster: 'We had no plan', CNN, March 7, 2013]

But it seems that Paul was lying:

Eleven days before he spent nearly 13 hours filibustering on the Senate floor, Sen. Rand Paul floated his idea to block the president’s pick for CIA director to one of Sen. Mitch McConnell’s top political strategists over a Saturday night dinner of lasagna and red wine at his home in Bowling Green, Ky. … Paul had personally informed some Republican senators that he planned to mount the talking filibuster the day before over lunch, said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., a member of the GOP leadership. “The day before, he said that he was going to start talking until he couldn’t talk anymore,” Barrasso said. McConnell, meanwhile, put out the word to the conference that he was supportive of Paul’s efforts.

[Inside the Rand Paul Filibuster, By Shane Goldmacher and Beth Reinhard, National Journal, March 7, 2013. My emphasis]

And Paul’s supposedly anti-Establishment stand against Brennan was supported by the RNC, with Chairman Reince Priebus tweeting

Let me make it clear: I am not saying that Rand Paul and John McCain are two peas in the pod. There are, of course, disagreements between them, some serious—about foreign policy, civil liberties, gay marriage etc. etc.

But when it comes to immigration—the premier and existential nation-breaking issue of our time—the entire Conservatism Inc. Establishment, from the neocon warmongers like McCain and Graham to the “Liberty Movement” alleged Tea Partiers like Rand Paul, are whores in the same Cheap Labor brothel

America, if it is to survive, must defeat them all.

"Washington Watcher" [email him] is an anonymous source Inside The Beltway

Print Friendly and PDF