Attack of the Moderates, Part 2

Apparently Friday the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin stepped in to slam liberty-minded Senator (and perhaps Presidential candidate) Rand Paul.

Her main contention? That Rand was not conforming to decades of failed Republican inside-the-Beltway thinking about foreign policy and the role of government, and thus is not really a Republican.

So let’s examine this.

First, she chides Paul for his opposition to NSA spying on Americans without a warrant, which most Americans disapprove of (59%) and particularly most younger voters (70%). Apparently she did not read the Fourth Amendment, which states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Seems fairly unequivocal, no? Now remember, the Bill of Rights exists to restrain government- not to empower it. But Ms. Rubin has never believed in a restrained or reduced Federal government- which is exactly why the Washington Post brought her on board as the token Republican. Her idea of a “conservative” is Mitt Romney, father of nationalized healthcare and infamous possessor of “binders full of women” from the 2012 campaign.

The remainder of her article consists of the same circular thinking, by the same recycled Beltway insiders, that Rubin and, indeed, the Post is famous for.

She also takes issue with noting that Rand stood up for the court’s role in Constitutional checks-and-balances, naming this as a sort of “judicial activism” that is appropriate as a check against tyranny of the majority– which, by the way, conservatives wanted when applying it to Obamacare. Rubin, however, relies on yet another obscure Bush alum’s definition of “judicial restraint” to level a childish, dictionary-like slam at Paul.

Really, it’s as if she failed to notice that nearly every establishment hack in the last half century has failed (Ford, Bush 1 re-elect, Dole, McCain, Romney), and that the boss of nearly every “expert” she cited- George W. Bush- used to hold the record for growth of government and expansion of debt until late in Obama’s first term.

But the bottom line is this: why does the Republican Party exist?

I would argue the answer is: to shrink the size and scope of government, and make it more honest and transparent and accountable.

This is where Rubin goes awry.

In the case of Rubin, only Beltway insider thinking is acceptable- even though a vast majority of Americans and even greater majorities of Republicans see Washington as the problem, not the solution. Her defense of imagined rights of government to pry into our lives- even when the Constitution explicitly disallows it- shows her reasoning to be fallacious on its face and an affront to the freedoms we are supposed to enjoy.

Then again we should not be surprised at Ms. Rubin’s defense of big government: she IS the WaPo’s idea of a “Republican”, after all. Even then, the Post’s Ombudsman recommended her firing last year for being “just plain bad”.

Who ever you vote for in 2016, whoever you vote for in any race, remember that the reason the party exists- its mission statement if you will- is to shrink the size and scope of government and make it more accountable and transparent. If a candidate refuses to do this, they deserve your derision, not your support- no matter what party they claim to represent.


One thought on “Attack of the Moderates, Part 2

  1. re: “why does the Republican Party exist”?

    to largely represent the views of a majority of citizens who would elect them to do so?
    ( per the way the founding fathers set up our system).

    the problem with YOUR thinking is that you act like it’s up to the GOP to decide
    how to govern and getting voted into office is a separate issue not connected
    to voters!

    that’s just as bad as Rubin but in an opposite way!

    What modern-day GOP POTUS actually governed the way you advocate?


Comments are closed.