By Alex Seitz-Wald
Tea party darling Dr. Rand Paul won an upset victory in Kentucky’s Republican Senate primary by running on a “resolute pledge to balance the federal budget and slash the size of government.” In an interview following his win, Paul explained that his campaign was “all about federal spending” and the “tea party message.” Republicans “need to regain our believability as fiscal conservatives,” he added. But as former Bush speech writer David Frum noted, “Paul’s libertarianism stops where his pocketbook starts.” Frum highlighted a Wall Street Journal story from last week in which Paul said he doesn’t want to cut
Medicare payments to doctors like himself, because “[p]hysicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living“:
But on Thursday evening, the ophthalmologist from Bowling Green said there was one thing he would not cut: Medicare physician payments.
In fact, Paul — who says 50% of his patients are on Medicare — wants to end cuts to physician payments under a program now in place called the sustained growth rate, or SGR. “Physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living.
In an interview on FoxNew.com’s Freedom Watch, Paul vowed he would never give up his “tea party values,” which apparently include pushing for self-serving legislation. As the Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky noted, Paul likely already makes a “comfortable living,” as the average salary for an ophthalmologist is $256,320.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is one of the greatest accomplishments of the twentieth-century, banning whites-only lunch counters and similar discrimination in hiring, promotions, hotels and restaurants. Yet, in a recent editorial board interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal, GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul explained why he believes that this landmark law should not apply to private business owners:
INTERVIEWER: Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.
INTERVIEWER: But?
PAUL: You had to ask me the “but.” I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant—but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.
Watch it:
After adding that he is also a fan of Dr. Martin Luther King, Paul dug in deeper, explaining that he he believes that in a “free society,” private lunch counters must be allowed to refuse service to Dr. King because of his race:
INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?
PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part—and this is the hard part about believing in freedom—is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example—you have too, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things. . . . It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior.
For the record, here is an example of the “boorish people” that Paul thinks a free society must tolerate:
Last night, fringe tea party Senate candidate Rand Paul (R-KY) sailed to victory in his primary over Trey Grayson, the GOP candidate favored by Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell and much of the Republican establishment. Not only did heavyweight Republicans like Dick Cheney and Rudy Giuliani stump for Grayson, but shadowy GOP front groups, like the American Future Fund — which casts itself as a tea party group — ran harsh attack ads hitting Paul. Paul’s success comes shortly after tea party candidates defeated incumbent Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) in the Utah primary, and tea party candidate Marco Rubio (R-FL) forced Charlie Crist out of the Republican Party.
Republican operatives orchestrated the tea party movement to lay the foundation for Republican electoral gains. However, the far right tea parties have been uncontrollable, demanding that Republican candidates support extreme positions like eliminating Social Security, Medicare, the Department of Education, and even the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Paul’s success has already sent ripples throughout the GOP establishment, with other ramifications in Kentucky and for upcoming GOP primaries:
– Todd Lally, an extremist who has said that President Obama wouldn’t be able to get a security clearance, road Paul’s coattails to defeat the establishment-backed candidate Jeff Reetz in the primary for Kentucky’s third congressional district. Reetz is a Pizza Hut franchise owner who received financial support from the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC).
– Vauhn Ward, Sarah Palin endorsed Republican candidate in Idaho’s first congressional district, is quickly losing favor with the Republican primary voters. The tea party-backed candidate, State Rep. Raul Labrador, is surging in the polls against Ward. NRCC leaders like chairman Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) has hosted a fundraiser for Ward.
– In Pennsylvania’s third district yesterday, voters chose tea party candidate Mike Kelly over NRCC-endorsed candidate Paul Huber.
– In the Colorado U.S. Senate race, far right tea party candidate Ken Buck is surging in the polls against Jane Norton, the longtime Republican politician chosen by the National Republican Senatorial Committee to run.
As ThinkProgress reported earlier this year, extreme tea party candidates have sought to purge Republican incumbents and handpicked GOP candidates in races all over the country.
